I've seen two measures used commonly. Eligable voters (total votes / voters over 18) and registered voters (total votes / total registered voters). It depends on what you are trying to measure (and in the case of campaigns, how to best deploy resources).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
I've seen two measures used commonly. Eligable voters (total votes / voters over 18) and registered voters (total votes / total registered voters). It depends on what you are trying to measure (and in the case of campaigns, how to best deploy resources).
Aaron Strife
Banned
lol?
Do what we tell you or we'll do what you want!
Calling it "racist" is an oversimplification.
What I would say is that that's part and parcel of the privileged understanding of kyriarchy, in which everybody is self-evidently equal and so anybody claiming bigotry or discrimination is obviously lying in order to manipulate people. This understanding takes it for granted that racism doesn't really exist today, so I think you can safely call it racist in the sense that it's a belief structure that props up and indemnifies racism, without which it would not be possible in today's time.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Really an odd article. This is the exact same strategy they have used since day one. Remember last year when I was telling folks nothing was going to happen, since Boehner assured K-Street he would not allow the US to default?
This is a game. They wait until the last minute to appease their base, then fold and blame Obama for not being bipartisan. Every time. Which is why the 2011 fiasco was so grating.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Boehner also assured everyone the government wouldn't shut down
I know the severity of breaching the debt ceiling far outweighs that but I'm not taking Boehner at his word for shit when his caucus is nuts
PhoenixDark
Banned
A government shutdown isn't really a big deal (as long as it's not too long), whereas a government default blows up the economy. His caucus has nothing to do with it either: the only way the United States would default is if Boehner refused to bring a vote to the floor. And considering he has assured K and Wall Street he won't allow a default, there is literally no reason to be worried.
I think Boehner assumed the shutdown would last a few days before republicans gave up, and then realized that wasn't the case. Which led to him basically letting the party get slapped in the mouth so he could say "you see what happens?"
Aaron Strife
Banned
We'll see.
I'm hoping we'll get enough antics out of it to drag the GOP's numbers down.
WayneMorse
Banned
Let's hope this debt crisis screws the GOP over again in terms of national popularity.
They took it down, but not before it could capped.
I see Kati Jon Sanshalloliver has the inside scoop on government waste at the Postal Service.
Fake edit: actually it's a joke -
"The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation. After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:
1.The stamp is in perfect order.
2.There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side."
jamesinclair
Banned
Ive noticed that newspaper articles never say how they get their number.
It is possible for number of registered voters to exceed total eligible voters, right?
Thats what Im getting when looking at some data.
I assume people keep registering, die, move away etc, but stay on the list.
So if a town has a steady pop, amount registered keeps going up.
That should be an issue with the data, right?
Like people say "record low turnout" but that can be meaningless if the registered number goes up while pop doesnt. it will be record low every year
zero shift
Banned
I think rolls are checked against death records. I remember one year there was an issue where they accidentally removed more than necessary in that "cleanup" and some people had to re-register.
empty vessel
Member
Exceed? That seems very doubtful to me. There are a lot of unregistered but voting-eligible people. You'd have to do a separate study of roll-clearing to get an idea how badly looking at registered voters is distorting. I couldn't imagine registered voters ever surpassing eligible voters, though, not by a long shot.
But, yes, inadequate roll-clearing could theoretically affect any number given that is looking at registered voters.
Aaron Strife
Banned
At least they learned something, because they certainly haven't learned how to win.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Issa blast the Justice department for using its investigating power for political ends by investigating pay day lenders.
HAHAHA hahahah HAHAHA
HAHAHA hahahah HAHAHA
jamesinclair
Banned
Im looking at NJ data and Im getting a lot of 100%+ registered numbers
empty vessel
Member
Dude I cannot stop laughing here. I cannot believe these clowns hold a majority. I weep for this country (as I laugh). Unreal.
Anyway
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22468690-hillary-clinton-talks-benghazi-gates-2016
DON'T DO IT HILLDAWG, YOU GOTTA RUN
speculawyer
Member
Well you gotta admit, as dumb as it may be . . . it is better than their shut-down strategy.
jamesinclair
Banned
Im looking at individual municipalities.
Take Essex Fells Borough.
2010 census
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_Fells_Borough,_New_Jersey#2010_Census
(Confirmed via real census fact finder)
Pop: 2,113
Pop 18+:1,481
(including non-citizens and incarcerated)
But 1,689 registered voters in 2010 election.
http://nj.gov/state/elections/2010-results/2010-gen-elect-district-11-us-house-021711.pdf
114% of eligible voters are registered!
122% if you discount foreign nationals.
Their voter registration drives are SUPER EFFECTIVE.
empty vessel
Member
Yeah, but that's not going to happen as you scale up. Take Parsippany-Troy Hills, for example, which is the biggest city in District 11 (from your data).
