Not at all. I said your examples were true. I agreed with you. But what I said was that you will be able to find examples that show there are areas of the country where republicans got a higher vote, but take more benefits. That does not disprove the Gelman Paradox. The Gelman Paradox refutes the complete assertion that "Red States take more than Blue States." Please try to keep up. It's tiring when I have to repeat myself.
More horseshit from the resident Con. Facts never enter the bubble. Keep making excuses for the mooching though, mooching is good when Cons are doing it.
Gelman paradox says that wealthy people vote for Republicans more than Democrats, it says nothing about the fact that there are a larger group of poor Republicans who are moochers which tilts the red states into mooching category. Cons mooch in general (red-blue state) and in particular (the county data) You are sticking up for the moochers because they are right-wingers, you won't be bringing up theories if these guys were Democrats. You are a hypocrite and we will end with that.
The Gelman paradox talks about how the argument is based on faulty data, and adjusts findings accordingly. You obviously did not read it. That's ok, why let an educated paper stand in the way of a perfectly good rant? I'm not sticking up for moochers at all. There needs to be a safety net for all, but that safety net needs to be managed carefully to avoid fraud and we certainly don't need cradle to grave entitlements, etc. We can go into that topic if you'd like, but it would appear you are trying to get out of the conversation with your "we'll leave it at that" little tiff. So I'll be magnanimous enough to let you scurry away if you'd like to. Enjoy your day, Mike.
Yes ofcourse, the 'skewed poll' syndrome. I predicted it, it's always the data's fault, it should be twisted to meet the conservative standards. Polls are skewed, scientists are lying and evolution is a theory.
"Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last yearâs presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentuckyâs Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...cked-by-republicans-with-voters-on-rolls.html Three Kentucky counties â Owsley, McCreary and Wolfe â are the only places that rely on government programs such as Social Security, food stamps and Medicaid for more than half of income. The results of the 2012 presidential elections by county, per AP: Owsley: Mitt Romney 83%; Barack Obama 17.9% McCreary: Mitt Romney 80.0%; Barack Obama 18.7% Wolfe: Mitt Romney 60.3%; Barack Obama 38.1% http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/three-counties-in-kentucky-151076.html Somebody is surely dragging down the averages alright, but they are not Democrats.
I never said anything about a skewed poll. Nor did I discount evolution, or that any scientists are lying. You're getting desperate now, Mike.