Vanderbilt professor of political science Carol Swain delivers a history lesson on the Repub. part

[flacaltenn]

And you TORTURED statistics to get a "regional excuse". It's almost comical how you take the "fact" that 100% of Southern Senate Repubs voted against it. Offer that up with a completely straight face --- and declare victory. When the TRUTH IS --- (and you should be embarrassed if you understood the deception) -- that 100% was the ONLY SINGLE Southern Repub out of 33 total in the Senate. ONE PERSON...

This is why you keep clinging to these "moldy oldies".. You're incapable of recognizing how you TORTURE the statistics and facts to fit your argument.

 

[Pogo]

And then on the 1964 CRA, pushed to its conclusion by LBJ and HHH, she again glosses over the stark statistical fact that both "Democrats" and "Republians" favored and passed the bill while "Southerners" were against it --- Republicans more against it than Democrats.

You keep blabbering this fractured history in thread after thread -- but the facts are simple to locate and absorb. Yet you won't do it..

Senate final vote on CRA passage..

Democrats Republicans
Yea 46 ---------- 27

Nay 21 ---------- 6

After awhile, folks just stop reading your fractured history analysis of the 2 parties..

And I've corrected this bogus distinction time after time after time after time, which is exactly what I'm referring to.

Natuarally I bookmarked it since it doesn't seem to take. Roll tape on that moldy oldie.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite chew some polarization. BIG time.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
​

You'll notice, as already stated, that for what it's worth Southern Republicans were more in the No column than Southern Democrats were. That's really not significant ---- because they're Southerners. So again it was never about a political party, following as I said the fact that racism is not a political issue but a sociocultural one. That's why there's no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans but a YUGE significant difference between the former Confederacy and the others. Regardless of party. So to try to cherrypick this into political parties is just dishonest. Nobody's gonna sit here with a straight face and claim a 13-17 point difference means something while an 82-87 point difference does not.

I'm not the only one to have analyzed this honestly ---

>> What linked Dirksen (R-IL) and Mansfield (D-MT) was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

​

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography. << (---- The Guardian)​

Which is, again, exactly as I posted. K?

This charade of trying to pretend the red puppets and the blue puppets are somehow different animals only serves to distract from the real dynamics.

You proved NOTHING about Republican support for CRA.. Not a damn thing. There were only about 33 Repubs TOTAL n the Senate. And all but SIX bailed out LBJ against the Dem opposition. The North/South split was entirely predictable and uninteresting. BECAUSE the South BELONGED to the Dems. And YET -- 80% or MORE of the Repubs supported the CRA.

So your statement --- "Repubs MORE AGAINST it -- then Dems" is completely patently false.

Boldface all you like but I just proved it. With the numbers. Numbers which are not "negotiable".

Think of it this way if you like. Imagine two different, separate countries that nevertheless share the same pair of political parties. They do not share the same culture or history -- in fact the two countries we analogize here were literally two different countries for several years.

In one of these countries a given piece of legislation is overwhelmingly approved, by both parties. Whether it's 85% or 92% in favor, that's a landslide and obviously those parties agree with each other.

In the other country the same piece of legislation is overwhelmingly disapproved, again by both parties. Whether it's 92% or 100%, that's a clear rejection. AGAIN both parties agree with each other.

---- Now you're going to combine these two, take an aggregate and purport to conclude something about a fifteen-point aggregate spread? That's just dishonest. It completely ignores the stark differences in character that obviously embody the glaring difference, it tries to pretend a "Southern Democrat" is the same thing as a "Midwestern Democrat" based solely on sharing a similar proper name, and it turns a completely blind eye to the regional, cultural dynamics that literally SCREAM from the mountaintops in their naked conspicuity.

At best all that does is sweep that telling dynamic under the rug and pretend it has something to do with political affiliations that may share the same name but in no way do so for the same reasons. And at worst it just foments this mentality of eliminationist division, fantasizing about distinctions that plainly DO NOT EXIST.

