Turn on thread page Beta

Operation "Blessing" : PeeWeeDan prays hard to Obama watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    You would never guess in a million years which celebrity donated the bulk of the money to pay for my operation. Aren't you curious? :devil:
    Obama? :teehee:
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    Can you ever avoid using the roll eyes emoticon? I suppose you must need the help of a little smiley face to reassure yourself about the arguments you are making :rolleyes: seewhatididtherelol
    Nope. I like it too much, honestly it expresses a wide range of sentiments so it's pretty much perfect, and I don't need to reassure myself of my arguments.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    Obama? :teehee:
    nooooo

    Obama never gave a dime to charity until he decided to run for president. Then he started giving more so it wouldn't look bad. Typical limousine liberal hypocrite.

    My ass was saved by the late Leona Helmsley, the infamous billionaire New York City hotel operator and real estate investor.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    nooooo

    Obama never gave a dime to charity until he decided to run for president. Then he started giving more so it wouldn't look bad. Typical limousine liberal hypocrite.
    :lolz:


    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    My ass was saved by the late Leona Helmsley, the infamous billionaire New York City hotel operator and real estate investor.
    Well she had money to blow, gave $2 mil to her pet, crazy women.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    When != in 3 years time.


    + There are other issues too.:rolleyes:


    Reagan = 'Let's lower tax'
    Obama = "let's raise tax, force the people into something they don't want, break every short term promise and make America look like a pussy"


    No? You see no difference?

    You think this is only about the economy?:rolleyes:
    'It's the economy, stupid'. This is the most important axiom in politics. Whatever other issues occur, if the economy is bad, the incumbent is seen as unpopular. If the economy is good, the converse applies, regardless of other policies. See the popularity of Labour until the recession came around. There were a multitude of reasons not to support labour before then, but it's only with the recession that support was lost. The presidencies of Carter and Bush Snr were ruined because the election coincided with a downturn in the economy.

    If you don't believe me have a look at these two graphs;




    As you can see, the presidential approval rating is highly correlated with unemployment rate. A similar picture is shown for Obama's current approval. Once the unemployment falls, Obama's approval will recover.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    ...

    Correlation does not imply causation.








    Clearly we must import more lemons from mexico and increase piracy.



    To say that it is only the economy is to take an incredibly simplistic view of things. There are other things at play.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    [...]
    I give a well constructed arguement as to why the economy is important in the Presidential approval.... and the best you can come up with is 'correlation =/= causation? :wtf: Seriously?

    Just to take you out of A level land, the axiom that correlation does not neccesarily mean causation is because confounding factors or reverse causation can occur. However, if there is correlation, the factors are almost always related in some way.

    To take your examples, declining number of pirates and increased global warming can both be explained by the confounding factor of increased prosperity. Equally, increased prosperity in the US causes increased lemon imports and greater innovations in road safety.

    In any case, to prove causation, you have to fulfil the Bradford-Hill criteria of causation;
    1)Temporal relationship - the graphs prove this
    2)Strength - There is a stasticially significant correlation between the economy and presidential approval.
    3)Dose-Response - A little harder to give hard statistics for, but generally, the greater the unemployment, the lower the approval rating.
    4)Consistency - The relationship between the economy and approval appears pretty consistent to me.
    5)Plausability - Unemployed people tend to disapprove of the president. Plausable, non? (unlike, say, pirates preventing global warming)
    6)Consideration of alternate hypothesis - Well, this is where you come in. I can't think of any alternate hypothesis, but you're welcome to try and come up with an explanation for it.
    7)Experiment - Unfortunately, I can't experiment with the economy
    8)Specifity - Not present here - clearly the economy has more effects than just approval - but it's the weakest criteria so meh.
    9)Coherence - The theory that the state of the economy contributes to presidential approval is quite consistent with current political thought.

    With regards to your last point, I didn't say the economy was the only factor in consideration. Clearly other factors play a role (see Iran-contra scandal and it's effects on Reagen's approval) but as a rule it holds up quite consistently.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    I give a well constructed arguement as to why the economy is important in the Presidential approval.... and the best you can come up with is 'correlation =/= causation? :wtf: Seriously?

    Just to take you out of A level land, the axiom that correlation does not neccesarily mean causation is because confounding factors or reverse causation can occur. However, if there is correlation, the factors are almost always related in some way.

    To take your examples, declining number of pirates and increased global warming can both be explained by the confounding factor of increased prosperity. Equally, increased prosperity in the US causes increased lemon imports and greater innovations in road safety.

    In any case, to prove causation, you have to fulfil the Bradford-Hill criteria of causation;
    1)Temporal relationship - the graphs prove this
    2)Strength - There is a stasticially significant correlation between the economy and presidential approval.
    3)Dose-Response - A little harder to give hard statistics for, but generally, the greater the unemployment, the lower the approval rating.
    4)Consistency - The relationship between the economy and approval appears pretty consistent to me.
    5)Plausability - Unemployed people tend to disapprove of the president. Plausable, non? (unlike, say, pirates preventing global warming)
    6)Consideration of alternate hypothesis - Well, this is where you come in. I can't think of any alternate hypothesis, but you're welcome to try and come up with an explanation for it.
    7)Experiment - Unfortunately, I can't experiment with the economy
    8)Specifity - Not present here - clearly the economy has more effects than just approval - but it's the weakest criteria so meh.
    9)Coherence - The theory that the state of the economy contributes to presidential approval is quite consistent with current political thought.

    With regards to your last point, I didn't say the economy was the only factor in consideration. Clearly other factors play a role (see Iran-contra scandal and it's effects on Reagen's approval) but as a rule it holds up quite consistently.


    I didn't go into it because that would require me to write the equivalent of a small essay in response to you, this is a discussion I would much rather have IRL (and....if you're still at cambridge next year...maybe will....ill chase you down to argue)


    The thing is - with Obama there are far more issues at play than just the economy, to be quite honest I think is the republicans had run a better campaign and hadn't brought in the pig Obama wouldn't have even touched the white house ( again, id rather not type out why) but in all seriousness the republican campaign was riddled with mistakes and faux pas.

    Obama was the lesser of two evils basically. While his approval rating might rise slightly, it won't rise back to it's previously high levels or the levels where it was at where everyone was afraid of the possibility of eventually having a female president who has no idea about foreign relations and who was the well honestly one of the most frightening people I've ever seen.


    And yes the unemployed do generally disapprove of the president as do others when looking at unemployment levels. That said, Obama is trying to do the 'all talk no walk' thing that most politicians do but is failing at it more than just a bit. He talks and talks but is far too transparent when not doing any actions or when breaking campaign promises.


    I'm not in A-level land, d/w, I just try and keep arguments on tsr simple. KISS

    Like I said, this doesn't even cover the tip of the iceberg but what I was trying to come to was that with Obama the issues are more complex than simple economics (especially a light ripple racism that is still very present which will ensure he will need to do twice as good as any other candidate to be even seen the same (and he wont, his healthcare and gun views are not popular.)).


    Also WRT alternate hypothesis I would need at least weekly newspapers from all their terms to compare decisions with approval rating. As far as I have seen presidents try and make big decisions to appease the unemployed and the masses but they tend to be unpopular not because of the poor economy but rather because of the fact that I feel that presidents rush into them worrying at falling approval ratings. Not easy to prove but I think I could.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2010
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.