Skip to main content

View Diary: More gay bashing on the left: "Talk about voting against your own interest!" (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  orestes, if you're still out there (0+ / 0-)

    your comment is ridiculous. What statistics book did you use to determine hat percentages don't matter? In what world does mathematics work the way you described it?

    This is an embarrassing comment from you:

    No increase in numbers voting republican here, but the percentage increases.

    The fact that you're trying to statistically and mathematically hang your hat on that premise is comical.

    No increase but the percentage increased?

    That's the whole point!

    So according to you, if in 2008 200,000 out of 1 million gays vote Republican and then in 2010 200,000 out of 200,000 gays vote Republican there is no increase in gays voting Republican and Democrats have nothing to talk about regarding the gay vote because "there was no increase"?

    You've just turned the concept of polling on its head.

    Put another way, in your scenario, ALL (100%) of the 200,000 less gay votes in the 2010 election would have to vote Democratic to keep the percentage the same as 2008. What are the odds of that statistically given the 1 in 4 frequency of Republican voting gays for the first 800,000 voters?

    Do you really want to stand by your "statistical" analysis?

    Do you still want to stand

    •  I am speechless (0+ / 0-)

      The statement that you point to is a factual one based upon my example.  In both scenarios the same number of GLBT people voted republican.  I can't fathom what is comical about that.  Accordingly, the rest of your comment is inane.

      •  You should be speechless (0+ / 0-)

        You have tossed the study of statistics on its head.

        In both scenarios the same number of GLBT people voted republican

        Yes, but the sample size changed as did the ratio (dramatically) and for you to say there is no statistical difference is adsurd. The comical aspect is that you told me to open a statistics book while you have sent the study of statistics back 500 years.

        According to you 200,000 people out of 1 million voting Republican is the same as 200,000 people out of 800,000. Simply put, it is not and no statistical scholar would say it is. Can't you see that just looking at the amount of gays who voted Republican without considering the sample size is statistically irresponsible. Since no two voting samples are ever exactly the same, in number or make up, the ratio or percentage of voters voting any particular way is all that matters. In this case the percentage of voters voting Republican increased dramatically. Again, to keep the percentage the same in 2010 as it was in 2008 ALL (100%) of the 200,000 less 2010 votes would have to be Democratic. Again, given that the ratio of gay voters voting Republican was 1 in 4 for the first 800,000 voters, what are the chances the missing 200,000 voters would suddenly drop to 0 out of 200,000 from 1 in 4? 800,000 is enough of a sample size to conclude that the ratio for next 200,000 votes would probably be very similar to the first 800,000 thus if 200,000 more gays had voted in 2010 most likely Republicans would have ended up with 250,000 total gay votes. And obviously 250,000 is more than 200,000.

        Put another way, if one baseball player had 50 hits out of 600 at bats in a season and another player had 50 hits in 200 at bats, who had the better season? According to your theory, they were equal because they both ended up with 50 hits but no one else on earth would agree becasue the batting average of the first player was .083 while the batting average of the second player was .250. Satistically, the second player was much beter. Tyat's just how statistics work.

        This whole conversation is ridiculous because it started with the diarist's flawed notion that ALL (100%) of gay voters should be shown gratitutde from Democrats EVEN the one's who voted Republican. This is a Democratic site devoted to getting Democrats voted into office and the diarist wanted the popuation of this website to hail the Republican voting gays. It has now reached the absurd point of people trying to argue that 25% of gays voting Republican is the same as 20% voting Republican in a tortured attempt to justify the diarist's ridiculous notion. Simply put, I am a Democrat on a Democratic site. Asking me or any other Democrat on this site to show unconditional support and gratitutde to gays who voted Republican is a travesty. I would much prefer the diarist spend his time lamenting the lost souls of the gays who voted Republican and vowing to get the word out about their huge mistake and instead have been told by him I have to show gratitude for their Republican vote and if I agree that gay people voting Republican are voting against their own self interest, I'm gay bashing. I competely reject both notions.

        •  You argue against a point i did not make (0+ / 0-)

          Mypoint, which was clearly stated, was that in my example the number of gays and lesbians who voted for republicans did not increase.  That looking solely at the percentages (based on a very small sample) does not show anything worthwhile.  

          Furhtermore, your baseball analogy is inapposite.  It would be a true statement that players A and B had the same number of hits in the season.  That would be the approprite analogy here.  

          It seems that you have an agenda to demonize gay and lesbian voters (lost souls?).  Fine, have at your agenda.  But it is completely irrelevant to my point.  If my example were accurate, the conclusion to draw would be that republican GLBT voters turned out whereas not as many Dem GLBT voters did.  You cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that the number of GLBT fols who voted republican increased.  This seems to be the conclusion you want to draw, whcih can only be based upon your agenda, not the facts in my hypothetical.

          •  Agenda? (0+ / 0-)

            Come on, that's desperate.

            Mypoint, which was clearly stated, was that in my example the number of gays and lesbians who voted for republicans did not increase.

            You told me to open up a statistics book. Is there a statistics book on earth that disregards the sample size and only considers one side of the equation? Your analysis flies is the face of statistical analysis and your attempt to label me as "agenda" driven is laughable. AGAIN, to keep things statistically equal ALL (100%) of the missing 200,000 votes from 2010 would have to be cast for Democrats in order for the ratio to stay the same as 2008. Would you expect that to happen? The longer you try to insist there is no statistical difference between these two years the more ridiculous you look.

            It would be a true statement that players A and B had the same number of hits in the season.  That would be the approprite analogy here.  

            The fact that the two players had the same amount of hits would be correct. The analogy that these two hitters were statistically equal would be massively incorrect. That's the problem with your analysis. It only considers one side of the equation to draw flawed conclusions. Open up your statistics book again.

            It seems that you have an agenda to demonize gay and lesbian voters (lost souls?)  

            It "seems" that way?

            This is a Democratic site devoted to getting Democrats voted into office and I'm a Democrat devoted to the same. Did you come here epecting neutral conversation? Do you find it surprising that I find Republican voters "lost souls"? This is not a gay site. It is not a Republican site. It's a Democratic site. Don't ask me to be accepting of Republican voters on this site. That's ridiculous. If there is anyone with an agenda it was the diarist who is obviously hostile to "straight lefties" who he called all "hypocrites". Or you trying to argue that 20% is equal to 25% and calling anyone who doesn't go along with that flawed notion is "agenda driven". If I'm "demonizing" anyone its voters who voted Republican, which is the subject at hand.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site