Here It Is: Tea Partiers Show True Colors

[ElvisL1ves]

But “Teaparty folks who make the news by being coherent” IS?

[FinnAgain]

Elvis, go be stupid at someone else.

[ElvisL1ves]

You forgot to call me a liar and a bigot. You’re slipping.

[Gyrate]

How many examples do we need before it will be generally accepted that calm rationality and Tea Party members are mutually exclusive?

Let me know so I can start collecting now.

[VinylTurnip]

n+1, apparently.

[kaylasdad99]

@FinnAgain

Elvis, go be stupid at someone else.

@ElvisL1ves

You forgot to call me a liar and a bigot. You’re slipping.

Get a room, you two.:rolleyes:

[FinnAgain]

@Gyrate

How many examples do we need before it will be generally accepted that calm rationality and Tea Party members are mutually exclusive?

Let me know so I can start collecting now.

I trust you’ve been here long enough to have heard the phrase “the plural of anecdote is not evidence?”

It’s very simple. In order to make a valid statistical analysis of a population, you generally need two things - a randomized sample, and one that is of sufficient size. Barring that, you simply do not have enough information to draw valid conclusions about the demographic composition of a group, and you have not falsified the Null Hypothesis (which is not, “this group significant diverges from the national average”). Do we have such a study? One may exist, but I haven’t seen it.

This sort of behavior wouldn’t fly if the target was some group that was a sacred cow at the Dope. If it was anti-war protesters during the Bush years, very few folks here would be saying that because you can see images of some truly outrageous signs/behavior/whatever, that it proves that all anti-war protesters are dangerous lunatics. Same goes for any minority group; you wouldn’t say “many of the black people in the news tend to be there for doing X, Y and Z, therefore blacks as a whole are X, Y and Z?”

It’s just simple logic. If you want to claim that the Teaparty has an unacceptable number of loons, go for it. If you want to claim that it has to clean up its image or police its ranks, go for it. If you want to claim that the fallacies of hasty generalization and biased sample are a compelling logical proof, you need to check your work.

@kaylasdad99

Get a room, you two.:rolleyes:

There’s no need to get a room, Elvis is just mildly mentally retarded and given to blustering about whatever the fuck he’s on about without bothering to go through the tedious steps of finding out wtf he’s talking about. In the absence of valid statistical data the answer is “the Null Hypothesis has not been falsified and there is not currently proof as to the demographic nature of a group.” It is not “my alternate anecdotes are more evidencey than yours!!!”
I’m not sure what kind of fool takes a valid statement about the limit of demographic claims in the absence of valid statistical methodology to mean that we can make definite claims, but Elvis is that kind of fool.
~shrugs~

[Gangster_Octopus]

If it wasn’t for FOX mainstreaming the Tea Party they could be treated like incoherent rfar right wing nutcases. But unfortuantely FOX and even more mainstream news istreating them like the Tea Party has sojmething useful to offer. Therefore they deserve far more scrutiny and ridicule.

[silenus]

These loons won’t be happy until they are all collected in the middle of the night by the Black Helicopters, aided by Grey Aliens sent by the Rosacrucians to mind-rape their grand-mothers.

May their innermost wishes come true.

[joebuck20]

According to this article Mike Vanderboegh collects $1,300 a month in disability from the government. That sounds a bit socialist to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010032402500

[ElvisL1ves]

@kaylasdad99

Get a room, you two.:rolleyes:

The false equivalence fallacy yet again? :rolleyes:

You’ve been here long enough to know better.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@FinnAgain

It’s just simple, very basic logic. In order to make statistical claims about a group, you need a valid scientific survey. “Teaparty folks who make the news by being nutty” is not a sufficient large and randomized sample.

Recent Survey of Race and Politics

An analysis of this survey rom fivethirtyeight.com:

tea party sympathizers believe blacks are less intelligent, hardworking and trustworthy. They appear to be particularly wary of immigrants. And they don’t much care for gays, either. (Although note that two-thirds of them support gays in the military, an issue on which policy has long lagged public sentiment.)

Again, this is a comparison of white attitudes, not differences between whites and non-whites. Which means that avid white tea party sympathizers do not even hold mainstream attitudes among whites. If we included the attitudes of non-whites, the views of white tea party sympathizers would be even more aberrant.

ETA: Waiting for a variation on the them of "well this survey is obviously a bunch of crap because it does not agree with my pre-conceived notions in five, four, three, two, one…

[tagos]

The Teapers define themselves as loons by their suddenly discovered concern for fiscal prudence now that there’s a nigger in the WH and their hypocrisy of sucking at the public teat while decrying it.

[Drain_Bead]

@Chen019

Or yell and swear at the cops.

Sharpton traffic stop case to be @#$#! dismissed

If you were a cop, would you rather be sworn at or shot at? I know which one I pick, but you seem to be insinuating that they’re one and the same.

