Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're good at neither. You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this. If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.

Ah, the classic "I have a really good argument that totally shows that you're wrong, I just don't feel like presenting it" line... Has that ever fooled anybody in the history of the Internet?

I have already presented it and clearly shown everything you've said is manufactured from your own mind. If you're not going to admit you're wrong based on the hard data then there is nothing more I can say. At some point you have to take the advice of Mark Twain who said "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Have a nice day.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It has been 5 days now and still not a single Republican has come up with even one measure by which Republican leaders perform better. Not one.

There is this fact about Republican voters though:

The left-leaning Pew Research Center provides the latest example.

Each year, Pew conducts its "What Do Americans Know" survey, which tests respondents on a series of questions. This year, the topics included the federal minimum wage, the territory occupied by ISIS, the Ukraine, Common Core educational proposals, fracking, where the Ebola virus is centered, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the U.S. poverty rate, where Shiite Muslims outnumber Sunnis, who chairs the Federal Reserve, where the federal government spends most and the U.S. unemployment rate. Unsurprisingly, older adults demonstrated greater knowledge than their younger counterparts, as did better-educated respondents.

But buried at the bottom of the survey report lies the subject heading "Partisan Differences in Knowledge," which itemizes each question and the percentage of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who answered each one correctly.

So how stark were the partisan knowledge differentials?

Out of 12 questions asked, Republicans outperformed both Democrats and Independents on 10. The differences were most pronounced on the questions regarding Common Core, fracking and where Shiites outnumber Sunnis, where the percentage of Republicans answering correctly outpaced Democrats by double digits. But Republicans also outperformed Democrats on questions centering on the federal minimum wage and the Fed Chairwoman, even though she's a Democrat appointed by Obama, while the minimum wage is Democrats' favorite wedge issue this election year to try to keep Harry Reid (D - Nevada) as the Senate Majority Leader.

Democrats only outscored Republicans in naming the primary Ebola outbreak location and the federal poverty rate, but only by 2 and 5 percentage points, respectively.

That obviously amounts to a lopsided Republican advantage in knowledge. But take a look at how Pew attempted to soften the findings:

"Differences in news knowledge across partisan groups are relatively modest, though Republicans tend to do somewhat better than Democrats overall. Republicans are 16 points more likely than Democrats to answer the Common Core question correctly (58% vs. 42%). And 57% of Republicans identify the oil industry as a primary driver of growth in North Dakota, compared with 42% of Democrats. On other issues, such as the unemployment rate, there are hardly any differences in news knowledge between Republicans and Democrats. Just 38% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats know that the unemployment rate is currently closest to 6%. Many Americans overestimate the current unemployment rate: 27% say it is closest to 9%, while an additional 18% think the rate is closest to 12%." ​

Think about that for a moment. Imagine two football teams playing 12 head-to-head games, with one winning 10 and the other 2. It would be preposterous for a sportswriter to describe that differential as "relatively modest," or that the team winning 10 of 12 games performed "somewhat better" than the team that lost 10 of 12.

This year's results parallel surveys from previous years, so it's not as though it should have come as an unwelcome surprise to the left-leaning Pew.

In 2012, Republicans outscored Democrats on 11 of 12 items. Yet in that instance Pew also described Republicans' performance as "somewhat better" than Democratic voters. In the 2011 Pew survey, Republicans outperformed Democrats on every single one of 19 questions, and in 2010 Republicans tested better than Democrats on 10 of 12 questions, with 1 tie score and Democrats testing better on just 1.​

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yes... Of course... The thing where tea party types assume liberals must be unemployed is so weird lol. You understand that we have a way higher median income than you guys do, right? For example, San Francisco, which is just about 95% Democratic, has a median income $35k/year higher and the average person has 2.5 more years of education than the southern Republican states.

