LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
"January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.
Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.
He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving."
These are all pretty close, given the low donations from the military in general. I wouldn't say a preference can be taken from these numbers. It also includes retired military personnel, which skews the numbers towards Paul, imo.
Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.
He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving."
These are all pretty close, given the low donations from the military in general. I wouldn't say a preference can be taken from these numbers. It also includes retired military personnel, which skews the numbers towards Paul, imo.
You made the assertion, your statistics are proven false, you have the burden of proof to prove your assertion, not me.
Money doesn't talk. Votes talk.
They have been proven false because they are absolutely ridiculous assertions. Only an intellectually bankrupt statistician would accept your "proof" as anything but poof spinnery intended to obfuscate reality. The reality of the situation is that Ron Paul had his zealous bots who gave a lot of money but weren't anywhere near the numbers needed for a significant vote.
They further obfuscate reality by claiming their was imbalance in the media coverage, when, in fact, nobody wants to listen to the moron because he sounds like a complete nutjob.
Dollars do not translate into supporters directly.
Do you deny the statement that I made above in regards to 10 dollars from 1 voter is not the same as 1 dollar from 10 voters?
Get with reality, if you keep denying it all you do is further marginalize your position, alienating yourself from the base of voters you should be courting. This, in fact, hurts your cause instead of helping it.
Donations DO NOT EQUAL STATISTICS. For fucks sake people.
1. If you told me that *EVERY* person in the military donated $1, then it might translate into something meaningful. However, the fact that different donation amounts can skew the figure means it cannot be used for statistical analysis. To do so goes against all tenants of statistical analysis as your data set is corrupt.
2. Unless the donation of that money can be tied *DIRECTLY* to the actual stance of getting out of Iraq, then any conclusion that the money = getting out of Iraq is also false.
If you guys want to prove something, then get actual VOTES or statistical studies with large sample sizes and measurements of significance that actually mean something. Otherwise all of your "facts" are nothing more than spin.
I love how people who obviously haven't taken one statistics class claim the contrary.
You guys are fricking jokes.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
"I'm not really sure what you mean by "skew"? Retired military personal aren't as informed so they don't count or what? "
I mean that the claim was that it was active duty military who were supporting Paul more. Retired military may want to go home, but not from the war zones.
"Ok, this argument didn't start with Paul's military donation numbers. It started with the assertion that our troops want to come home. Now, that assertion isn't supported only with Paul's military donations, but certainly Obama's as well. "
The donations don't seem to amount to much, though. If a lot of soldiers wanted to go home, why isn't there a flood of money to the candidates who have said they'll end the war quickly?
I mean that the claim was that it was active duty military who were supporting Paul more. Retired military may want to go home, but not from the war zones.
"Ok, this argument didn't start with Paul's military donation numbers. It started with the assertion that our troops want to come home. Now, that assertion isn't supported only with Paul's military donations, but certainly Obama's as well. "
The donations don't seem to amount to much, though. If a lot of soldiers wanted to go home, why isn't there a flood of money to the candidates who have said they'll end the war quickly?
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
"Just what kind of salary do you think an enlisted man gets?
Most troops can't afford to donate to a political campaign. "
Then what's the point of the argument about the money proving anything?
Since I served on active duty in the Army from 1991 to 1994, I have a good idea of what an enlisted man makes. Much of Paul's money was from small contributions, wasn't it?
Most troops can't afford to donate to a political campaign. "
Then what's the point of the argument about the money proving anything?
Since I served on active duty in the Army from 1991 to 1994, I have a good idea of what an enlisted man makes. Much of Paul's money was from small contributions, wasn't it?
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
I have no way of knowing that and I'm getting tired of arguing the point. Regardless of what facts we put forth you'll argue it until you're blue in the face just as you all argued that it didn't mean a damned thing when Ron Paul had millions of dollars rolling in all the while John McCain was firing his staff because he couldn't afford to keep them. It doesn't matter.
You'll believe whatever you want to believe regardless of any statistic.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I'm not in total disagreement with you.
If this were only Paul's military donations, that is one thing. But its not. The truth is that the two candidates who promise to bring the troops home as soon as possible, are the same two candidates that brought in more money via military donations than all others combined.
