Anne Said:

What are the goals of the Democrat party?

We Answered:

You tell it like it is. They scoff at the individual because they think most people are ignorant, stupid, and doomed to fail, because the world is so "unfair." All but the "privileged few," that we should all hate and punish, that is. They consider it their duty to weed out this "unfairness," deciding for the rest of us ignorant slob masses what we deserve. They sneer at us for not wanting their "help." They see it as more evidence of their superiority, that we are incapable of seeing how much "better" they could make everything. They know what is best for the collective.

Sheila Said:

Specifically a statistics question?

We Answered:

The following is my final answer. Sorry I have made calculation errors in the pervious versions of my answer.

Confidence interval is used to estimate a population parameter. Confidence interval for the population mean or proportion is an interval constructed around the sample mean or proportion so that we are confident that this population contains the population mean or proportion.
IN THIS CASE we are required to construct an interval around the sample proportion to be confident whether this interval contains the population proportion.

Let p = population proportion of independent voters among 55000 eligible voters.
n = sample size= 800
^p = sample proportion = point estimate of true proportion p
^p = 349/800 = 0.43625

Since n^p = 800 * 0.43625 = 349
and n(1-^p) = 800*[1-(0.43625)] = 451 are both at least greater than 5, then the sample size n= 800 is considered to be large in this case and we can use the z distribution to construct our confidence interval.

100(1-?)% = 95%
1 - ? = 0.95
-? = 0.95-1 = -0.05
? = 0.05 = 5%

where ? represents alpha.

Then, a 95% confidence interval for p (the population proportion) is
= [ ^p (+-) z(?/2)*?^p(1-^p)/(n-1)]
=[0.43625 (+-) z(0.05/2))*?0.43625(1-0.43625)/(800-1)]
= [ 0.43625 (+-) z0. 025# *?(0.245935937/799)]
= [0.43625 (+-) 1.96* 0.017544363]
= [ 0.43625 (+-) 0.034386951]
= [0.401863049, 0.470636951]

# the value of z0.025= z(0.5-0.475) can be found in a table of areas under the standard normal curve.

Hypothesis testing is basically a statistical procedure used to provide evidence in favor of some statement (called a hypothesis). In this case we are required to reject the above claim(null hypothesis) that p- population proportion of independent voters among 55000 eligible voters is greater than 0.3 and to prove our favor statement(alternative hypothesis) that p- population proportion of independent voters among 55000 eligible voters is less than 0.3

We form the following set of hypothesis to be tested:

Null hypothesis -> is the statement that we want to reject when there is convincing sample evidence that it is false.
Ho: P>P0
Ho: P>0.3

versus

Alternative hypothesis-> is the statement that will be accepted only if there is convinving sample evidence that it is true.
Ha: P?P0
Ha: P?0.3

We can reject H0 in favor of Ha if z< -z?.

^P = 0.43625

Let po = p = 0.3 = CLAIMED true proportion of independent voters among the 50000 eligible voters.

Since np0= 800*(0.3) = 240 and n(1-p0) = 800*(1-0.3) = 560,
are both at least 5, then we can perform or do a z test (large sample hypothesis test about a population proportion) to test our set of hypothesis.

The test static = z = (^p- p0)/?[P0(1-p0)/n]
z = (0.43625 -0.3)/?[0.3(1-0.3)/800]
z = 0.13625 / ?(0.21/800)
z = 0.13625/0.016201851
z = 8.40953296

Because z = 8.40953296 is not less but much greater than
-Z0.05 = -1.645, then we cannot reject Ho in favor of Ha at the ? = 0.05 =5% level of significance. Thus, in other words, this means we do NOT have strong evidence to reject the claim that the proportion of independent voters among the 55000 eligible voters is greater than 0.3.

John Said:

Why are you a liberal?

We Answered:

I've worked hard to get a job where I'm reasonably successful and blessed to have more than I need. I am willing to share with those who are less fortunate. I don't believe in the conservative myth that poor people are poor by choice or due to some moral failure.

I also believe in giving people chances. A girl who did something stupid and got pregnant at 15 for example needs help, not punishment. Giving help to those who need it is humane. Punishing them and their children is torture and indicates a bizarre sense of schadenfreude.

It's not enabling someone when you're trying to help them resolve their problems. I can't support a group who sneers at the poor and the unfortunate as lesser people just because they're poor and unfortunate. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't feel any need or desire to punish the poor.

It all comes down to what I said at the beginning - I am blessed to have more than I need, and I'm willing to share that with those who have less than they need.

Raymond Said:

Where can I find Milwaukee County vote turn out statistics?

We Answered:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4830

Margie Said:

Who agrees that Obama's socialism is black reparations for slavery?

We Answered:

Up until his decision to become a unifying person, Obama was a huge supporter of both reparations and racial preference programs. Sorry, I'm not buying the snake oil he's selling. His entire life has been devoted to community organizer, an occupation that lawyers who can't cut it pursue. It involves nothing more than keeping the poor believing that they are victims and every successful person is in that position by stepping on the poor.

He bundled native Americans in with his reparations bid. The exact quote is:

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Seems to me he is saying that the government should be paying reparations. He forgets that the government isn't the one paying, it's the taxpayers of this country. More evidence of his wealth transfer ambitions.