 

[Pogo]

And you TORTURED statistics to get a "regional excuse". It's almost comical how you take the "fact" that 100% of Southern Senate Repubs voted against it. Offer that up with a completely straight face --- and declare victory. When the TRUTH IS --- (and you should be embarrassed if you understood the deception) -- that 100% was the ONLY SINGLE Southern Repub out of 33 total in the Senate. ONE PERSON...

This is why you keep clinging to these "moldy oldies".. You're incapable of recognizing how you TORTURE the statistics and facts to fit your argument.

Correct ---and that's why, as I said from the outset, that his political party is NOT SIGNIFICANT. Rather, his region is. *ALL* of what I just displayed up there makes exactly that point.

See what I mean --- this is why I bookmark this stuff, because the self-delusional crowd will just stand around crowing "IS NOT IS NOT" despite the glaring evidence. I'll just keep it on file for the next time, and the time after that, and the time after that, until it finally sinks in.

You proved NOTHING about Republican support for CRA.

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

fter awhile, folks just stop reading your fractured history analysis of the 2 parties..

Again, that's a good thing. Because the whole point about the CRA here is that it's specifically ***NOT*** about "parties". That's the fallacious comparison I'm deconstructing.

 

[jillian]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

infowars again, you delusional freak?

Carol Swain is a trumptard nutter who went to Donald's hate-fest and christian zealot.

 

[Pogo]

Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science, Carol Swain, delivers a history lesson on the Republican party.



Dems Hate This Video: Hidden Truth About The Republican Party Revealed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 171686


Well lets see who bothers to listen and see what she has to say................................. Ready , set, go........................

infowars again, you delusional freak?

Carol Swain is a trumptard nutter who went to Donald's hate-fest and christian zealot.

Not Alex Jones this time --- it's a propaganda outfit called "Prager U" run by a radio talk show dude. They apparently run revisionist history videos on YouTube hoping nobody checks their facts. I perused several of them once I figured out what was going on. Just like that Whittle Bill dude.

In spite of having exposed what they're doing I'm sure we'll see more in the future. Because what sells is emotional rant, not historical fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

Boldface all you like but I just proved it. With the numbers. Numbers which are not "negotiable".

No -- what you actually did was make an ass of yourself by displaying a PURPOSEFUL ignorance of basic Statistical Theory. It's WORSE than just a rookie error to be claiming that 100% of Southern Senate Republicans OPPOSED the CRA --- When the SAMPLE SIZE is ONE LONE SENATOR..

I'm being hard on you here to SPARE you further embarrassment trying to pack 10lbs of goopy crap into a Glad Bag of obfuscation that you call "not negotiable".. Don't try to sell that shit on the open market of ideas to folks that appreciate clear thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support. ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH. But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....





STILL ---- missing the point....







Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

 

[Pogo]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was regional" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

92% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

 

[jillian]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support. ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH. But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....





STILL ---- missing the point....







Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

and those democrats are now all REPUBLICANS....

THAT is the point

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support. ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH. But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....





STILL ---- missing the point....







Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

and those democrats are now all REPUBLICANS....

THAT is the point

Actually genius most all of them are dead now. You can "spin" that any way your little blessed heart desires.

 

[Pogo]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

I don't need to "overthink" it, clown --- I worked it out years ago. So did others independently.

Once AGAIN --- 92% of those No votes --- the ones you cite above while dancing around the fact that NINETY-TWO PERCENT --- were from the Confederacy states.

You're actually sitting here trying to have us believe that 63% versus 80% (House D/R), or 69% versus 82% (Senate D/R) --- has a meaning, while 8% versus 92% (Confed/nonConfed) does not. Absurd.

The ""0 of 1 = (0%)" line is directly from Wiki, and it's true --- 0 of 1 IS 0%. Significant by itself? Hardly. But if you''re calculating percentages of arbitrary artificial genres (as you just did) ---- then you have to translate "0 of 1" to something. What are you gonna do--- leave it blank?

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

I don't need to "overthink" it, clown --- I worked it out years ago. So did others independently.

Once AGAIN --- 92% of those No votes --- the ones you cite above while dancing around the fact that NINETY-TWO PERCENT --- were from the Confederacy states.

