Intelligence: Liberals vs. Conservatives

[Dos Equis]

Trump's base isn't the 46.4% of the electorate who voted for him, but rather about half of that number (maybe a little more) who are his core supporters.

It's equally dumb to ascribe anything to 21 million people who voted for Trump. 

[Al Doggity]

Oh shut the heck up.  Stop trying to sound smart.   You're not.  You're a hack, incapable of independent thought.  And your analytical ability sucks. 

But thanks for your participation.   

LOL  Trying to sound smart? Which words in my previous post confused you?

It's equally dumb to ascribe anything to 21 million people who voted for Trump. 

You post this in the thread you started to generalize about the intelligence of liberals vs conservatives? 


yeah, I'm a dumb hack with poor analytical skills. 

[jude2]

Based on your day-to-day interactions with people, how do you rate liberals vs. conservatives when it comes to overall intelligence? 

What about their respective knowledge and understanding of politics, current events, etc.? 

THe best part of the show Jessie Waters was when he went out and asked some very easy questions to the liberals.  THe answers were unbelievable

[Coach is Back!]

THe best part of the show Jessie Waters was when he went out and asked some very easy questions to the liberals.  THe answers were unbelievable

Were they all Howards and Strawmans?

[illuminati]

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187661/trump-appeal-highest-among-blue-collar-men.aspx

It's TRUE.

Just to remind you - The polls said killary would win 90%+    Wrong  

True

[Yamcha]

all these pseudo-intellectual, nu-male soyboys like to vote democrat to virtue signal to their POC butt buddies 

[Super Natural]

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187661/trump-appeal-highest-among-blue-collar-men.aspx

It seems that Trump voters are less educated ( see poll).
Trump's base is composed of those WITHOUT a college degree.
Those with a college education are LESS likely to support Trump.

I did ok in school and got some formal education , so I fit into the poll trend.

So what you're saying is the intellectual out of touch elite...liberal professors on tenure and their students.....don't vote in line with the average working class they look down on...The hard working people that actually deal with living and working in the harsh realities of the real world.

[mazrim]

Can't use these for hunting because they'd destroy whatever got hit.

Liar or ignorant of hunting laws. The opposite is true when it comes to your "devil" gun ar15 .223. When you don't have s basic understanding.....

[Kazan]

Take the Second Amendment rights give people the right to bear arms. The weapons people used when the article was written are nothing like the ones we have today. Why would anyone outside the military need semi-automatic and automatic weapons which are designed to take out a large number of people and fire at one second intervals? -Can't use these for hunting because they'd destroy whatever got hit. All the fire power any civilian needs to protect themselves and others is a pistol or a rifle.

And that is why it says the right to bear arms, not the right to bear muskets. I hate to break the news to you, but most of the artillery used in the revolution was privately owned. So by your logic I should be able own cannons. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, no matter how often that idiocy is repeated.

[Dos Equis]

LOL  Trying to sound smart? Which words in my previous post confused you?

You post this in the thread you started to generalize about the intelligence of liberals vs conservatives? 


yeah, I'm a dumb hack with poor analytical skills. 

I do believe that is the first thing you've ever posted on this board that I agree with. 

[Al Doggity]

I do believe that is the first thing you've ever posted on this board that I agree with. 

Considering you are agreeing with a text statement punctuated by an eyeroll emoticon - meaning there is no ambiguity regarding the fact that it's a sarcastic statement- then I guess you're acknowledging how asinine your last post was. Good for you? 

[Dos Equis]

Considering you are agreeing with a text statement punctuated by an eyeroll emoticon - meaning there is no ambiguity regarding the fact that it's a sarcastic statement- then I guess you're acknowledging how asinine your last post was. Good for you? 

No.  I am mocking you.  I know you don't understand what that words means, but you keep hanging around the board and perhaps you can become a little smarter. 

[Howard]

Just to remind you - The polls said killary would win 90%+    Wrong  

True

The national polls showed Hillary had a slight lead that was within the margin of error ( +/- 2-3 %).
She did win the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so the polls actually got that right.
They were a bit off when it came the key "rust belt" states that Trump won by small margins.

In all modesty I may have bit more understanding into the statistical analysis and models used in polling.
Rarely does much attention go into why /how the margin of error is there.
Plus, the polls are based on random samples of various demographics.

It's kinda like stats used to describe the avg family.
Let's say it's reported the avg family has 3.2 children.
Nobody has 0.2 kids, and that's not what it means.

In simple terms the 0.2 = 20% of the time they will have 1 more child or 4 total.
But 0.80 or 80 % of the time they will have 3 kids.
The other numbers [ 0, 1 .... 5, 6 , etc] are placed in groups based
on standard deviations from the norm.

[Howard]

So what you're saying is the intellectual out of touch elite...liberal professors on tenure and their students.....don't vote in line with the average working class they look down on...The hard working people that actually deal with living and working in the harsh realities of the real world.

I know and respect plenty of "blue collar" gun loving men where I live.
They may not have a lot of formal education , but they aren't stupid.

Most are busy working hard and raising their kids.
To his credit, Trump tapped into a deep seated emotional anger they felt, under the surface.

I sincerely think it's more cultural then intellectual.
Obviously there are plenty of dumb and smart people on BOTH sides.

[illuminati]

The national polls showed Hillary had a slight lead that was within the margin of error ( +/- 2-3 %).
She did win the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so the polls actually got that right.
They were a bit off when it came the key "rust belt" states that Trump won by small margins.

In all modesty I may have bit more understanding into the statistical analysis and models used in polling.
Rarely does much attention go into why /how the margin of error is there.
Plus, the polls are based on random samples of various demographics.

