sorry wannabe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194702)

https://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/08192008/4/2/8/8/42883de260cc40_full.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194732)

Republicans won: "Associates degree" and "HS or less"

Democrats won: "some college" "bachelors" "advanced degree"

"advanced degree" by largest margin

Republicans aren't even trying to compete for college grads anymore.

College grad or higher vote = 59 D, 41 R

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194695)

So By segmenting the voters into "Educated" and "Uneducated" - you're segmenting a group of people having age distribution highly disproportionately younger than the overall age distribution of voters (population of voters). Looking at this 'educated' segment and pointing to how it's more blue than red isn't telling you what you think it's telling you, and the irony of your snark calling others in the thread stupid while in fact it's your egregious misinterpretation of basic statistics that stands out to a statistician reading this entire thread.

You're just chopping off a segment composed disproportionately (highly) of a confounder for voting Dem, young age segment - and you're looking at this segment and concluding that it's "more educated" instead of noticing what's really happening which is that it's "more young", a confounder for voting dem. Your interpretation of this segment is absolutely worthless - it's what we already know before you even chopped off the segment, i.e. that young people are more likely to be in the "educated" category.

Your interpretation of the data / percentages is completely off base - segmenting "educated" then pointing out how there's a higher proportion of blue in that very segment is just tautological, and it shows off a blatant lack of statistical / quantitative skills which would be forgiven were it not for the condescension towards others ITT while at the same time embarrassing yourself with your attempt at basic quantitative analysis.

Meanwhile - even controlling for age, we can run along the axis of income levels, segmenting voters into income intervals of e.g. <25k, 25-50k, 50-75k, 75-100k, 100-200k, 200k+, and Democrats consistently mop up with the absolute lowest income levels by extraordinary margins - this is their bread and butter. But as you keep hopping rightward in income segments, the proportion of people in the bucket voting GOP will continually increase.

In other words - the propensity to vote GOP is positively correlated with income segment even controlling for age. Note how I'm not going to say this means all Democrats are retarded - or that this gives me any useful info on a specific individual. But I will say it again because it's true - the propensity to vote GOP is positively correlated with income segment, even controlling for age.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196135)

Did I just waste 15 minutes replying to a troll?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196334)

you probably cant read because youre a nazi hvac technician

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194670)

53% D 45% R 2% O

Whites no degree 41%

37% D 61% R 2% O

Non-whites college grads 10%

77% D 22% R 1% O

Non-whites no degree 18%

76% D 22% R 2% O

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194680)

Additionally - Varying individual-level levels of income is how you obtain some decent between-individual variance in intellect (it's not perfect but it's pretty good) - not a binary categorization of "educated" / "not educated" - especially when receiving a shitty education is confounded with age - in other words educated means substantially more to older age segments, as opposed to now where anyone can get a college education and 4 year degrees have spread to the margins of society in a very substantial way - and can often mean less than a trade skill for income potential.

It doesn't take solving partial differential equations to see how much more meaningful a trend like the following is (this is the data from 2012 all I have atm):

< 25k, 32% R 64% D

25-50k, 40% R 55% D

50-75k, 46% R 52% D

75-100k, 51% R 46% D

100-200k, 53% R 44% D

This doesn't control for age - but even controlling for age that will just simply shift the point where the majority flips the trend is what's important. And what we see, consistently, is that Dems clean up by extraordinary margins in the very lowest income levels, not surprising obviously. Conversely - moving up the income ladder increases the propensity for voting GOP, even controlling for age. For example - even in states like NY / CA, if you segment voters making 100k+, this is a majority republican voting group that Republicans consistently carry (Trump carried narrowly).

I will gladly await an argument how educated vs. uneducated gives us any insight when the proportional difference is say 10-20%, and age is confounded with education - i.e. older voters are less educated, younger voters are over-educated. If you insist on the education binary - I will still take the higher income uneducated over the super low income educated (excluding students / just graduated) any day.

The irony of looking at a proportional difference of e.g. 20% of a voting population of millions and interpreting a marginal binary proportional difference as "republicans are retarded".........

Neither their binary nor this trend tells us much about any given individual of such a large population - but if they insist on this competition I'll take this trend all day.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196091)

There are tons of trades people and small business owners who make good money but aren't very smart. And then there are Harvard grads who decide to become social workers and teachers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196178)

Educated vs Not educated surely correlates well - but we can't exploit the variance as much as with income because we're stuck dealing with proportional differences of broad / vague categorizations.