You're actually sitting here trying to have us believe that 63% versus 80% (House D/R), or 69% versus 82% (Senate D/R) --- has a meaning, while 8% versus 92% (Confed/nonConfed) does not. Absurd.

The ""0 of 1 = (0%)" line is directly from Wiki, and it's true --- 0 of 1 IS 0%. Significant by itself? Hardly. But if you''re calculating percentages of arbitrary artificial genres (as you just did) ---- then you have to translate "0 of 1" to something. What are you gonna do--- leave it blank?

92% from the confederate states and OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat.. You left out the most important part. Shows what you're trying to bury by bastardizing statistics...Let that sink in before you continue to make a fool of yourself..

 

[Pogo]

Once again, correct. I proved the opposite --- i.e. that political parties had no significant distinction between them, because REGION and CULTURE drew those lines. Not "parties".

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

I don't need to "overthink" it, clown --- I worked it out years ago. So did others independently.

Once AGAIN --- 92% of those No votes --- the ones you cite above while dancing around the fact that NINETY-TWO PERCENT --- were from the Confederacy states.

You're actually sitting here trying to have us believe that 63% versus 80% (House D/R), or 69% versus 82% (Senate D/R) --- has a meaning, while 8% versus 92% (Confed/nonConfed) does not. Absurd.

The ""0 of 1 = (0%)" line is directly from Wiki, and it's true --- 0 of 1 IS 0%. Significant by itself? Hardly. But if you''re calculating percentages of arbitrary artificial genres (as you just did) ---- then you have to translate "0 of 1" to something. What are you gonna do--- leave it blank?

92% from the confederate states and OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat.. You left out the most important part. Shows what you're trying to bury by bastardizing statistics...Let that sink in before you continue to make a fool of yourself..

Ummm.... that's not my domain here -- it's yours. And I wouldn't have expected this naked Duopoly defense from your corner. That's disappointing.

No shit the South was overwhelmingly Democrat. We all know that and have alluded to it frequently. But that's not the question here, IS IT.

No Bunky, the question here is one of statistical significance, and you just articulated the very factor that throws your attempted fake-stats-point into bogus territory. Whichever political party held the South was going to have their numbers skewed by it, specifically because that's where the No votes lived. So you've just admitted that the numbers with which you tried to show a political party relationship --- which the OP video also tried to do, omitting the same realities --- poisoned your own numbers by virtue of that regional No vote.

Now we can open a whole 'nother can of worms on exactly WHY the South was overwhelmingly Democrat for 98 years, but that's a whole different question and I guarantee you it wasn't so it could skew the numbers of the CRA vote for future message boards, and I guarantee you it had nothing to do with ideological commonalities with its colleagues in the North and West --- although interestingly what the CRA represents, pushed by a Democratic President from Texas, was a political divorce that was long overdue. Which in turn reminds us again that political parties and party affiliations shift with the winds, while sociocultural patterns DO NOT.

The OP video, where this started, is rife with fallacies, prominent among them the idea that the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" are fixed over time and never evolve ideologically --- which is in turn why her script trots out these out-of-context false comparisons. Why would you want to plant your flag on that fallacy?

 

[flacaltenn]

No you didn't prove it was region. Because the bill would have FAILED without heavy Republican support.

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

ALL OF THAT Republican support coming from the NORTH.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.

But so what? There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT.

So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.

The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

STILL ---- missing the point....

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.

Until the NEXT TIME -- you miss the point.. So here it is again.. There were ONLY Democrats in the South and that my slippery little weasel --- is the ENTIRE POINT. The OPPOSITION that would have DEFEATED the proposal was ALL Democrat. And you still miss the point....

Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

I don't need to "overthink" it, clown --- I worked it out years ago. So did others independently.

Once AGAIN --- 92% of those No votes --- the ones you cite above while dancing around the fact that NINETY-TWO PERCENT --- were from the Confederacy states.

You're actually sitting here trying to have us believe that 63% versus 80% (House D/R), or 69% versus 82% (Senate D/R) --- has a meaning, while 8% versus 92% (Confed/nonConfed) does not. Absurd.

