IQ and Politics

[max]

what do you think about this?

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

[thesightless]

Re: IQ and Politics

be careful of selective polling

[cocky_pusher]

Re: IQ and Politics

I think it that link exaggerates the normal conception of a popular idea. The idea: Kerry is smarter than Bush. So this link only enforces by any mean that specific popular believe with some suspicious data.

Anyway, Bush won because of the redneck Americans who don?t understand anything that happens outside their state boundaries. This is of course bad news for the rest of the world for the next 4 years and a pity for all of us who are not redneck patriots.

I just can?t believe why a president, who took the country into a war in Afghanistan, and a Vietnam like war in Iraq, was reelected. He lied to all Americans about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and got away with it. He pumped by political means only the price of oil to the sky $54 or so per barrel, which slows down economy in the whole world. And yet he got away with it. So you really have to have a low score IQ to have voted for his reelection! So the link may be a hoax, but it enforces a topic that hasn?t been digested by the popular mind.

__________________________________________________ ___________________
Anyone interested in financial algorithms visit my site www.tau-zweig.com

[krelm]

Re: IQ and Politics

Anyway, Bush won because of the redneck Americans who don?t understand anything that happens outside their state boundaries. This is of course bad news for the rest of the world for the next 4 years and a pity for all of us who are not redneck patriots.

No - Bush won for 2 reasons.

1. Kerry was the worst democratic candidates for quite awhile, backed by one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory.

2. Bush said GOD more than Kerry (figuratively, but you get the idea). Like it or not, the religious right is an influential voting block that the left does not have anything akin to. The Bush campaign made it a huge point to harp on the gay marriage thing and the abortion thing - 2 issues which are incredibly important to fanatical Christians. The Bush campaign made him the "moral values candidate" extremely well - to his advantage.

I saw an interesting point earlier today in an article here. Without having to read through the entire thing, the point was that Kerry was seriously damaged (and may have lost the election because of this) by
1) the decision by the mayor of San Francisco to okay gay marriages, and
2) by the Massachusetts court deciding to uphold gay marriages.
While these decisions may have looked like huge steps forward for gay rights at the outset, they prompted major outrage from the religious right and led to ballot measures in several states to ban gay marriages (all of which passed). Many people who otherwise would have not come out to vote did so because of anti-gay marriage measures. Ohio was one such state. Everybody knows what happened in Ohio - this state decided the election. How many ultra-conservative Christians in other states came out to vote for the "God Candidate (tm)" because of their outrage on this issue and their concern that America was in threat of becoming a "gay-lovin' moral dump"? Probably quite a few.

Despite all of his shortcomings, Kerry might still have won the election were it not for what happened in San Francisco and Massachusetts angering (and thus further mobilizing) the religious right. Beyond that, gay rights in the US were pushed back years - 2 steps forward, 11 steps backwards.

To just generalize that Bush won the election because of stupid rednecks is a gross (and fallacious) oversimplification. There are a million reasons why. If the democrats seriously want to have any chance to win in 2008, they have to look extremely carefully (and critically) at this entire election and not accept any easy answers.

[mylexicon]

Re: IQ and Politics

what do you think about this?

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

The South has too many Mexicans?


















For all of you who were offended I was merely restating a backwards opinion
that is so closeminded and racist it makes me laugh.

[discojoe]

Re: IQ and Politics

[quote="krelm"]

1. Kerry was the worst democratic candidates for quite awhile, backed by one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory.

There is no way Kerry was worse than Al Gore. He was terrible. And regardless of how good or bad kerry was, he was far far better than Bush was.

[discojoe]

Re: IQ and Politics

"i was bored last night, so curiosity got the best of me and i decided to see if there was a correlation between %bush voters and %college grads by state (nerd!). so i found out each state's %Bachelor's degrees from the census and ran it--indeed there was a negative linear relationship between %bush voters and %college grads (R = -0.71)-- which means, the less % of college grads, the more % bush voters. DC had the highest % of college grads (42.5%) and the lowest % of bush voters (9%); West Virginia had the lowest % grads (16.1%) and a relatively high % (56%) bush voters...... Interestingly the last 14 ranking states in grads (&lt22%) were all bush winners (many 55-60+% voted for bush), and 11 of the top 14 ranking states in grads (>30%) were kerry winners."

again no surprise

[timkell]

Re: IQ and Politics

Anyway, Bush won because of the redneck Americans who don?t understand anything that happens outside their state boundaries. This is of course bad news for the rest of the world for the next 4 years and a pity for all of us who are not redneck patriots.

No - Bush won for 2 reasons.

1. Kerry was the worst democratic candidates for quite awhile, backed by one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory.

2. Bush said GOD more than Kerry (figuratively, but you get the idea). Like it or not, the religious right is an influential voting block that the left does not have anything akin to. The Bush campaign made it a huge point to harp on the gay marriage thing and the abortion thing - 2 issues which are incredibly important to fanatical Christians. The Bush campaign made him the "moral values candidate" extremely well - to his advantage.

