From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's exactly what you're doing. I have yet to find a context in which this statement is valid. The margin the Republicans hold over the Democrats represents 15% of the Democrat vote - remember, I confirmed that, and haven't questioned it, and I'm fairly confident that even Tiassa would agree there. It's not the maths of the statement we're questioning, it's the validity, and the relvance. While it's true that the margin represents 15% of the total that voted Democrat, it's equally true that the margin represents 6.6% of the total vote. Do you understand that both of the statements are mathematically correct? You can check it for yourself if you want, any calculator will give you the same answer: 5.74/86.78 = 0.0661 In light of this: In the 2008 House Election the Republicans captured 52.18 million votes. In the 2010 Mid Term the Republicans captured 44.59 million votes. This represents an increase from 42.53% of the popular vote to 55.6% of the popular vote - an increase of 13% but using neither the logic nor numbers you cited. The total number of voters, however, dropped from 123 million to 87 million. So. The margin of the Republicans over the Democrats is 6.6% of the total vote. The margin of the Republicans over the Democrats is 15% of the Democrat vote. The Republicans gained 13% of the total vote between 2008 and 2010. Equally, I could say that three fifths as many people voted for the Democrats in 2010 as did in 2008, but that would be a somewhat dubious point to make because only 70% of the people that votes in 2008 voted in 2010. I could pour some gasoline on the fire, by pointing out that the changes in numbers may simply indicate that three out of every four people that voted in 2008, and didn't vote in 2010 were complacent democrats who thought their party was assured vitory, but failed to take into account the determination of the Republicans, who achieved a higher voter turnout. Rather than indicating any actual change in support among the American populace.
It appears the three of us parse this sentence differently. When someone asks me "Expressed as a percentage, how many more people did this, than did that." My response is expressed as a percentage of the total number, not the the value of the lesser number. That, to me, would be something different.
Is your memory that short Tiassa? This started just a while back with this post of yours: To which I pointed out: And then I posted the most recent national election data to support my assertion: Which is what I was using to refute your original post: That then morphed into your assertion that Republicans were trying to "burn down the house" To which I responded: But you challenged my math: So I showed you that my math was correct: But you didn't accept that and came up with this bit of mathematical BS: So now it was YOU who kept this going by claiming that the 14% was a "cheap misrepresentation" So not only were you wrong, but the post was clearly a SLUR. Did you think I'd let that slide? Hilarious. Arthur
Well you can say it either way as long as you are clear what the percent you are stating it is based on (and I always was clear): 14.7% more people voted for the Republicans than they did for the Democrats Or The Republicans got 6.9% more of the total votes cast then did the Democrats. Both true. When it is expressed as a percent of the total votes cast, then the percent will always appear smaller because while the absolute difference is fixed, the percent is of a number roughly twice as large. But I never stated ANYTHING bogus like you originally claimed (and which I got upset about): Arthur
Dare I offer that I suspect there may have been a miscommunication in here somewhere? With the pair of you effectively talking about cross-purposes, because Tiassa, like me, was expecting the number to be represented as a fraction of the total, where as Arthur was comparing the percentage difference as one might compare two prices? IE something that costs $110 costs 10% more than something that costs $100.
Right, but the point that's being made, is that you have two people suggesting that you weren't clear. See above. Have I not already made it absolutely completely and utterly explicitly clear how that assertion came about? You thought what you said was straight forward, apparently it wasn't, because apparently two people not only managed to take it the wrong way, but they took it the same way. Calm down, take a step back, and look at my assertion in the light of what I have already said and realize that it was a simple miscommunication.
I was quite CLEAR about how I was using the term. I even showed the MATH so it would be perfectly clear what the percent referred to: But even after that clear mathematical explanation you still posted this: And that explanation by you was NOT at all roughly equivalent to ANYTHING I posted in this thread. Arthur
Welcome to the world of the American "conservative" movement Trippy - fuzzy logic and fuzzy communication combined with fuzzy thinking.
An obvious question Trying to follow the assertions, in terms of figuring their purpose, is also an interesting venture. It's a mystery to me why this particular measurement is so important.
No you weren't. I contemplated going into greater depth to illustrate the miscommunication, but really what's the point? Last time I tried you resorted to making bullshit accusations at me, so I'm not going to waste my time on you this time.
But that margin can be seen in context when you divide the 5.74 million more votes than the Democrats got, by the number of votes the Republicans got. Then you see that 5.74/44.59 x 100 or 12.87% more votes were cast for the Republicans than for the Republicans. Statistics is like that. It's misleading when you want it to be.