It's kinda like stats used to describe the avg family.
Let's say it's reported the avg family has 3.2 children.
Nobody has 0.2 kids, and that's not what it means.

In simple terms the 0.2 = 20% of the time they will have 1 more child or 4 total.
But 0.80 or 80 % of the time they will have 3 kids.
The other numbers [ 0, 1 .... 5, 6 , etc] are placed in groups based
on standard deviations from the norm.

 

DNRTL

TRUMP Won
Get over it.

[Dos Equis]

The national polls showed Hillary had a slight lead that was within the margin of error ( +/- 2-3 %).
She did win the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so the polls actually got that right.
They were a bit off when it came the key "rust belt" states that Trump won by small margins.

DNRTL

TRUMP Won
Get over it.

   I stopped right here.  There was no popular vote contest, so Hillary didn't win a nonexistent contest for the popular vote.  Her entire spread, plus 1 million, comes from California alone. 

The polls don't predict who will win the popular vote, but who will win the presidential election.  So no, the polls didn't get it right.  Except for the LA Times and IBD.  And poly . . . .   

[Agnostic007]

At least you qualified these statements. Maybe you gravitate to hyper emotional people. Regardless of where people stand on the political left to right spectrum there level of general understanding of the issues is limited, this includes most politicians as well. I don't know about you, but I watch news and read articles from both the left and the right. Heck, most of the politically orientated posters on Getbig lean strongly to the right, including you. I lean left and I read your posts. I'm more of a "big picture" kind of guy. In my opinion, the truth in these matters are generally somewhere in the middle.

Take the Second Amendment rights give people the right to bear arms. The weapons people used when the article was written are nothing like the ones we have today. Why would anyone outside the military need semi-automatic and automatic weapons which are designed to take out a large number of people and fire at one second intervals? -Can't use these for hunting because they'd destroy whatever got hit. All the fire power any civilian needs to protect themselves and others is a pistol or a rifle.

Agree

[illuminati]

  I stopped right here.  There was no popular vote contest, so Hillary didn't win a nonexistent contest for the popular vote.  Her entire spread, plus 1 million, comes from California alone. 

The polls don't predict who will win the popular vote, but who will win the presidential election.  So no, the polls didn't get it right.  Except for the LA Times and IBD.  And poly . . . .   

  I stopped right here.  There was no popular vote contest, so Hillary didn't win a nonexistent contest for the popular vote.


Exactly Right.

It appears to difficult for some who voted to take on board or understand

And they have the Right to Vote & carry guns... 
No wonder USA is in a mess .

Trump will sort it.   

[Howard]

  I stopped right here.  There was no popular vote contest, so Hillary didn't win a nonexistent contest for the popular vote.  Her entire spread, plus 1 million, comes from California alone. 

The polls don't predict who will win the popular vote, but who will win the presidential election.  So no, the polls didn't get it right.  Except for the LA Times and IBD.  And poly . . . .   

Most of the national polling samples % consider the total vote.
The likely truth is some rust belt counties got a Trump bump from enthusiastic supporters of him.
The polling models for state by state results varied widely .
A handful got it right, while some were off by 5-7% and outside their own margin of error.

It's like predicting market trends to buy stocks with past performance charts.
People / events can change in an instant.
 
For example, real estate is tough to sell after a hurricane.

[illuminati]

Most of the national polling samples % consider the total vote.
The likely truth is some rust belt counties got a Trump bump from enthusiastic supporters of him.
The polling models for state by state results varied widely .
A handful got it right, while some were off by 5-7% and outside their own margin of error.

It's like predicting market trends to buy stocks with past performance charts.
People / events can change in an instant.
 
For example, real estate is tough to sell after a hurricane.

 I stopped right here.  There was no popular vote contest, so Hillary didn't win a nonexistent contest for the popular vote.

The polls don't predict who will win the popular vote, but who will win the presidential election.

   you Conveniently Missed The Dos Equis qoute above

Carry on crying  

[Al Doggity]

No.  I am mocking you.  I know you don't understand what that words means, but you keep hanging around the board and perhaps you can become a little smarter. 

It's already working. Whenever you post, I instantly look much smarter.

[Grape Ape]

There is no correct answer, as the question refers to the day to day experience of the individual, and is subjective to that.

Of course, over a large sample, the intelligence experience should even out.

I can say with complete confidence though, in my experience in Massachusetts, the liberal are currently twice as hypocritical and still completely tone deaf to their way they act vs what they're supposed to represent.

[Dos Equis]

Most of the national polling samples % consider the total vote.
The likely truth is some rust belt counties got a Trump bump from enthusiastic supporters of him.
The polling models for state by state results varied widely .
A handful got it right, while some were off by 5-7% and outside their own margin of error.

It's like predicting market trends to buy stocks with past performance charts.
People / events can change in an instant.
 
For example, real estate is tough to sell after a hurricane.

Dude.  Just stop already. 

[Dos Equis]

It's already working. Whenever you post, I instantly look much smarter.

 

[Dos Equis]

There is no correct answer, as the question refers to the day to day experience of the individual, and is subjective to that.

Of course, over a large sample, the intelligence experience should even out.

I can say with complete confidence though, in my experience in Massachusetts, the liberal are currently twice as hypocritical and still completely tone deaf to their way they act vs what they're supposed to represent.

I agree it's often not reliable to use anecdotes to draw broader inferences.  Wasn't really trying to get some kind of empirical info.  Just interested in day-to-day experiences. 

That said, I do see somewhat of a common theme.