Maybe after the GE, we can get some harder numbers showing who the military voted for.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Do you honestly believe that the donation figures translate directly to widespread or significant support among military personnel? Seriously?
You REALLY need to go back to school and take a statistics course...
Is anyone else here able to nail down a statistic that tells us the percentage of the general population who contribute to national-level political campaigns? I'm having trouble finding it, but it will go a long way to pwning these clowns...
My plan is to apply the percentage to the entire military and demonstrate just how small the number is -- even though my guess is that an even smaller number of military personnel do so than the general population, it's still the best stat we can use because I doubt there have been any studies to demonstrate the military percentage specifically.
Whatever the case, maybe one of you google gurus can get me that percentage... thanks ahead of time!
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
As of April 2007, there were approximately 2,885,200 members of our military (Active + Reserve).
Between January and September of 2007, RP received $63,440 in donations from "the military."
So, as of last September, even if there were 63,440 unique contributers, at $1 each (yeah right!), the highest possible percentage of support that RP can claim is 2.2% of total military personnel.
There, have some "facts," RP-style... :roll:
/cue the crickets...
Between January and September of 2007, RP received $63,440 in donations from "the military."
So, as of last September, even if there were 63,440 unique contributers, at $1 each (yeah right!), the highest possible percentage of support that RP can claim is 2.2% of total military personnel.
There, have some "facts," RP-style... :roll:
/cue the crickets...
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
'just as you all argued that it didn't mean a damned thing when Ron Paul had millions of dollars rolling in all the while John McCain was firing his staff because he couldn't afford to keep them."
History seems to be on our side, though.
What did Ron Paul's money mean?
History seems to be on our side, though.
What did Ron Paul's money mean?
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Who said that? The statistics given are for financial support which is an *indicator* of overall military support. How simple do I have to make it for you?
Would I bet my left arm that if the president were elected by military personal votes only that Ron Paul would be the president? Certainly not and I never suggested such a thing. Clearly Ron Paul has a strong support base in the military and he would not have received more donations than any other candidate if this weren't so. That's what this statistic says and we look at this statistic because we care what the military thinks.
It's not an indicator for anything. Technically, 30 people could have given that entire amount. That's why the number is bullshit, it gives no indication *AT ALL* of overall support.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
"Clearly" I forgot that, in RP's World, 2.2% is considered "strong."
Which is a very generous percentage btw, considering the fact we had to use 63.440 unique contributers, at $1 each, to even get the percentage that high! My guess is that his true support within the military hovers somewhere around the 1% range, if that. :roll:
Just give up... nothing short of brick to the forehead will clue these clowns in. The concepts of logic and statistical analysis are beyond them.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: Perry404
Right. The fact that he led the crop in donations means absolutely nothing and the fact that he was easily leading all republicans in total donations means absolutely nothing. You're a pillar of fiery logic.
Do I need to use crayons and smaller words?
We are discussing his total support, in terms of percentages, amongst members of the entire military -- not just those who donate(d) money!!!
Which, based on the math, and being very generous (silly) with the number of unique contributers, hovers around 1-2%...AT BEST!
Now, if that percentage is considered "strong" in RP's World, then so be it...
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Perry404
Right. The fact that he led the crop in donations means absolutely nothing and the fact that he was easily leading all republicans in total donations means absolutely nothing. You're a pillar of fiery logic.
Do I need to use crayons and smaller words?
We are discussing his total support, in terms of percentages, amongst members of the entire military -- not just those who donate(d) money!!!
Which, based on the math, and being very generous (silly) with the number of unique contributers, hovers around 1-2%...AT BEST!
Now, if that percentage is considered "strong" in RP's World, then so be it...
You can't discuss it in terms of the entire military with certainty because the entire military did not donate. You can only discuss it in terms of those who donated which, in Ron Pauls case, is a very high percentage. What makes a statistic useful is that generally it is representative of its group. Do you have reason to believe that in this particular case these number are severely and dramatically lopsided and not in line with experience? Then share the facts that lead you to this conclusion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter