Number of Republicans in U.S. Increases in December to Two-Year High

You know what I find the most funny about this?...

The busted myth that Republicans are CEOs in 3 piece suits swimming in $100 bills in the conference room or backwoods rednecks kissing their sister...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Man, I wonder how many of those are Democrats who just wanted to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.

The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That’s the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006 (see history from January 2004 to present).

At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%. That’s down a point compared to a month ago. During 2007, the number of Democrats has ranged from a low of 35.9% in July to a high of 37.8% in February.

Talk about cherry-picking 101...

So if we look at only two data points, we can ignore the general back-slide in stats of the Republican party (and actually the Democratics as well) over the years in favor of declaring a short-term "hooray".
Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

From January 2005 -> January 2006, the Republicans dropped 1.5 points. Any fanfare on that?

If you crunch the numbers, the Republicans have dropped (linear regression analysis) 0.1 per month.
Democrats dropped 0.02 per month.

The big winner is the "Other" category which has gained that 0.12. Too bad we can't elect that guy...


How is that a "busted myth"?
The Republican demographic is made up of a wide variety of people, including CEOs swimming in $100 bills and backwoods rednecks kissing their sisters.
The Democrat demographic is also made up of a wide variety of people, including other rich people swimming in eco-friendly, organic $100 bills and dressed up backwoods rednecks kissing trees.

I also think a great many (though not all) are registering to vote for Ron Paul.
But we shall see. It's going to get interesting.

__________________

Talk about cherry-picking 101...


The "cherry pick" you are complaining about was CLEARLY stated.....duh.

Talk about cherry-picking 101...

Now about the data that you watermelon picked......
An "average" is NO way to see trends unless you want LONG term trends if you want to see anything short term, averages are specifically excluded as they are useless. Try that with stocks. One stock is currently going up the other going down which do you buy? The one that went up earlier and is now going down because it went up more then? I call this monetary regression analysis. VALUE

Talk about cherry-picking 101...

Yes in order to prove a point you only give the pertinent information.......Duh
The only other information you need to give would be anything that contradicts the point made but I notice that yours did not contradict the statements.

Talk about cherry-picking 101...

The term "cherry picked" only became an attempted derogatory when the media and liberals attempted to accuse GW of using it. Fact is THAT IS HOW EVERYBODY USES DATA. You HAVE to pick out info and data because so much of it is USELESS. Do you include the whole dictionary to define one word? Then YOU cherry picked that .

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count." ***** Robert Heinlein

Iowa voted for Bush last election. This last caucus was over two to one Democrat. So now we are confused again.

__________________
Don't take any of it too seriously.

Do you understand what a BALANCED news article is all about?
Just because they explained what they did does not deny them culpability in doing what they did.

It's a bit like saying "I'm going to present a one-sided news story, and present no argument from the opposing side." They may get kudoes for admitting it, but they still get negative marks for DOING it.


I used the word "average" because I figured I would dumb it down for some people.
My mistake.
I used linear regression utilizing all the data that was available, making a least squares error fit to a linear model.

I didn't use the "average", and based on the explanation I gave if you understand anything about math you should have been able to get that.

But thanks for allowing me to clear up the terminology involved.

If you think you can give a better way to do it, then please do so.
If all you had were mindless nitpicks, then don't bore me.


Are you trying to allege the author of that article "only gave the pertinent information"?
How positively ridiculous!

He ONLY gave the information which made it seem like the republican numbers were growing. ONLY those numbers.
He didn't (in the text of the article) give any numbers about how the republicans have steadily LOST NUMBERS over the years.



Forest for the trees...

Suppose a kid has a line of "credit" with his folks in addition to his weekly allowance.
The kid gets $5 in allowance each week.
The kid spends $6 each week, with $1 coming from credit.

One day he finds $2 on the ground, so he makes a "profit" that week of $1.

Now, if this kid's parents came along bragging to you about how he saved up that $1 that week, a person might be tempted to think their kid is saving for the future.
But the BIG PICTURE (which is what I showed), demonstrates that this kid is spending outside his means on a consistent basis.


"everybody"?
I'll admit both sides do sometimes cherry pick, but not "everybody" does it.

And moreover, it IS a negative thing when it comes to our government, REGARDLESS of democrat or republican.
Our government should be giving us the WHOLE picture. Not just what they want us to see in order to lead us to what they want us to do.

You claim "attempted derogatory"?
That's DAMNED disturbing.

Blech. I should have looked at MY post first before I responded to Adept so I could point out how inane he was actually being.

Originally (before I posted), I put the word "average" when I was describing my crunching of the numbers.
I forgot I had taken it out.

In my original post, I never even claimed I did the "average", as Adept tried to pretend I used.
He inaccurately claimed I used the "average" cause he hadn't a clue as to what I actually did.
I accurately described it as "linear regression".

And Adept comes along, and without a clue as to what was actually does labels the math involved as an "average"...