What special kind of moron moves to San Francisco in order "enjoy" a $35,000 per year boost in income? Here's a cost of living calculator comparing San Francisco to Wichita:

A salary of $55,000 in Wichita, Kansas should increase to $153,368 in San Francisco, California​

San Francisco is 179% more expensive than Wichita. ​

​

Housing is 637% more expensive in San Francisco. ​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

We're rapidly getting to the point where all highly successful people (not counting people who are successful because they inherited something) are liberals.

What kind of retard believes this shit? Look at the Upper Class column:

The 3 richest people in the country all are very liberal, virtually everybody at a top 10 school is liberal, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., all liberal.

So you're the moron who actually believes this shit? It's good, I suppose, when people purposely out themselves for it shows them to be comfortable with their disability.

The Democrats are a coalition of the Top and the Bottom of the society against the Middle. Both factions benefit from an interventionist government. The crony class can corrupt government to extract wealth from society. They're small in number but they twist government to suck wealth from the middle class. The poor are far larger in number and they too extract wealth from the productive middle class.

Does this look like Democrats are successful?

 

[Rikurzhen]

The labor participation rate is mostly just a misunderstanding on the right. That is just the percentage of people between 16 and 65 years old who are working. So, everybody who is in school and everybody who retires before 65 are "non-participating." Those are the two main reasons that the rate has been steadily falling since the 1990s- baby boomers are retiring and younger people are staying in school longer. The assumption that it means people just giving up or something is false. Only a couple/few percent of the non-participating people are actually in that camp.

Wow, I've met some liberal idiots in my time on this board, but you take the cake. You actually have the chutzpah to "correct" people with a blatantly ignorant definition that you apparently pulled out of your ass. I see this liberal mindset in a lot of you liberals- whatever nonsense pops into your head must be correct because otherwise you'd be in violation of the Liberal Golden Rule - "whatever a liberal thinks must be correct, otherwise a liberal wouldn't hold that position."

Definition of Labor Force Participation Rate:

Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired. ​

 

[tuhaybey]

Does this look like Democrats are successful?

Getting 54% of the vote of people who work full time? Uh, yeah, that is successful... Did you not understand that chart lol?

As for cost of living, to some extent you get what you pay for. If you want to live somewhere nice, so do lots of other people, so prices go up.

But, those cost of living comparisons are misleading anyways. Comparing, for example, the price of a 5 bedroom ranch-style house with a 3 car garage and a yard in Wichita with the price of the same thing in SF is not meaningful information. In major cities, people live in smaller places. It isn't that it costs more so much as that there are more people who want to live there, so they live more packed together. Somebody working as a computer programmer in Wichita lives in a big freestanding house, but doesn't have much access to the arts, culture, night life, etc. A computer programmer in SF has access to those things, but lives in an apartment for which he or she pays the same amount. If having a McManshion is your goal, sure, go to Wichita. If you'd rather have what a city has to offer, go to SF.

 

[Rikurzhen]

As for cost of living, to some extent you get what you pay for. If you want to live somewhere nice, so do lots of other people, so prices go up.

So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.

Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.

Yeah, people like living in San Francisco because nice weather and nice views are popular. Hey, maybe San Francisco's successful efforts to drive blacks out of the city is also appealing to white liberals:

San Francisco must stop calling itself "diverse" until The City once again has a thriving population of black residents, Supervisor London Breed said Wednesday while discussing that community's 36 percent shrinkage during the last two decades.​

But, those cost of living comparisons are misleading anyways. Comparing, for example, the price of a 5 bedroom ranch-style house with a 3 car garage and a yard in Wichita with the price of the same thing in SF is not meaningful information.

The Seattle Seahawks won the Superbowl but that isn't meaningful information about which team was the best in football, am I right? What really counts is which team had the most equal time on field for each player on the roster, that's what counts.

In major cities, people live in smaller places. It isn't that it costs more so much as that there are more people who want to live there, so they live more packed together.

And yet people go through phases in life, so we see young people flocking to cities and living in dorm room apartments and paying a rent that would fund a mortgage for a large house in Wichita but living in a dorm room or living with 5 roommates puts a real crimp on getting married, having a place of your own and raising children.