It is a very clear demonstration of confirmational bias in action. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-political-brain
It's not a meaningful statistic for one outstanding reason: The 5.74 million vote margin was not part of the Democrats' vote. If you can't see why that means it's meaningless, think about what makes sense when you make the Republican and Democrat votes equal, by subtracting 5.74 from 44.59, then expressing the 5.74 margin as a percentage of twice 38.85. Now you have 5.74 million Republican votes expressed as a percentage of twice the number of votes each party received equally. Make sense?
This is one of several reasons why I struggled with Arthur's repeated assertions and such. But equally I found myself struggeling to put it into words.
The entire point that started this was discussing how many more people voted for the Republicans than the Democrats. That number is 14.77%
So? A percent can be expressed many different ways. Claiming it isn't meaningful because it isn't expressed as a percent of the total vote is silly. LOL, and all that is doing is mathematically dividing the margin of votes in favor of the Republicans by two. Sure you can do that, but all that means is you are expressing the margin of victory as half the actual percent but of a number that you have artificially doubled. 38.85 + 38.85 = 77.7 (add Republican Votes equal to Democrat votes which is the same as simply Multiplying the total Democrat vote by 2) 5.74 / 77.7 = 0.0738 (divide the excess number of votes the Republicans got by twice the Democrat vote total and that gets you a number = to HALF the percent margin of victory) So then: .0738 * 2 = .1477 (Multiply that percent by the same factor you artificially increased the Democrat vote by and POOF, you get the right answer) Here's an example for those who remain obviously mathematically challenged: In an election, the Rs get 192 votes and the Ds get 96 votes. I believe everyone would agree that TWICE as many people voted for the Rs than did for the Ds. (192 - 96 = 96 and 192 / 96 = 2) You do, right? (if you say no to this then stop and ask some 3rd grader for help) Twice as many votes for the Rs compared to the Ds also means that the Rs got 100% more votes than did the Ds got. (96 /96 = 1) (if you say no to this then stop and ask a 4th grader for help) However it is also true that 288 votes were cast in total and so the difference can also be expressed as a percent of the total votes: (192 + 96 = 288) In that case the Rs got 66.6% of the total vote and the Ds got 33.3% of the total vote. (192 / 288 = .666 and 96 / 288 = .333) Which if you subtract those two percents and use the answer to conclude that the Rs got 33% more votes than the Ds, you would be wrong. ( .666 - .333 = .333) The correct conclusion would be that the Rs got 33% more of the TOTAL vote than the Ds did. So while the Rs got 33% more of the total votes cast then the D's did, twice as many people voted for the Rs as they did for the Ds, indeed that's 100% more. Both expressions are absolutely correct, just different ways of looking at the numbers. But, since my discussion with Tiassa started out with the question of how many MORE people voted for the Rs than the Ds, it is the latter percent that is the issue, not the difference in the percent of the total vote. So once again: Nothing you, or Trippy or Tiassa has posted changes the fact that 14.77% more people voted for the Republicans then they did for the Democrats. If this still remains unclear to you then I'm afraid that I can't help you and you should consider a class in remedial math. Arthur
It originally was a simple statement of mathematical fact. I never expected it to cause any confusion as it was clearly stated and the numbers used to calculate it, including links were provided. You made it contentious Tiassa when you posted THIS: So when you admit that the 14.7% number is in fact the correct percent representing the margin of people who voted Republican vs voted Democrat in the last election and not as you called it, a "cheap misrepresentation", we can move on. See previous post if you are STILL having trouble with this basic math. Arthur
No arfa, what you calculated was NOT that 12.87% more votes were cast for the Republicans than for the Republicans. What you calculated was that the MARGIN of Republican votes over the Democrats (5.74 million votes) was equal to 12.87% of the total votes (44.59 milllion) for the Republicans. Kind of a pointless calculation and as typical of your posts, not at all relevant to the discussion. So Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, sorry, you're wrong. But thanks for playing. Arthur
(Duh ....) No. Rather, it's a question of whether your memory is that distorted. And, apparently, it is. That was obsolete at the time you dredged it up. It would behoove you to actually follow the discussion before responding. And you did a terrible job of trying to make whatever point that was: "The Popular vote was 51.4% of the vote or 44.6 million for the Republicans and only 44.8% of the vote, or just 38.9 millon for the Democrats. So while I know it is unpleasant to be in the minorioty Tiassa, the fact is in the most recent national polls, by a wide margin, Americans did not agree with your incredibly partisan and lopsided views." Note the words "wide margin". Therein lies the key to your funky math. After bawling about how mean I'm being to conservatives who are willfully intellectually dishonest, you returned to this point, again using the phrase "wide margin": "Just to REFRESH your