But that's not my main point. My point is that age segment is negatively correlated with "educated" category - older age groups will have lower percentage of people who are in educated category. Lower age segments are positively correlated with educated category - as education has spread to the margins to such extreme degrees it's actually a detriment to many people (that's not my argument here though).

So by segmenting on "educated" (which is confounded with age segment which correlates well to voting Dem), you get a segment that's highly disproportionately YOUNG, which is a major confounder here as it predicts voting Dem very well.

So you can't just segment "educated" versus "uneducated" - then point to the fact that educated is far more blue then claim victory, because educated is also far more YOUNG as well. You've chopped off a segment containing a disproportionately high level of a confounder for the party you vote for, in this case a disproportionately high level of young segment compared to the distribution of age segments in the overall voting population. The only way to resolve this is a subjective debate about just how far into the margins 4 year educations have creeped. This wouldn't be an issue were it not for how education has evolved this way - all else equal, in the older voters, education is a better signal for intelligence than it is in the younger voters - there are so many worthless educations that exist in today's youth that didn't exist in the same way back then.

Sure there are tradesman and farmers earning good money who are uneducated - to get anywhere with this binary categorization we need to resolve are they more numerous than the number of Lakeisha's who got a worthless college education? Are they equally smart? They both exist, and personally I wouldn't underestimate how far into the margins our education industrial complex has spread over the last few decades blossoming into a giant bureaucracy. We have more outstanding student loan dollars in the u.s. than credit card debt dollars - but this isn't definitive nor quantitative it's just a subjective argument from me that resolves nothing.

The binary comparisons don't get anywhere - even significant differences of say 20% because we can't see how each side is composed because education can vary significantly but all that variance in educational quality is lost in this binary grouping. Income pits Lakeisha vs. Darnell, uneducated union dude vs. uneducated farmer dude - I'm not claiming it's experimentally sound, but we know income is a pretty good signal of IQ on average for a population, but saying here's education level in group A versus education level in group B.......... We know next to nothing about what that means.

Sure there are dumb people clearing 200k. But on average, keep taking random samples of people in the 150-200k salary range, and keep comparing them to e.g. paired repeated samples in the 50-75 or 75-100 salary range, and I'm betting on the IQ (on average) in the 150-200k group once we average out those repeated samples (just as a way to think about it)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196314)

ALL the educational variance / info is lost in this binary grouping - OTOH we already know very well that income is a good signal for IQ, I mean the pearson correlation coefficient is seriously like 0.6 or something (i'll have to check that some time) for the co-movement measurement between IQ and income. Yeah stupid farmers can make money like he said but doesn't matter, on average the 150k ppl are smarter than the 40k ppl, income gives us the variance we need here, but even though I agree with everything you said, they're so wrong that i just had to concede substantially which still is far off.

what's wrong with me man? i gotta go to work in a few min anglican good lord - I get the SICKNESS sometimes and just go nuts here. later man i'll go on a spree this weekend some late hour i'm sure. have a good one!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196394)

2) going to college makes you smarter - it teaches you to think critically, read and write more officially. It exposes you to new ideas. You meet different types of people from different backgrounds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196584)

You have no response.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37202662)

You have to be the dumbest person on the board right now, and I'm including J-J-Julia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37301751)

stuffwhitepeoplelike: wondering why noncumskins vote D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37194709)

also weird post given your squawking about being xoxo's oliginar tlump votah

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37297584)

Part of it is the basic social level - once we stop acting like pussies and admit to our friends and social / professional circles that yeah we support Trump or even just yeah I vote gop / republican, and show not once fucking shred of shame about it like in '16 - then these type of people start to look around and notice that their political company that surrounds them is their girlfriend, her friends, and their gay friend, while most of the white males with good jobs he knows vote GOP, then the gears start grinding. I've seen this happen to a salvaged soul.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196142)

it's totally happening, the wheels are *slowly* turning.

ppl hate talking abt Richard Spencer, but his new GF is some 20-something raving shitlib PhD student... and her comment justifying their relationship was 'look, Richard Spencer is a reasonable, moderate person, regardless of what you think of his racialism...'

these people WILL wake up eventually... it's inevitable, given the irreversible trajectory of the left.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37196162)

He's too smart for XO 2018.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4128365&forum_id=2#37298407)