Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Cherry-picking, some, in that map?

But let's look at the total population picture (US Census Bureau for 2013:

Total Population of the cited "red" states: 42.4 mn

Total Population of the cited "blue" states: 94.3 mn

In other words, the "red" states don't get to even half the population of the "blue" states.

Which relativises the shock value of the chart.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 03:32:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What cherries don't you like? A better pick somewhere else?

Yeah, we can just go sleep well and never look at this subject.

by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the subject?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why no reply?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 02:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even more: there are a lot of replies to your post, and I took the time to do the numbers on total population from the Census Bureau.

So please cut the crap about people are suggesting we just go to sleep.

So the cherries. There are a heap of red states in that CDC table that are barely higher than the blue states, and that are under the 62/1000 level that you tell us means population renewal. Why aren't these cited?

Alabama 60.6
Georgia 61.6
N Carolina 60.4
S Carolina 60.6
Virginia 60.9
W Virginia 61.5

And blue California (not cited) is spot on the 62/1000 level.

If the chart means that the top numbers in the table are pretty much all culturally-isolated conservative religious Mid-West states, well duh.

And secondly that the lowest levels are in the less isolated less conservative less religious heavily-populated regions, well double-duh.

If the point is to say that the rednecks are going to catch up on the bluebottles, then the total population figures show that it isn't going to be much of a thing any time soon.

So what is that chart about?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 03:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Firstly, the observation of discrepancy between "redneck" and liberal birth rates is not based on that one chart. I gave two other articles, one of them is statistics heavy. That is the broad subject we are talking about, if it needs to be spelled out.

Secondly, "cherry picking" the most extreme cases of birth rate and observing the color consistency is a totally fair game. Your can surely analyze further the middle pot, isolatedness. But your "double dough" is not on target. The less isolated, less conservative states are more mixed cases, thus their middle range birth rate is fully consistent with the supposed high discrepancy between conservatives and liberals. The researcher says, the discrepancy on the "county by county" level is only more clear.

So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then? Then I say, there is always sleep or the Nile.

by das monde on Fri Jun 5th, 2015 at 04:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must admit I miss the Nile reference.

Is it a reference to Brave New World and the early attempts to teach kids during their sleep? A play on word with nil or nihilist?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 04:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a play on words. "The Nile" sounds like "denial".
by fjallstrom on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 05:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.", usually attributed to Mark Twain
by Katrin on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 07:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The chart is a "Wow!" chart. It relies on displaying outliers in a distribution to make a point. That is indeed a form of cherry-picking, especially when the other 27 states are considered, that present a much more ambiguous picture. Why present only 10 red states but 13 blue? Because 3 more red states would have muddied the picture presented? Why show Florida (not a particularly true-blue state) on 59.6, but not the neighbouring red states that are on 60-61?

das monde:

So you will only worry when the absolute numbers even out? No discussion until then?

  1. "No discussion" is a strawman. There's plenty of discussion. If it doesn't say what you believe, that's tough.

  2. Given the fertility rates cited across the whole distribution, and given the total population figures I gave for the outliers, it would seem that it'll be a long time before the population of those red states equals that of those blue states. And this is without considering mobility -- what will an increased population in the isolated interior have to build a life on? How many will leave for the exterior states? How many will then change their cultural and political attitudes (see melvin's comment)?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 04:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By "No discussion until then?" I refer to your strongly dismissal tone, as if we should not even think about this matter (until overwhelmed by numbers, presumably). It does not mean I have no moles (with tight beliefs) to whack here.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 03:34:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as if we should not even think about this matter

I've done enough discussion to show that you're wrong.

What I'm dismissive of is that chart. And, probably too, the notion that political demography is just a matter of birth rates.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 03:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You proved everything, surely.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:20:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series