The ""0 of 1 = (0%)" line is directly from Wiki, and it's true --- 0 of 1 IS 0%. Significant by itself? Hardly. But if you''re calculating percentages of arbitrary artificial genres (as you just did) ---- then you have to translate "0 of 1" to something. What are you gonna do--- leave it blank?

92% from the confederate states and OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat.. You left out the most important part. Shows what you're trying to bury by bastardizing statistics...Let that sink in before you continue to make a fool of yourself..

Ummm.... that's not my domain here -- it's yours. And I wouldn't have expected this naked Duopoly defense from your corner. That's disappointing.

No shit the South was overwhelmingly Democrat. We all know that and have alluded to it frequently. But that's not the question here, IS IT.

No Bunky, the question here is one of statistical significance, and you just articulated the very factor that throws your attempted fake-stats-point into bogus territory. Whichever political party held the South was going to have their numbers skewed by it, specifically because that's where the No votes lived. So you've just admitted that the numbers with which you tried to show a political party relationship --- which the OP video also tried to do, omitting the same realities --- poisoned your own numbers by virtue of that regional No vote.

Now we can open a whole 'nother can of worms on exactly WHY the South was overwhelmingly Democrat for 98 years, but that's a whole different question and I guarantee you it wasn't so it could skew the numbers of the CRA vote for future message boards, and I guarantee you it had nothing to do with ideological commonalities with its colleagues in the North and West --- although interestingly what the CRA represents, pushed by a Democratic President from Texas, was a political divorce that was long overdue. Which in turn reminds us again that political parties and party affiliations shift with the winds, while sociocultural patterns DO NOT.

The OP video, where this started, is rife with fallacies, prominent among them the idea that the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" are fixed over time and never evolve ideologically --- which is in turn why her script trots out these out-of-context false comparisons. Why would you want to plant your flag on that fallacy?

Hey... I'm not responsible for the fact that over time -- both the brand name parties have LOST their principles and identities. The rot is progressing so quickly now -- it's looks like a fatal antibiotic-resistant, communicable bacterial infection. That's for folks that give a fart.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it would have failed without, as it turns out, heavy Democratic AND heavy Republican support. Which the numbers demonstrate.

Correct, and the vast majority of Democrat support coming from there (not the "north" but the "non-South") as well.

---- Which neatly ties together the two ends of the point originally made in the first place, that being that political party was irrelevant and region was crucial. Which, again, the numbers demonstrate with a decisiveness that cannot be ignored.


So, there were not "ONLY" Democrats in the South though they certainly predominated. And that's why those Southern votes skewed that party's number ---- BECAUSE THE SOUTH WAS WHERE THE VAST MAJORITY OF NO VOTES WERE. It skewed the Republican numbers even more, that being a smaller sample. But then, counting political party votes was a futile quest from the start, as that's not where the crucial factor was; it was in sociocultural region --- NOT PARTY.

I've said the same thing now 35 times while you go

Go ahead, sit there and try to tell me a fifteen point spread is significant while a 90-point spread is not.


No, actually you miss the point, that being that the opposition that would have defeated the bill, had it had enough votes of its own kind --- was all CONFEDERACY. And that holds regardless of party.

Again, it's slightly more true if you slavishly pant after numbers for the Republican side, but since it's not a party issue that's insignificant. You're trying to bend some artificial meaningless criterion --- a political party, which has no uniform character --- into meaning something based on ant-sized differentials, while utterly ignoring the elephant-sized differentials that the very real, human, everyday experience of sociocultural values imparts, desperately trying to pretend a 90-to-5 bias "doesn't mean anything".

Indeed you are. Perhaps I need to post it in Macedonian, as English isn't working.



Sorry, repeating the same erratic hissyfit isn't gonna make it come to life. The numbers tell the story. That's why I quoted them.

"Didn't prove it was region" huh. Once again, these are the numbers, and they are set in stone.

​

93% of the no vote coming from a specific region "doesn't prove it was regional". Holy SHIT.