memory: In the 2010 Senate races the Popular vote was 33.8 million for Dems vs 37 million for Republicans. In the Congressional races where the Democrats lost 63 seats (the highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938) the Popular vote was 51.4% or 44.6 million for the Republicans and just 38.9 millon for the Democrats. So the fact is in the most recent national polls, by a wide margin, Americans did not agree that the Republicans are trying to burn down the house." By your own math, the first margin is 2.8%. This is established by the following simple difference: n=100 n - 51.4 = 48.6 51.4 - 48.6 = 2.8 That certainly isn't much of a wide margin. Of course, your basic number was wrong. In this case, the real difference is actually 6.9%: n=100 n - 53.4 = 46.6 53.4 - 46.6 = 6.8 And the one-tenth difference is from rounding the hundredths. Basically, you're dealing with basic mathematical differences. Arithmetic. Subtraction. d = a - b. But you need a wide margin, and 6.9% isn't wide enough, since Barack Obama won by 7.2% in 2008. And we see what respect conservatives have fora 7.2% margin—absolutely none. You need a wider margin, you you're insisting on another equation: d = (a - b)/b It's a fine number, but essentially meaningless. That's the sort of number you push at people in television adverts when you want them to buy more, more, more, because the more, more, more, they buy the more, more, more they'll save. And it's also the introduction of an extraneous statistic intended to bolster your wide stance margin theory. It would be like introducing a baseball stat of batting average that equals h/(b[sub]a[/sub]-k), or, calculating the batting average as hits divided by at bats minus strikeouts. It's a fine number, to be certain, but hardly the standard for the point you're trying to make. By your math, Barack Obama received nearly sixteen percent more votes than John McCain (15.887%), and we see what that "wide margin" is worth. Your number is completely useless. Take the electoral vote. Did Barack Obama win 68% of the electoral college votes? Yeah, sure. But that's still not a worthy margin compared to what you're demanding. One hundred eleven percent more electoral votes? I don't know, compared to fourteen percent, is that a wide enough margin? It's a silly statistic, and quite clearly nobody's buying it. Not only is it an odd application, but it is still insignificant because it doesn't really say anything. You also need to learn how to read. You cried about how hard I was being on Madanthonywayne; burning down the house is part of that discussion. There is no morphing involved. Is the problem, then, a lack about your literacy, or your integrity? What explains your persistent distortion and misrepresentation?
You Know It's Over When .... You Know It's Over When .... You know it's over when Gloria Allred is getting involved. The idea that a presidential campaign can withstand the circus of a complaint represented by the famed attorney is in itself the sort of thing one might well need to be disqualified over. Or maybe not. Maybe that's how American politics go in the twenty-first century. Let us, then, check the update as Randy Kreider reports for ABC News: A fourth woman will come forward later today and accuse Republican presidential frontrunner Herman Cain of sexual harassment, according to attorney Gloria Allred. Allred and the unidentified woman plan to hold a joint press conference in New York at 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. The woman would be the fourth to allege sexual harassment by the presidential candidate, former restaurant chain owner and former president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association. Two women filed internal complaints against Cain alleging harassment at the NRA in the 1990s and received settlements from the trade group. On Friday, an attorney for one of the women said she would decline to come forward and discuss the case further. The Associated Press has reported that a third woman considered filing a complaint while working at the NRA but opted against it because a coworker had already filed. Cain had denied the allegations of harassment, and has charged the presidential campaign of Texas governor Rick Perry with leaking the story. Perry's campaign denies any involvement, which surfaced in Politico more than a week ago. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich came to Cain's defense on Saturday, by complaining that the news media failed to follow journalistic standards. Perhaps the papers and networks should go back to lifting Drudge and scrambling for illegal evidence. On Monday, the Cain campaign greeted the announcement of Gloria Allred's press conference with a derisive Tweet: "Welcome to the campaign, Gloria Allred. What took you so long?" Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is probably wishing right now that he'd been a bit more lecherous in younger years; the scandal may have hurt Cain's lead, the Walnut still leads the Republican pack: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! RCP Averages from polling through Nov. 3, 2011.____________________ Notes: Kreider, Randy. "Fourth Woman Accuses Herman Cain of Sexual Harassment". The Blotter. November 7, 2011. ABCNews.Go.com. November 7, 2011. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fourth-woman-accuses-herman-cain-sexual-harassment/story?id=14896935 RealClearPolitics. "2012 Republican Presidential Nomination". (n.d.) RealClearPolitics.com. November 7, 2011. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