San Francisco = 13.4% of population under 18
Wichita, KS = 26.6% of population under 18

San Francisco = 11.1% of households have a child under 18
Wichita = 23.6% of households have a child under 18

San Francisco = 43.7% of households comprised of family
Wichita = 62.5% of households comprised of family

Living with roommates is far more popular in San Francisco than in Wichita, same with living without children in your life.

 

[Zander]

You're wasting your time Rik. The stupid runs very deep in this one. He just makes shit up as he goes......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[birddog]

I agree the Ds outperform the Rs in the areas of lack of patriotism, wasting taxpayer's money, illegal immigration support, weakening the military, voter fraud, etc, etc.

 

[westwall]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

The largest number of people on government assistance that this country has ever seen and you think that's good? Try thinking for yourself sometime and stop believing everything that the progressives spoon feed you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News

 

[Rikurzhen]

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News

I didn't get that impression - the common thread seems to be incompetence and ideologically driven decisions which produce failure. Yes, both are expressed within the economy but the article lists other problems too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News

I didn't get that impression - the common thread seems to be incompetence and ideologically driven decisions which produce failure. Yes, both are expressed within the economy but the article lists other problems too.

"It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville

 

[Zander]

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News

Wait until the new "Obamacare" rates kick in.......and the tax refunds are seized.......and the amnesty......

 

[Rikurzhen]

Democrats are polling at a 30 year low and it's largely due to economic reasons.

Trouble Looms for Obama Democrats with Election Day 2014 Approaching - ABC News

I didn't get that impression - the common thread seems to be incompetence and ideologically driven decisions which produce failure. Yes, both are expressed within the economy but the article lists other problems too.

"It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville

What happens when you put imbeciles atop the Commanding Heights of the economy? Policy decisions can translate into economic consequences. What that story pointed to was decisonmaking, not outcomes. "Do you think that society is moving in the right direction" speaks to decisions, not mere outcomes.

 

[tuhaybey]

So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.

Detroit is, of course, suffering from the flight of manufacturing to the third world. That's a problem that spans politics. Red and blue manufacturing cities alike are affected. The cost of living in Detroit is super low though, so I'm not sure what you're arguing there... Just a general dig on Detroit? Guess what- it still has a higher median income than any of the deep southern states.

Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.

The whole "correlation is not causation" line is just a kneejerk oneliner people blurt out when they don't like the evidence they're seeing. I debunked it thoroughly and he had no defense for his position, so I think that's that on that one, no?

As for the stuff about Wichita vs. SF, by all means, I can see the appeal of both. Not trying to say anything about that. Just that you can't compare prices, for example, an X-square foot house with a Y-car garage on a Z-acre lot from one to the other and pretend it is apples to apples.

 

[tuhaybey]

I agree the Ds outperform the Rs in the areas of lack of patriotism, wasting taxpayer's money, illegal immigration support, weakening the military, voter fraud, etc, etc.

Lack of patriotism lol? Which party is it that can't stop talking about succession again? Remember all that talk when Bush attacked Iraq about how it was unpatriotic to question the president in war time? What the hell do you think you guys do 24/7? At this point, to consider conservative "patriotic" is just flat out bizarre... You would have to have been in a cave for the past 6 years. Conservatives loathe this country. They think it is some kind of Muslim communist dictatorship full of takers and all that.

 

[tuhaybey]

It's been a week now and still not a single example from any Republican of any measure of any kind that Republican politicians do better on. Not one. They have literally been unable to come up with any kind of reason at all to vote Republican except for the emotions they feel about whatever caricature of liberals Limbaugh programmed them with or whatever it is they're always so upset about.

As a reminder, this is one of the examples of what they're unable to explain away:

GDP performance of parties and divided government

 

[Rikurzhen]

So now it's geography and not politics that is the issue. San Francisco and Detroit are both liberal dominated cities. San Francisco is built on the coast and so a lot of people want to live there but Detroit doesn't share the same luck and it's liberal governance structure doesn't seem to be working well at drawing people to move there.