[John_Mace]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Recent Survey of Race and Politics

An analysis of this survey rom fivethirtyeight.com:

ETA: Waiting for a variation on the them of "well this survey is obviously a bunch of crap because it does not agree with my pre-conceived notions in five, four, three, two, one…

Nope. That survey has already been debunked in other threads. All they did was compare white people who strongly support TPs and white people who strongly disagree with TPs. There is no comparison done between white supporters of TPs and a random sample of white Americans. It’s not so much that the poll was bad (although it wasn’t particularly good), but the analyst drew conclusions from the data which don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Now, I would not be surprised to find that TPs hold more racist attitudes than the average American (although not by much). But that survey did not prove that.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@John_Mace

Nope. That survey has already been debunked in other threads. All they did was compare white people who strongly support TPs and white people who strongly disagree with TPs. There is no comparison done between white supporters of TPs and a random sample of white Americans. It’s not so much that the poll was bad (although it wasn’t particularly good), but the analyst drew conclusions from the data which don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Now, I would not be surprised to find that TPs hold more racist attitudes than the average American (although not by much). But that survey did not prove that.

I don’t think it was debunked as much as you simply indicated your displeasure with it, and with the conclusions. I’m sure you’re quite clever and all, but your opinions still do not form a definitive “debunking”.

YMMV.

[John_Mace]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I don’t think it was debunked as much as you simply indicated your displeasure with it, and with the conclusions. I’m sure you’re quite clever and all, but your opinions still do not form a definitive “debunking”.

YMMV.

What was incorrect about what I said? Do “white people who strongly oppose TPs” represent “average white people”? If not, then why do you accept the conclusion based on that assumption?

[FinnAgain]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Recent Survey of Race and Politics

Okay, some actual statistical data. That’s good. But what are its actual methodological uses and limits?

[

One way in which to view these preliminary results is that we should remain cautious, and not jump to firm conclusions. I say this, first, because the sampling frame I use differs from, say, recent polls conducted by Pew, Qunnipiac, the Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup. Indeed, my results are relevant only to the states in which the survey was conducted, four of which (NV, MO, GA, and NC) voted for the Republican presidential candidate in at least seven of the last ten election cycles. Perhaps this is why my results appear at variance with national polls.

Another reason to proceed with caution is that I don’t have an item that directly measures tea party membership. Indeed, support for the tea party isn’t the same as accounting for group membership much less group identification, both if which tend to powerfully predict attitudes and behavior. With that in mind, it’s entirely possible that I’ve underestimated the effect of the tea party on political attitudes, and will likely do so in future analysis on its effect on political behavior.

Moreover, I make no claim that the data is representative of the country. Rather, they are representative of the states that were sampled. Appropriate weights, based upon the American Community Survey, have been constructed.

](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/pollster-responds-to-your-questions.html)

Hardly a slam dunk.

@Euphonious_Polemic

ETA: Waiting for a variation on the them of "well this survey is obviously a bunch of crap because it does not agree with my pre-conceived notions in five, four, three, two, one…

It’s okay, we already got “this study is obvious gospel truth, even though the guy who carried it out says otherwise, because it confirms my pre-conceived notions…”

As I’m pointing out, in the absence of valid statistical study, the answer is “we don’t know, and the Null Hypothesis hasn’t been falsified.” Not “yeah, believe whatever you’d prefer.”

[tagos]

@John_Mace

Nope. That survey has already been debunked in other threads. All they did was compare white people who strongly support TPs and white people who strongly disagree with TPs.

Not true. Why don’t you actually read the report instead of posting untruths?

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/mssrp_table.pdf

See all those columns?

Want to read the headings?

Want a quote from the paper?

Similar results obtain for egalitarianism, where strong supporters of the movement appear less inclined toward equality. Consider the proposition where the distance between groups is greatest. When asked to opine on whether or not “we’d have many fewer problems in this country” if people more treated more equally, only 31% of true believers agreed, versus 55% of those in the middle, reflecting a 24 percentage-point difference. The smallest difference, a 17 points, emerges when respondents were asked whether or not “our society should do whatever is necessary to ensure equal opportunity in this country,” where 81% of those in the middle agree, versus 64% of true believers. Overall, the mean difference is approximately 22 points.

Finally, at least for this round of analysis, we turn to the way in which support or the tea party informs how people perceive the president. At its most narrow, 21 points separate true believers from those who dwell in the middle, where 65% of the latter see the president as a strong leader versus 44% of the former group. The gap reaches its widest point on the issue of whether or not the president is moral: 64% of those in the middle agree that he is moral versus only 32% of true believers. Overall, the mean difference between the groups, in the way in which both perceive the president, is approximately 26 points.

Isn’t it shit when people don’t take your hand-waving at face value.

[FinnAgain]

@tagos

Not true.

Another reason to proceed with caution is that I don’t have an item that directly measures tea party membership. Indeed, support for the tea party isn’t the same as accounting for group membership much less group identification, both if which tend to powerfully predict attitudes and behavior.

Just to be clear, you are now claiming that the guy who created and conducted the study is lying about the methodology and conclusions involved… why? What’s his motivation?