2020 Presidential Race

#31,026
#31,026
FLVOL_79 said:
Good thing this isnt a bulletin board where you left your card..
Click to expand...
I’m not going to say you have no response, because apparently making those types of obvious assumptions is “lawyer double talk,” but this was your opportunity to explain the relevance... and you didn’t. You’re on the bench. Not interested anymore.
 
#31,029
#31,029
RockyTop85 said:
Do you want to know what the rule says, or are you implying I bill people for being on here if I’m waiting in court? I don’t.

Rule 8: Rules of Professional Conduct. | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts
Click to expand...

You just implied you work for a firm with 70 people. A firm that size will have a billable minimum of 1200 to 2300 hours. This puts many lawyers at about a 70 hour work week as not everything is billable.

I am implying that there is no way in hell all the lawyers on here are meeting their quotas OR they arent really lawyers OR they are ambulance chasers sitting at their desk waiting for an accident.

It's just simple math man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#31,031
#31,031
I'm to the point where I would be in favor of ending Presidential elections. In fact I think the highest federal office voters should elect is to the House. Senators should be nominated by Governors and approved by State Congress. Controlling Federal House would nominate President and Senate would approve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#31,032
#31,032
VolnJC said:
I'm to the point where I would be in favor of ending Presidential elections. In fact I think the highest federal office voters should elect is to the House. Senators should be nominated by Governors and approved by State Congress. Controlling Federal House would nominate President and Senate would approve.
Click to expand...
No way to put that toothpaste back in the tube at this point, I'm afraid
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#31,033
#31,033
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. Democrats are united in their disgust for Trump. Voter turnout was higher than expected during the primaries and caucuses. Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump. That is not apathy. Biden was nominated, not because he inspires anyone, but because he is viewed as the most practical opposition to Trump. I really believe that Trump helped Biden garner the Democratic Party nomination by making it so obvious that he didn't want to face him in the general election. Trump's actions with Ukrainian President Zelensky make it very clear that Biden was the candidate that Trump didn't want to face... that did wonders to help make Biden's best (and only) argument for the nomination - he was the most viable opposition.
Click to expand...
Saw a pole that said 1 in 4 bernie supporters not voting for BidenBernie Sanders supporters not yet on board with voting for Joe Biden
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#31,035
#31,035
RockyTop85 said:
You mean you understood what I was talking about? I can’t imagine how...

I was just genuinely curious whether it was made up or not.

Population below the poverty line:
Kentucky: white: 586k; black 93k
Arkansas: white: 312k; black 132k
Oklahoma: white: 365k; black 74k
Mississippi: white: 208k; black 334k
Alabama: white: 382k; black 349k
Louisiana: white: 358k; black 434k
South Carolina: white: 356k; black 331k
West Virginia: uncontested.

2 of 8 isn’t so bad, I guess.

When it became obvious he was FOS and had no basis, I looked around on my own. I did find a 2004 political scientist’s research saying there was a fairly strong correlation between poor voters in poor states and voting democrat.

Given the growing correlation of people without a college degree voting Republican (see FL’s link) and the very strong negative correlation between a college Degree and poverty (see the Census data he linked) plus my own anecdotal observations of poor southern whites... I'm skeptical that this research is still valid.
Click to expand...
What is the percentage of population with those demographics? Numbers alone don't give the proper perspective
 
#31,037
#31,037
Acuna_Matata said:
Saw a pole that said 1 in 4 bernie supporters not voting for BidenBernie Sanders supporters not yet on board with voting for Joe Biden
Click to expand...
Bernie has already endorsed Biden. He didn't wait until June like he did with Hillary.... and he will be given a prime time slot in the convention, to ring the bell again. That isn't a concern... and there just aren't as many Bernie supporters this time around, anyway. Most of Bernie's support came in California, which Biden couldn't lose if he wanted to.
 
#31,038
#31,038
BowlBrother85 said:
Bernie has already endorsed Biden. He didn't wait until June like he did with Hillary.... and he will be given a prime time slot in the convention, to ring the bell again. That isn't a concern... and there just aren't as many Bernie supporters this time around, anyway. Most of Bernie's support came in California, which Biden couldn't lose if he wanted to.
Click to expand...
I don't really think Bernie's endorsement is going to have a big effect. Bernie's own spokesperson for his campaign refused to endorse Biden right after Bernie did his online video chat with Biden. I guess we'll end up seeing if the dem party is unified or not
 
#31,040
#31,040
NEOCON said:
You just implied you work for a firm with 70 people. A firm that size will have a billable minimum of 1200 to 2300 hours. This puts many lawyers at about a 70 hour work week as not everything is billable.

I am implying that there is no way in hell all the lawyers on here are meeting their quotas OR they arent really lawyers OR they are ambulance chasers sitting at their desk waiting for an accident.

It's just simple math man.
Click to expand...
I’ve never implied that I worked at any firm, much less one with 70 people and a billable hours minimum. You’re making things up or you’re just plain crazy.
 
Last edited:
#31,041
#31,041
Acuna_Matata said:
What is the percentage of population with those demographics? Numbers alone don't give the proper perspective
Click to expand...
How is presenting the statistic as a percentage of race relevant to which way the poor tend to vote?

He was saying that poor people tend to be democrats. It was explicitly based on the presumption that black people tend to vote democrat. While that’s statistically true, black people only account for about 1/4 of the poor in America (the point I was making in the posts you responded to).

That means, for his original statement to be supported, there needs to be evidence that significantly fewer than 2/3 of poor Whites tend to vote republican.

