The Education Factor

[JohnStOnge]

[

You're entitled to your own opinion, as well as the right to continue crying in your coffee


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The belief that Clinton would've won if not for the decision she made to use a private server for State Department business is an opinion, but it's a very reasonable one that I think most people would agree with. We can never know what would have happened if she hadn't done that. But it was obviously a huge factor.

The thing about people being better off now than people were in 1986 is not an opinion. It's strongly substantiated by data. For some reason people insist on being in denial about it. For some reason they appear to WANT to believe things were better back in the 1980s, 1970s, or 1960s.

But they just objectively weren't. It's not an opinion.

[CAA Flagship]

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

And, while I realize most people don't understand this, the typical American now is better off than the typical American was 30 years ago. The typical American has a higher income and more conveniences. They've got access to all sorts of things in terms of leisure and entertainment that the typical American did 30 years (which would be 1986) did not have access to.

It's swerving into a different subject again but this crap where people think people were better off 30, 40, 50 years ago is just that: crap.

The latest CBO report that breaks things down sufficiently for me to look in detail was published in 2013 and only goes through 2010. But in 2010 the bottom 20% of the population (first quintile) had average inflation adjusted household incomes 52% higher than they were in 1986, the second quintile's (20th through 40th percentile) average inflation adjusted income was 41% higher, the third quintile's (40th through 60th) was 32% higher, the fourth quintile's (60th through 80th) was 34% higher, and the top quintile's (top 20%) was 43% higher. Yes the peak was in 2007 and there's been a decline since then but there's no way inflation adjusted incomes have gotten even close to back down to what they were in 1986.

Meanwhile there are smart phones and other devices all over the place, the internet is way more advanced than it was then, health care technology is way better, on and on and on.

This crap where people romanticize what life was like decades ago and cling to this myth about it being materially better is just nonsense.

Not saying there aren't people that BELIEVE that and that the belief may influence how they vote. But it's a bunch of crap.

[93henfan]

Sorry, but it is what it is. And actually it makes sense because voting for Trump was a really stupid thing to do.

But obviously not as stupid as voting for Clinton.

[93henfan]

Oh yeah.

[CAA Flagship]

Oh yeah.

[CAA Flagship]

[CID1990]

[

You're entitled to your own opinion, as well as the right to continue crying in your coffee


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The belief that Clinton would've won if not for the decision she made to use a private server for State Department business is an opinion, but it's a very reasonable one that I think most people would agree with. We can never know what would have happened if she hadn't done that. But it was obviously a huge factor.

The thing about people being better off now than people were in 1986 is not an opinion. It's strongly substantiated by data. For some reason people insist on being in denial about it. For some reason they appear to WANT to believe things were better back in the 1980s, 1970s, or 1960s.

But they just objectively weren't. It's not an opinion.

We'll just lump you in with the other critical thinkers like Rosie O'Donnell and Van Jones, then.

There's a quote in this article by Senator Klobuchar you might want to check out - looks like even the Dems are realizing that blaming this on the FBI is not only silly, but also the formula for another loss in 2020.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/po ... ile=0&_r=0

For you to think that an announcement by the FBI about an investigation that had been ongoing for more than a year, into a woman with thirty years worth of ethical baggage - somehow moved the needle MORE than national economic concerns (regardless of how well off YOU think they ought to feel) is the height of illogic.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

There was no big surge in popularity for the Republican candidate this time. The big difference was a drop in enthusiasm for what the Democrats had on THEIR side.

JSO, plenty of Democrats voted...they simply voted for Trump this time.

Plenty of Republicans didn't vote Republican...because they are establishment losers.

[93henfan]

[CAA Flagship]

You're being intentionally obtuse. Most people have jobs. Most people are doing fine.

Most, yes. But take a look at a U-6 report and convert the 9.5 to number of people.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

That's a lot of people that are NOT doing fine. And most of them vote. And I'll bet the percentage is very, very high.

[CAA Flagship]

[CAA Flagship]

[93henfan]

[CAA Flagship]

[YoUDeeMan]

Not safe for work...but a really nice video.

phpBB [video]

Trump would grab it.

[JohnStOnge]

You know I set out to estimate the average IQ of Clinton voters and the average IQ of Trump voters and on the way I came upon what I think is an absolutely startling thing. That thing is the huge extent to which education level impacts likelihood of voting. I mean, I knew it was there. But not to this extent. Here is a table:



I mean...to me...that is startling. The percent population thing is percent of population 18 years or older from Census Bureau estimates. So 42% of the population consists of people who have a high school education or less but according to exit polling only 18% of voters were in that group.

And you can see how the ratio Percent Population : Percent Voters changes as education level goes up. That's just amazing. I mean, I guess it's a good thing that more educated people are much more likely to vote. But I had no idea that the effect was that dominant.

BTW, I estimated the average IQ of Clinton voters at 109 and the average IQ of Trump voters at 108 so not that much difference. I estimated that among the "Cognitive Elite" as defined by Hernstein and Murray (IQ 115 and up) Clinton had a 51% to 45% advantage, that among the top 5 percent of the IQ distribution she had a 51% to 44% advantage, and among the top 1 percent she had a 52% to 43% advantage. So not as "bad" for Trump among the smart people as I expected.

Still clear that the majority of smart people didn't want him to be President though.

[JohnStOnge]

I just have to mention this "stupid" factor.

I'd heard about this and looked it up today. You can see it in various places but here's one link:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald- ... id/749830/

Here's the key quote:

only 22 percent of Trump supporters are of the opinion that the Republican nominee will start a nuclear war.

Really? "Only" 22 percent? So 22 percent of the people who support Trump in the survey said that they think he will start a nuclear war but support him anyway?