I saw an interesting point earlier today in an article here. Without having to read through the entire thing, the point was that Kerry was seriously damaged (and may have lost the election because of this) by
1) the decision by the mayor of San Francisco to okay gay marriages, and
2) by the Massachusetts court deciding to uphold gay marriages.
While these decisions may have looked like huge steps forward for gay rights at the outset, they prompted major outrage from the religious right and led to ballot measures in several states to ban gay marriages (all of which passed). Many people who otherwise would have not come out to vote did so because of anti-gay marriage measures. Ohio was one such state. Everybody knows what happened in Ohio - this state decided the election. How many ultra-conservative Christians in other states came out to vote for the "God Candidate (tm)" because of their outrage on this issue and their concern that America was in threat of becoming a "gay-lovin' moral dump"? Probably quite a few.

Despite all of his shortcomings, Kerry might still have won the election were it not for what happened in San Francisco and Massachusetts angering (and thus further mobilizing) the religious right. Beyond that, gay rights in the US were pushed back years - 2 steps forward, 11 steps backwards.

To just generalize that Bush won the election because of stupid rednecks is a gross (and fallacious) oversimplification. There are a million reasons why. If the democrats seriously want to have any chance to win in 2008, they have to look extremely carefully (and critically) at this entire election and not accept any easy answers.

I'd disagree with that guy, based on the evidence. Check this out:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html

Bush's biggest improvement was among people who don't go to church.

[cocky_pusher]

discojoe: I didn't write that, check my post, anyway, check this page out www.sorryeverybody.com, i accept the appologies, though it still pisses me off that Bush won.

[toasty]

Re: IQ and Politics

No - Bush won for 2 reasons.

1. Kerry was the worst democratic candidates for quite awhile, backed by one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory.

2. Bush said GOD more than Kerry (figuratively, but you get the idea). Like it or not, the religious right is an influential voting block that the left does not have anything akin to. The Bush campaign made it a huge point to harp on the gay marriage thing and the abortion thing - 2 issues which are incredibly important to fanatical Christians. The Bush campaign made him the "moral values candidate" extremely well - to his advantage.

I certainly don't want to suggest that I saw the Kerry loss coming/knew all along/blah, blah, blah, but I do remember being concerned when he won in Iowa and began developing momentum because, let's face it, charismatic, Kerry was not. Kerry just made me want to yawn. Over time, I came to like him (largely because I had no choice but to try), but his electability (or lack thereof) was always a concern of mine. Looking at the polling along the way, I believe that Bush won because as much as many people in the public disliked his policies and some of the things he'd said and done, they disliked Kerry on a personal level more. When unseating an incumbent, the electorate has to answer two questions:

1. Does the current office-holder deserve to keep his job?
2. If not, what do we think of the challenger?

Most voters leaned away from Bush on question number one; Kerry lost because voters didn't like the answer to question number two, IMHO. With that said, though, I don't think Kerry was as bad as Gore. God that guy sucked.

With regard to your second point, I agree to a certain extent and would add a point or two in follow-up. Although I dislike Bush tremendously, I have to credit his campiagn staff and their strategy. Bush is the first president that I'm aware of that has been elected while making virtually no effort to court swing voters or move to the center. OK, he made some half-assed pleas to democrats at the very end, but most of his campaign was designed at firing up his base by actually leaning away from the center. His strategy, in essence, was to try to get the millions of far-right leaning non-voters excited enough to vote. That is, in my opinion, why his campaign stops were nothing more than pep rallies, with no hard questions and limited serious discussion of issues -- the goal was not to persuade but to preach loudly to the choir to get their asses out of their chairs on election day. Firing up this previously non-voting part of Republican America was easier than convincing the relatively small number of undecided swing voters.

Evidently, if you get that base fired up enough, you can afford to lose three debates and lose momentum going into the election, because that just makes the need for the faithful to get to the polls more urgent.

That's my theory, anyway.

[asdf_admin]

^^^ pretty fair, pretty good.

i like it.

[ftc]

check these stats (which have average incomes correlated aswell)

http://www.commonalty.com/iq.txt

it's sad but true that conservative middle class america is what keeps this country standing and their decission has a huge impact on elections. in essence they appear ignorant & gullable but not in a bad way. this is where most europeans and the rest of the world are mistaken when labeling the majority of the US dumb, stupid and arrogant. actually the ignorance is an innocent kind of ignorance. the guy working in the field doesn't care what's going on in chechnya. he gets his local news, which highschool beat which highschool in the playoffs, whats the weather like tomorow and thats all he cares about.

the question remaining of which life is better (fuller) and that will always be an ongoing arguement... :?

[runningman]

^^ because they trust the government and supports the government's actions at all times because they like the life they live..

as for u max.. that is a good country divider poll.. nothing good can come from a poll like that.. it shows that the people that feed us make the decisions on who gets elected.. sounds good to me.. why should the rich business man in Conneticut have more say?? that's what makes the country great..

[ekm]

Re: IQ and Politics

You can even buy the IQ results on a T-Shirt

http://www.cafepress.com/daltonrooney.14431764?zoom=yes