Detroit is, of course, suffering from the flight of manufacturing to the third world. That's a problem that spans politics.

Your argument has been that it is liberalism which makes SF so great and Detroit too has been run by a Democratic machine, just like SF, so why aren't they duplicating what's happened in SF? They, after all, have the same ideological levers to pull and SF went through the same economic cycle as Detroit:

By the end of the 1950s, the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge was faced with a problem affecting many central cities. Industry, particularly heavy industry and other activities which relied on material brought through the port, was abandoning San Francisco. The port's connection to nearby inland areas was eroding. Traditionally, production plants had been multi-storied and located near inputs-that is, near raw materials requiring processing and/or packing. But businesses had begun to leave their waterfront locations in order to take advantage of cheaper suburban sites-cheaper because changes in production and warehousing had begun to make multi-story facilities obsolete.

To a large degree, industrial relocation was enabled by the explosion in trucking, which was in turn tied to the expansion of the nation's highway system. Trucks eliminated the cost advantage of being located near inputs, which was insubstantial compared to the savings from the more efficient new facilities in suburban sites.

Additionally, manufactured items were beginning to replace raw, unrefined, or pre-production cargo manufactured items (for example, electronics and machinery began to displace fruits, spices, coffee, and sugar). The result was that few, if any, processing plants were needed near the waterfront and fewer goods were being exported through the Port of San Francisco.

As industry relocated, new uses generated by the rise of a service sector economy replaced it. This transformation, especially inland of port property, caused a classic land use conflict. Once a truck finally maneuvered off of a pier, it was faced with increasing traffic congestion created by tourist activity and a growing downtown. This logistical problem led, in part, to shipping lines opting to reduce or eliminate calls to the Port of San Francisco. In fact, one reason that the Embarcadero was conceived of as a raised freeway was to try to separate through traffic from the remaining working piers. As it turned out, the construction of the Embarcadero Freeway was a harbinger of the northern waterfront's changing role in the decades to come.​

So if it's really liberal governance ideas which are responsible for SF's success, then why didn't those SAME IDEAS work in Detroit?

Zander was trying to teach you something about correlation not implying causation and apparently his lessons didn't penetrate your biased "thinking" skills.

The whole "correlation is not causation" line is just a kneejerk oneliner people blurt out when they don't like the evidence they're seeing. I debunked it thoroughly and he had no defense for his position, so I think that's that on that one, no?

You're a deluded moron.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It's been a week now and still not a single example from any Republican of any measure of any kind that Republican politicians do better on. Not one. They have literally been unable to come up with any kind of reason at all to vote Republican except for the emotions they feel about whatever caricature of liberals Limbaugh programmed them with or whatever it is they're always so upset about.

As a reminder, this is one of the examples of what they're unable to explain away:

GDP performance of parties and divided government

You need to show a model, fuckwit. Correlation doesn't explain anything. How does a Global Business Cycle respond to a Democrat in the WH? How does the internet revolution in business processes affect productivity, profit, job growth, and GDP performance? What did a Democratic House do to influence the revolution? Did a subsequent Republican Administration also capture the growth or was that growth a one time gain? How about time-lag for policies to kick in and modify behavior and decision making? The party in power which passed a policy might be out of power when the policy produces results, both good and bad.

You have to be an idiot to expect people to reach conclusions based on mere correlations. Oops, you yourself have reached conclusions based on mere correlations without understand the CAUSAL relationships which lead to the outcomes. I suppose that that says something about you.

 

[tuhaybey]

Your argument has been that it is liberalism which makes SF so great and Detroit too has been run by a Democratic machine, just like SF, so why aren't they duplicating what's happened in SF? They, after all, have the same ideological levers to pull and SF went through the same economic cycle as Detroit:

Already answered. Again- flight of manufacturing to the third world.

You need to show a model, fuckwit. Correlation doesn't explain anything.

Yeah, the whole "it's probably just a really big coincidence" line isn't working for you lol.