The number of poor black people relative to the overall number of poor is the relevant statistic. Breaking it down as black/white was probably an unnecessary concession to how he framed the issue, so if you want to see if other races make up a significant portion of the American poor and determine which way they tend to vote, maybe you can move that 2/3 breaking point up to 3/4 or something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#31,042
#31,042
RockyTop85 said:
I’m not going to say you have no response, because apparently making those types of obvious assumptions is “lawyer double talk,” but this was your opportunity to explain the relevance... and you didn’t. You’re on the bench. Not interested anymore.
Click to expand...
I've explained it well enough. Its not my problem that you don't understand. It isn't lawyer double talk, it's, well, there is no polite way to put it. Lets just say apparently you're not the coldest spoon in the fridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#31,043
#31,043
RockyTop85 said:
How is presenting the statistic as a percentage of race relevant to which way the poor tend to vote?

He was saying that poor people tend to be democrats. It was explicitly based on the presumption that black people tend to vote democrat. While that’s statistically true, black people only account for about 1/4 of the poor in America (the point I was making in the posts you responded to).

That means, for his original statement to be supported, there needs to be evidence that significantly fewer than 2/3 of poor Whites tend to vote republican.

The number of poor black people relative to the overall number of poor is the relevant statistic. Breaking it down as black/white was probably an unnecessary concession to how he framed the issue, so if you want to see if other races make up a significant portion of the American poor and determine which way they tend to vote, maybe you can move that 2/3 breaking point up to 3/4 or something.
Click to expand...
Look at the racial spreads for the poor. Compare that to racial % political affiliation. There is your answer. You are assuming that all White people under the poverty line vote straight Republican which is blatantly false. Its most likely a 50% split. Even if it was 75-25 Repub to Dim you still have more poor people voting democrat. But being below the poverty line isn't the only indicator of being poor..hundreds of thousands of dims in cities making good money struggling to pay their bills..

There is a reason part of the democrat party platform is to raise minimum wage to $15. It isn't to give people a "living wage". Its to appeal to their vast base of poor AF people. And what do a lot of poor people do? Struggle to pay their bills.
 
#31,045
#31,045
BowlBrother85 said:
Bernie has already endorsed Biden. He didn't wait until June like he did with Hillary.... and he will be given a prime time slot in the convention, to ring the bell again. That isn't a concern... and there just aren't as many Bernie supporters this time around, anyway. Most of Bernie's support came in California, which Biden couldn't lose if he wanted to because it's socialist state that we should just let fall to Mexico so I can visit for cheap tequila.
Click to expand...

FYP
 
#31,046
#31,046
FLVOL_79 said:
Look at the racial spreads for the poor. Compare that to racial % political affiliation. There is your answer. You are assuming that all White people under the poverty line vote straight Republican which is blatantly false. Its most likely a 50% split. Even if it was 75-25 Repub to Dim you still have more poor people voting democrat. But being below the poverty line isn't the only indicator of being poor..hundreds of thousands of dims in cities making good money struggling to pay their bills..

There is a reason part of the democrat party platform is to raise minimum wage to $15. It isn't to give people a "living wage". Its to appeal to their vast base of poor AF people. And what do a lot of poor people do? Struggle to pay their bills.
Click to expand...

No.

It needs to be significantly less than 66% of poor whites voting republican to support what you said since America’s poverty population is roughly 1 part black to 3 parts white. so 1/3 of whites voting dem = 50/50. How much beyond 50/50 it needs to go to support what you said is subjective, which is why I asked for a link. You offered your nickel, instead.

You’re also ignoring a number of variables like the roughly 5-10% of blacks that vote republican; the fact that poor people are more likely to be disenfranchised and, I would guess, less likely to vote in general; that black people are statistically more likely to be disenfranchised. So that pushes that 2/3 number lower although probably not by much. Accounting for other races might push it higher but other minorities don’t vote democrat at the same rate as black people have, historically.

I’m not assuming anything. I really don’t have a preferred outcome. I was legitimately interested in whether there was a correlation between poverty and party affiliation. I wanted to know if you had any real basis or if it was just something you pulled out of your ass. I’ve gotten my answer.
 
#31,049
#31,049
RockyTop85 said:
No.

It needs to be significantly less than 66% of poor whites voting republican to support what you said since America’s poverty population is roughly 1 part black to 3 parts white. so 1/3 of whites voting dem = 50/50. How much beyond 50/50 it needs to go to support what you said is subjective, which is why I asked for a link. You offered your nickel, instead.

You’re also ignoring a number of variables like the roughly 5-10% of blacks that vote republican; the fact that poor people are more likely to be disenfranchised and, I would guess, less likely to vote in general; that black people are statistically more likely to be disenfranchised. So that pushes that 2/3 number lower although probably not by much. Accounting for other races might push it higher but other minorities don’t vote democrat at the same rate as black people have, historically.

I’m not assuming anything. I really don’t have a preferred outcome. I was legitimately interested in whether there was a correlation between poverty and party affiliation. I wanted to know if you had any real basis or if it was just something you pulled out of your ass. I’ve gotten my answer.
Click to expand...
You sure seem obsessed with trying to disprove a reality that you don't like. No variables were ignored. I like to keep things simple when speaking to simple people.

And if you think the 5 to 10% of blacks who vote Republican are poor, well, you're going to be wrong again. Keep spinning your wheels, its fun.


tl;dr: Most people who are poor and cant pay their bills are democrats. Fact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top