I mean, how STUPID is that? Could you possibly BE more stupid? And you're talking about 1 in 5 Trump supporters.

[93henfan]

I just have to mention this "stupid" factor.

I'd heard about this and looked it up today. You can see it in various places but here's one link:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald- ... id/749830/

Here's the key quote:

only 22 percent of Trump supporters are of the opinion that the Republican nominee will start a nuclear war.

Really? "Only" 22 percent? So 22 percent of the people who support Trump in the survey said that they think he will start a nuclear war but support him anyway?

I mean, how STUPID is that? Could you possibly BE more stupid? And you're talking about 1 in 5 Trump supporters.

Hey genius. Psssssssst. The article you linked said 46% of voters think Trump will start nuclear war. You've been harping on how your girl Hillary won the popular vote. So if it's 22% for less than half of the survey, then to average 46% for the total survey population....

At least 70% of Hillary supporters think we're headed for nuclear armageddon.


Who is stupid now, motherfucker?

[CAA Flagship]

JSO = Just Say Ouch

[CID1990]

JSO just go beat your dog or take some meds or something

You're coming unhinged


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Hey genius. Psssssssst. The article you linked said 46% of voters think Trump will start nuclear war. You've been harping on how your girl Hillary won the popular vote. So if it's 22% for less than half of the survey, then to average 46% for the total survey population....

At least 70% of Hillary supporters think we're headed for nuclear armageddon.


Who is stupid now, motherfucker?

Obviously, the Hillary supporters who think Trump will start a nuclear war voted AGAINST Trump. The Trump supporters who think Trump will start a nuclear war voted FOR Trump.

Voting FOR somebody who you think will start a nuclear war is stupid.

Voting AGAINST somebody who you think will start a nuclear war is not.

[JohnStOnge]

I want to mention that when I estimated IQs for the two groups of voters I decided beforehand on a certain set of assumptions. The estimated advantage for Clinton among the "cognitive elite" (top 15%) didn't come out as big as I thought it would but I went ahead and posted it because I intended to post it and wasn't going to not do it just because it didn't come out as big as I thought.

But I think I probably under estimated that difference based both on the fact that Clinton had such a big advantage among post grads and the fact that Clinton had a slight edge among the highest income group ($200K or more) reported. I assumed the standard deviations of IQ distributions for the two voter groups are equal at the typical IQ test standard deviation of 15. But in reality I think Democrat voter standard deviations tend to be greater. Frankly when you look at historical exit polling majorities of both the least educated (no high school) and most educated (post grad) usually vote Democrat. And if you jack up the standard deviation assumption for Democrats and jack down the assumption for the Republicans it raises the estimated advantage for Clinton among the "cognitive elite." For example if you assume standard deviation 10 for Republicans and 20 for democrats the estimated Clinton edge among the "cognitive elite" goes to 23 percentage points.

Anyway there's no question people of "above average" intelligence as usually defined by convention clearly voted majority Clinton. The convention I'm talking about is where they have the bell curve, people within +/- one standard deviation of the mean are called "average," people more than one standard deviation below the mean are called "below average," and people above one standard deviation from the mean are called "above average." That's what Hernstien and Murray more colorfully called the "cognitive elite."

If only smart people voted as defined in that way Clinton woud be President right now. No reasonable doubt about it. Not that there weren't smart people who voted for Trump. There were. But Clinton had a substantial at least and probably overwhelming edge among that group. Probably something along the lines of the 21% point edge she had among Post Grads.

[JohnStOnge]

It's also funny how you now claim IQ scores are such a major factor. You have spilled so much ink on this forum making the claim how low blacks score on standardized IQ tests. Blacks did, and always have voted as a block for Donk candidates. They voted in block for The Hildabeast, so please try and explain that dichotomy.

Then again, don't. **** it, its over. Take your ball and just go home.

Just happened across this one while I was looking for an earlier post I made. As I just happened to post, I suspect there is more variation in IQ scores among Democratic voters than among Republican voters. I think both people in the below average and above average ranges tend to vote majority Democrat in national elections while people in the average range tend to vote majority Republican.

There are various things that make me think that and the fact that Blacks and Hispanics vote in overwhelming majorities for Democrats is one of them. Another one is that when they do show estimates for people that didn't finish high school what you see is that the group the Democrats typically do best among in terms of percent margin is those who didn't finish high school. Then the percent edge for Democrats typically goes down as you move up the educational attainment scale from high school grad, some college, and college grad. Then when you get to post grads it flips back to Democrats; usually by something like a 10 to 20 percentage point margin.

So my impression has always been that the average IQs for the two groups are close to each other but if you look at each end...both low IQ and high IQ...the Democrats have substantial edges.

[YoUDeeMan]

JSO...why don't you break down the vote by majors.

The Engrish majors, along with Women's Studies, Drama, Kumbaya, and Fashion majors/post-doc folks probably voted for Hillary.

The engineers, and anyone who had a functional, logical brain, probably voted for Trump.

So there is smart, and then there is smart.

The dumb smart ones voted for Hillary because they are losers. The really smart ones voted for Trump and proved they were winners.

[kalm]

JSO...why don't you break down the vote by majors.

The Engrish majors, along with Women's Studies, Drama, Kumbaya, and Fashion majors/post-doc folks probably voted for Hillary.

The engineers, and anyone who had a functional, logical brain, probably voted for Trump.

So there is smart, and then there is smart.

The dumb smart ones voted for Hillary because they are losers. The really smart ones voted for Trump and proved they were winners.

Rec majors overwhelmingly voted for Johnson.

Snootchie bootchies!