General Discussion

BumRushDaShow

(170,372 posts)

25. The results confirm a bias

Sun Jul 20, 2014, 10:49 AM

Jul 2014

the sampling pool was done to limit the study author's potential biases.

If what you assert were true, then the emails would have only been sent to legislators who not only promoted Voter ID laws but were elected in states that had Voter ID laws in effect. They would have also only selected legislators that were primarily or only of one party - the one known to be more supportive of Voter ID laws. This is why the study got some attention because it was selective in terms of filtering out possible other reasons why the data might not show what they theorized. I.e., it wasn't so much "party affiliation" as it was whether the person supported Voter ID or not and whether they felt such applied to one "group" more than another.

The fact that those who were NOT supporters of Voter ID laws from either party, yet DID respond to these sorts of emails and did so at the same rate, is significant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Objective Evidence Found That Voter ID Law Support is Racially-Motivated [View all] True Blue Door Jul 2014 OP

It'll only be a matter of time BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #4

The fact that it happens at all BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #5

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #6

Riiiiiight. True Blue Door Jul 2014 #10

Bzzt. Sorry wrong answer. BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #13

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #16

I'm sure the perpertrators of the bias BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #23

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #2

That should be the GOP's new slogan: "Not racist, just correlated with racism." True Blue Door Jul 2014 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #9

Nine percentage points is MASSIVE. True Blue Door Jul 2014 #11

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #12

Why are you trying to justify anything except what it is? nt BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #15

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #17

As a scientist BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #20

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #21

Then we can agree to disagree BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #24

In other words, you'd rather call a USC professor incompetent True Blue Door Jul 2014 #19

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #22

The results confirm a bias BumRushDaShow Jul 2014 #25

How can anyone know whether the results were actually due to english vs. spanish? Quantess Jul 2014 #3

The study was designed to unconfound any such potential effect. Jackpine Radical Jul 2014 #26

Wow. My first thought: the obvious needs a study? ananda Jul 2014 #8

While I know it's true anyway, the study could still be flawed Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #14

But those potential confounding effects would presumably be Jackpine Radical Jul 2014 #27

The USC study is a good study Gothmog Jul 2014 #18

Thanks to Gothmog and Jackpine Radical for their contributions to this thread. redqueen Jul 2014 #28

this is important stuff k and r dembotoz Jul 2014 #29