You just "did it again".. Totally fucked with statistical belief WHENEVER you say "0 of 1 = (0%)". . Completely meaningless. Now 0 of 11 is bordering on statistical significance. Or 8 of 91 IS statistically significant. But what MATTERS is that 91 DEM votes in the House went AGAINST the CRA out of 243. And 21 out of 67 in the Senate.

While the numbers for the Repubs were 24 AGAINST the CRA in the House out of 172. And 6 out of 33 in the Senate.

NAYS ---

House Dem ---- Repub
--------- 37% ---- 14%

Senate Dem ---- Repub
--------- 31% ---- 18%

WHO OWNED THE SOUTH??
House Dems = 91 House Repubs = 11
Senate Dems = 21 Senate Repubs = 1

All that really matters is right there. Dems OWNED the South. Higher percentage of Dems REJECTING the CRA.. Don't overthink it..

I don't need to "overthink" it, clown --- I worked it out years ago. So did others independently.

Once AGAIN --- 92% of those No votes --- the ones you cite above while dancing around the fact that NINETY-TWO PERCENT --- were from the Confederacy states.

You're actually sitting here trying to have us believe that 63% versus 80% (House D/R), or 69% versus 82% (Senate D/R) --- has a meaning, while 8% versus 92% (Confed/nonConfed) does not. Absurd.

The ""0 of 1 = (0%)" line is directly from Wiki, and it's true --- 0 of 1 IS 0%. Significant by itself? Hardly. But if you''re calculating percentages of arbitrary artificial genres (as you just did) ---- then you have to translate "0 of 1" to something. What are you gonna do--- leave it blank?

92% from the confederate states and OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat.. You left out the most important part. Shows what you're trying to bury by bastardizing statistics...Let that sink in before you continue to make a fool of yourself..

Ummm.... that's not my domain here -- it's yours. And I wouldn't have expected this naked Duopoly defense from your corner. That's disappointing.

No shit the South was overwhelmingly Democrat. We all know that and have alluded to it frequently. But that's not the question here, IS IT.

No Bunky, the question here is one of statistical significance, and you just articulated the very factor that throws your attempted fake-stats-point into bogus territory. Whichever political party held the South was going to have their numbers skewed by it, specifically because that's where the No votes lived. So you've just admitted that the numbers with which you tried to show a political party relationship --- which the OP video also tried to do, omitting the same realities --- poisoned your own numbers by virtue of that regional No vote.

Now we can open a whole 'nother can of worms on exactly WHY the South was overwhelmingly Democrat for 98 years, but that's a whole different question and I guarantee you it wasn't so it could skew the numbers of the CRA vote for future message boards, and I guarantee you it had nothing to do with ideological commonalities with its colleagues in the North and West --- although interestingly what the CRA represents, pushed by a Democratic President from Texas, was a political divorce that was long overdue. Which in turn reminds us again that political parties and party affiliations shift with the winds, while sociocultural patterns DO NOT.

The OP video, where this started, is rife with fallacies, prominent among them the idea that the terms "Democrat" and "Republican" are fixed over time and never evolve ideologically --- which is in turn why her script trots out these out-of-context false comparisons. Why would you want to plant your flag on that fallacy?

Hey... I'm not responsible for the fact that over time -- both the brand name parties have LOST their principles and identities. The rot is progressing so quickly now -- it's looks like a fatal antibiotic-resistant, communicable bacterial infection. That's for folks that give a fart.

IMO political parties anywhere will inevitably lose their principles and shift to the sole principle of self-preservation, i.e. power for its own sake in a generation. In my world a political party would be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and nonrenewable period of 20 years. After that you're in the history books whether you accomplished your goals or not. Scram.

You know that as well as I do. The script this talking head in the OP video reads, does not know that. Or does, but expects her audience not to know that and figures that ignorance can sell bogus statistics. Which in turn can sell the RNC -- that appears to be its purpose. It's basically an infomercial with all the credibility of a Kevin Trudeau. That's where I come in to point out some of the false advertising.

 

[regent]

Using political party names is misleading; the use of conservative and liberal has a little more validity. A few conservative parties have dropped out of sight and the party names have been sort of traded about.