Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[Vigilante]

 

[tuhaybey]

Correlation does not mean CAUSATION. You're a Kool-Aid drinker.

First off, you know where that line came from, right? It was popularized by the lobbyists that were arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

It doesn't really mean what you think it means. Most evidence we all rely on every day is correlation. If you walk outside when it is raining and you get wet, and that happens every time it is raining for 20 times in a row, you learn that rain makes you wet. You aren't doing some sort of strange causal study to figure that you, you're just noting that rain correlates strongly with getting wet. That's true of like 99.9% of the things we know about the world.

Now, that doesn't mean that every correlation between A and B prove that A and B are related. How strongly a correlation supports the premise that A is related to B depends on how strong the correlation is. How big the data set is and how far apart A and B's results are tell you how strong the indication of a relationship is. In this case, we have 80 years of data and almost every Democrat outperforms almost every Republican. No unified Republican government has ever even gotten as much GDP growth as the average unified Democratic government. Never once. And, we're not just talking about one measure, we're talking about many different stats that all correlate to the same start degree.

So, again, are you contending that it is just a really big coincidence? That is the question you ask yourself when trying to figure out how good correlation is as evidence- how likely is it that something like this would just happen randomly? Go ahead, think it through.

 

[tuhaybey]

So Democrats are dumb because the candidates they pick always do well and Republicans are smart because they didn't even realize that the candidates they pick always do poorly?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

 

[Vigilante]

So Democrats are dumb because the candidates they pick always do well and Republicans are smart because they didn't even realize that the candidates they pick always do poorly?

Oh, is that why Nancy Piglosi isn't Speaker of the House, and Republicans now control it?????

 

[Zander]

Correlation does not mean CAUSATION. You're a Kool-Aid drinker.

First off, you know where that line came from, right? It was popularized by the lobbyists that were arguing that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

It doesn't really mean what you think it means. Most evidence we all rely on every day is correlation. If you walk outside when it is raining and you get wet, and that happens every time it is raining for 20 times in a row, you learn that rain makes you wet. You aren't doing some sort of strange causal study to figure that you, you're just noting that rain correlates strongly with getting wet. That's true of like 99.9% of the things we know about the world.

Now, that doesn't mean that every correlation between A and B prove that A and B are related. How strongly a correlation supports the premise that A is related to B depends on how strong the correlation is. How big the data set is and how far apart A and B's results are tell you how strong the indication of a relationship is. In this case, we have 80 years of data and almost every Democrat outperforms almost every Republican. No unified Republican government has ever even gotten as much GDP growth as the average unified Democratic government. Never once. And, we're not just talking about one measure, we're talking about many different stats that all correlate to the same start degree.

So, again, are you contending that it is just a really big coincidence? That is the question you ask yourself when trying to figure out how good correlation is as evidence- how likely is it that something like this would just happen randomly? Go ahead, think it through.

You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

And what far left source did you dig all that up from?

It's always fun watching libs twist statistics.

It's much more fun reading posts from EC, words sans substance. The challenge was in the form of a question: "Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success" and was ignored; a very telling omission.

Q. How does one spell phony?
A. E C O N C H I C

 

[Wry Catcher]

So Democrats are dumb because the candidates they pick always do well and Republicans are smart because they didn't even realize that the candidates they pick always do poorly?

Oh, is that why Nancy Piglosi isn't Speaker of the House, and Republicans now control it?????

Who are what made you into the dirt bag you've become? You are repulsive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

 

[Vigilante]

So Democrats are dumb because the candidates they pick always do well and Republicans are smart because they didn't even realize that the candidates they pick always do poorly?

Oh, is that why Nancy Piglosi isn't Speaker of the House, and Republicans now control it?????

Who are what made you into the dirt bag you've become? You are repulsive.

Now you're going to make me blush! I might have to add this to my signature! BTW, it's who OR what, but that just gave me the chuckles, thinking how correct I am about calling you subversives 2 digit IQ'd freaks! Too bad you aren't THIS pretty, might forgive your stupidity!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have better sex, more orgasms, etc. though. Seems counterintuitive until you consider Republicans make sex so illicit and taboo it's no wonder then they're eager little beavers in bed.

Only the men. The women are tired of missionary. They go looking for adventurous liberals.

 

[tuhaybey]

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

If we lose it, it will be because Republican voters aren't performing their civic duty to vote intelligently.

 

[tuhaybey]

You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

I addressed your point, so if you don't have a counter argument, I guess that's that.

 

[tuhaybey]

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

Actually, people in blue states have far, far, more surplus income- Median Income Compared to Support for Obama

You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....

 

[Zander]

You're an idiot. Science, not lobbyists, gave us causation and correlation. You are also suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias.

I addressed your point, so if you don't have a counter argument, I guess that's that.

You addressed my point with a lie.

You lack the ability to discern truth from propaganda, I guess that's that.

 

[tuhaybey]

You addressed my point with a lie.

You lack the ability to discern truth from propaganda, I guess that's that.

Just blurting out that you think I'm wrong doesn't answer my argument. If you're unable to refute my argument, then the next step is to figure out where you got mixed up, not to continue blurting out substanceless denials of the conclusion of my argument.

 

[tuhaybey]

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.

 

[Zander]

You addressed my point with a lie.

You lack the ability to discern truth from propaganda, I guess that's that.

Just blurting out that you think I'm wrong doesn't answer my argument. If you're unable to refute my argument, then the next step is to figure out where you got mixed up, not to continue blurting out substanceless denials of the conclusion of my argument.

Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.