2010 census pop over 18: 42,164
2010 registered voters (from your data): 31,400
And that's hardly a large municipality.
speculawyer
Member
It is not a game. It is theater. A game implies that there is some uncertainty as to the outcome.
speculawyer
Member
You know . . . I think the GOP is changing a little bit.
We just had this pregnant brain-dead lady down in Texas and she was being kept alive because of the fetus (a horrible sad case). The family wanted to let her die but the hospital kept her alive due to a law requiring her to be kept alive. A judge decided she was dead and no one appealed.
And as far as I know, other than some local yokels, no politicians championed this case. No national GOPers came forward and tried tried to make an issue out of this like they did with Terry Schiavo.
So apparently they are (quietly) changing.
Edit: A funny thing about this change is that this kinda seems to be a double tossing out of their super-duper "principles" concerning the "sanctity of life".
1) Brain dead woman is being euthanized.
2) Fetus is being allowed to die along with the mother's body.
I think they look at the Terry Schiavo polling and the snap polls on this case . . . and realized that they were on the wrong side of history. And for once . . . they changed. But that is because this has nothing to do with giving tax-cuts to rich people or other important things like that.
We just had this pregnant brain-dead lady down in Texas and she was being kept alive because of the fetus (a horrible sad case). The family wanted to let her die but the hospital kept her alive due to a law requiring her to be kept alive. A judge decided she was dead and no one appealed.
And as far as I know, other than some local yokels, no politicians championed this case. No national GOPers came forward and tried tried to make an issue out of this like they did with Terry Schiavo.
So apparently they are (quietly) changing.
Edit: A funny thing about this change is that this kinda seems to be a double tossing out of their super-duper "principles" concerning the "sanctity of life".
1) Brain dead woman is being euthanized.
2) Fetus is being allowed to die along with the mother's body.
I think they look at the Terry Schiavo polling and the snap polls on this case . . . and realized that they were on the wrong side of history. And for once . . . they changed. But that is because this has nothing to do with giving tax-cuts to rich people or other important things like that.
So food stamps. Bitch bitch bitchy blah blah blah welfare state.
Honest question: doesn't the money that needy families get for food stands... Go right back into the economy anyway? It's not like the money just disappears when it gets hses at the grocery store ( except disappearing into the walton's giant bank accounts).
Honest question: doesn't the money that needy families get for food stands... Go right back into the economy anyway? It's not like the money just disappears when it gets hses at the grocery store ( except disappearing into the walton's giant bank accounts).
Feels like a pretty accurate representation of today's media climate, actually
Please expand on this!
RustyNails
Member
shadowsdarknes
Member
Why would more people be losing their health insurance now? With the law in effect, shouldn't all invalid plans be already cancelled?
Yes. In reality, over 95% of the money for SNAP goes directly to the recipients of the program. The overhead is minimal.
And in terms of return on investment, food stamps have proven to be some of the most effective forms of stimulus out there.
Whereas subsidies and corporate tax breaks are very indirect forms of stimulus because who really knows how that money is being used. We know it barely trickles down, if at all.
Opponents of the program will largely ignore any factual benefits of the program under the threat of the "moral hazard" and "government dependence" because non-statistical arguments are far more appealing to them.
I'm still not quite sure why people are so vehemently opposed to this.
zero shift
Banned
It feels like the more research I do the more radical I become.
For example I learned the GDP really is hardly the end all be all measurement that people often attribute it as. I feel the same with GDP growth. For example France gets shit on all the time due to having higher unemployment and less GDP growth (recently at least) than Germany despite the fact that the former has the real wages increasing with some of the lowest poverty in Europe while the latter has poverty rate almost double it and its primary base of increasing its GDP is lowering wages. How the hell is that success? Success should be measured how much extra money the people are getting and how little poor people you have. Yet you never ever see anyone anywhere in the media measuring success by this. Even on MSNBC you don't see them mentioning real wage growth but looking at GDP growth. Yes France has high unemployment but why is it a good thing if people are working while being poor? It makes no sense. Developed countries shouldn't start by growing the GDP then figuring out how to raise wages, that's backwards (unless its under certain conditions).
Couple that with the fact that I no longer believe that the amount of public debt matters and that taxes don't fund the government lead me to having radical views in terms of how the economy should be structured. I find this all amusing because before I got into politics I though I would "moderate" my views or "meet in the middle" yet the more I learn and research the more I feel that I am leaping toward my previous direction even further than before.
For example I learned the GDP really is hardly the end all be all measurement that people often attribute it as. I feel the same with GDP growth. For example France gets shit on all the time due to having higher unemployment and less GDP growth (recently at least) than Germany despite the fact that the former has the real wages increasing with some of the lowest poverty in Europe while the latter has poverty rate almost double it and its primary base of increasing its GDP is lowering wages. How the hell is that success? Success should be measured how much extra money the people are getting and how little poor people you have. Yet you never ever see anyone anywhere in the media measuring success by this. Even on MSNBC you don't see them mentioning real wage growth but looking at GDP growth. Yes France has high unemployment but why is it a good thing if people are working while being poor? It makes no sense. Developed countries shouldn't start by growing the GDP then figuring out how to raise wages, that's backwards (unless its under certain conditions).
Couple that with the fact that I no longer believe that the amount of public debt matters and that taxes don't fund the government lead me to having radical views in terms of how the economy should be structured. I find this all amusing because before I got into politics I though I would "moderate" my views or "meet in the middle" yet the more I learn and research the more I feel that I am leaping toward my previous direction even further than before.
WayneMorse
Banned
Wouldn't it be awesome for Obama to come out in the SOTU and offer a compromise, means testing farm subsidies in exchange for no food stamp cuts?
Yeah that's never gonna happen.
PhoenixDark
Banned
In a sense it is racism, in the sense that the next phase ends up being combating "anti-white" diversity initiatives through discrimination-by-a-different-name. You see this in the mentality that black people only get jobs at the loss of white jobs, and therefore the only way to combat that racism is by hiring white people (specifically white men).
Racial resentment might be worse now than at any point in recent memory, especially over the last 5 years. The mentality is "minorities are getting everything yet they're still complaining."
As I always say, you see this all the time on GAF in race threads. Unless a burning cross is in a black person's yard, it's not racism.
speculawyer
Member
So classy.
The GOP fratricide continues . . .
The GOP fratricide continues . . .
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/greta-van-susteren-explodes-fox-news-contributor-erick-004744167.html
shadowsdarknes
Member
He's the same douche on TV that got all up in arms about women becoming the bread winners in the family. Basically going on to say that women being the bread winners is destroying the family unit.. blah blah blah.
shadowsdarknes
Member
You absolutely raise a good point.
If a country can maintain low poverty levels while having high unemployment, that's largely a good thing. It shows a more progressive style of labor.
As automation continues to lessen the needs of the workforce in the future, we are going to have a real problem to deal with in regards to how we treat labor.
Right now, there are 3 people for every job opening in the USA. That's a serious problem. People want work and cannot get it. Our output is tremendously high. We do not have a shortage of food or housing. There's no reason why these people need to be denied basic living essentials.
However, the size of our debt does matter to an extent. We still pay interest on that debt. While we don't face a real fear of insolvency, the buyers of our debt are still largely wealthy people. And because they are making returns on our debt and getting rich of public spending (because we choose to issue debt), it's likely contributing to wealth inequality.
This is money goes to businesses, almost directly.
But since this program has the side effect of feeding the poor, radical conservatives hate on it - you gotta to keep that lash of hunger in tip top shape.
We'll make a socialist out of you yet!
Has Davis herself ever had any abortions? She's got two kids, doesn't she?
Also, good on Van Susternenenenenen for calling him out.
What was the rationale here? Obamacare will so undermine the insurance market that every health insurance provider will decide to shut down?
Guess that's a bit of a change to the usual "insurance premiums are going up for everybody!" line.
zero shift
Banned
Why not just cut out these buyers (the middlemen) then?
I would commit if one country actually had a successful long term economic model of it.
Venezuela? No. Cuba? No. Yugoslavia? Controversial.
jamesinclair
Banned
zero said:
Indian cultures?
Yeah, pretty much. Premiums will go up because not enough young, healthy people with deep pockets sighed up for Obummercare so all businesses in america will somehow dump their employees into the exchange or some shit. Conservative, Anti-Obama Logic 101.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I've been debating a friend over whether sexism or racism is harder to get away with, in politics. Obama is vulnerable largely because he can never truly discuss race without turning half the country off; this leads to people getting to take petty, ignorant punches with no pushback (see: Palin, Gingrich, etc).
So I think republicans will enter this year through 2016 expecting the same rules on sexism: throw rocks and then blame the victim. I don't think it'll work with sexism, which is more blatant and easier to discuss. Gotta say I was surprised at republicans essentially floating a trial balloon on attacking Hillary with Bill Clinton's affair(s) if she dares discuss the "war on women." It's not only tone deaf but one of the stupidest things I've ever heard; I seriously doubt such an attack polls well.
So yea brehs, get ready for 2 years of this shit.
IT was Ted Cruz. No wonder it sounded like some idiot was talking.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/3114778206001
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/3114778206001
Aaron Strife
Banned
I bet Rand Paul is one of those guys who comes up with comebacks in the car to arguments he had 3 days ago
It must be great to be a Republican. I can't think of any other field where you can routinely say the dumbest shit and take little to no flak for it. Even the pope is held more accountable than these jokers.
RustyNails
Member
Hmm? Indian economy had super strict regulations with communist underpinnigs (government owning big monopolies) since independence. It is not for the past 2 decades.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked