Birmingham officially sucks more...

[wreckingball]

Last night Auburn shot 7-29 from 3 pt range.  That's probably the most direct reason we lost the game.  But Lebo referenced Florida's foul shooting.  The reason?  Because we put them on the line FORTY times and they made 32 of them (80%).  Even though that didn't account for the majority of Florida's points...it was unusual and noteworthy and what Lebo deemed as the "difference in the game".  You put someone on the line 40 times, you're likely going to lose, no matter what other baskets (2pt and 3pt FGs) account for more points.

I'm pretty sure Auburn lost because they suck at basketball.

[Vandy Vol]

VandyVol...you kinda sidestepped my point a bit.  Again, it's not to imply that the youth vote was larger than other voting segments.  That obviously wasn't the case.  But there was something unusual and noteworthy about the youth vote.  Something that stood out from the other groups.  They voted for Obama at 68% rate.

Once more...I never said that the youth didn't decidedly vote for Obama.  The youth has voted democratic in most elections by a majority, but this was certainly a larger majority than usual.  Even with a larger majority, we still can not be referred to as "the" reason.  Was it different than in past years?  Yes, but so were the other age groups' voting patterns.  Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups?  Yes, but the change was not big enough to make us "the" reason that Obama won; youth Obama voters did not make up 51% of the vote.  We may have been the biggest change, but that change still did not make us the majority vote, and thus we are not "the" reason for anyone's election.  No one gets elected based on the fact that they received 13% of votes.

There was an uncanny change, yes.  But it wasn't big enough of a change within a large enough voting population to make it "the" reason.  Sure, you can say that if 66% (not 68%) of youth didn't vote for Obama, he wouldn't have won.  But then we can also say that if 52% of 30-44 year olds didn't vote for Obama, he also wouldn't have won.  In fact, he would have lost by more votes if the 52% of 30-44 year olds were absent than if the 66% of youth were absent.

We were "a" change, and we were probably the biggest change as far as percentages, but we can not make up a voting majority and thus can not be "the" reason that any candidate wins.  The youth's 13% of the vote, regardless of how drastic or uncanny of a change it was, can not be pointed to as the only reason Obama won.  He required (and received) more than 13% of the vote to win, and the majority of those necessary votes were supplied by other age groups.

If Florida had only made their 32 foul shots, they would have lost 70-32.  If Florida wouldn't have gone to the line at all, but would have made all of their other points, they would have lost 70-46.  You can point to either presence of points as "the" reason they won, but the truth is that they needed both sets of points to win.  Neither individual set of points is "the" reason they won.

[jadennis]

Once more...I never said that the youth didn't decidedly vote for Obama.  The youth has voted democratic in most elections by a majority, but this was certainly a larger majority than usual.  Even with a larger majority, we still can not be referred to as "the" reason.  Was it different than in past years?  Yes, but so were the other age groups' voting patterns.  Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups?  Yes, but the change was not big enough to make us "the" reason that Obama won; youth Obama voters did not make up 51% of the vote.  We may have been the biggest change, but that change still did not make us the majority vote, and thus we are not "the" reason for anyone's election.  No one gets elected based on the fact that they received 13% of votes.

There was an uncanny change, yes.  But it wasn't big enough of a change within a large enough voting population to make it "the" reason.  Sure, you can say that if 66% (not 68%) of youth didn't vote for Obama, he wouldn't have won.  But then we can also say that if 52% of 30-44 year olds didn't vote for Obama, he also wouldn't have won.  In fact, he would have lost by more votes if the 52% of 30-44 year olds were absent than if the 66% of youth were absent.

We were "a" change, and we were probably the biggest change as far as percentages, but we can not make up a voting majority and thus can not be "the" reason that any candidate wins.  The youth's 13% of the vote, regardless of how drastic or uncanny of a change it was, can not be pointed to as the only reason Obama won.  He required (and received) more than 13% of the vote to win, and the majority of those necessary votes were supplied by other age groups.

If Florida had only made their 32 foul shots, they would have lost 70-32.  If Florida wouldn't have gone to the line at all, but would have made all of their other points, they would have lost 70-46.  You can point to either presence of points as "the" reason they won, but the truth is that they needed both sets of points to win.  Neither individual set of points is "the" reason they won.

I guess we'll both just have to let the horse we're beating rot in peace (after I get in my last swing   ).  By the way, I'm not arguing against your points, they are all valid in the sense that you're making them.   And while what you're saying is (still) true, you still seem to not be grasping the point.  Well, you kind of are grasping it, but not realizing it maybe...

"but this was certainly a larger majority than usual"

and

"Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups?  Yes"

and

"We may have been the biggest change".

You followed each of those statements with the obvious "but..it still didn't make us the the 'biggest' group.....blah, blah, blah".  Which is very true, and has never been my point.

All of those things you admitted to in the quotes above are my main point.  At no point did the youth vote ever become the largest number of votes.  But being the biggest change, the most drastic change, and larger % than normal....all contributed to why I'm saying it could be labeled "the" reason.

The 50% to 54% he received in the other age groups was well within a "normal" range of voting %.  It's not unusual for one candidate to get 52% or whatever, of an age group.  It's not unusual to shoot 50 FGs in a basketball game.  Both things are totally normal, expected, and therefore not even noteworthy.

However, getting 68% of a particular age group is a big deal  It is drastic.  It is out of the ordinary.  Shooting 40 foul shots in a game is unusual.  It is excessive.  It is noteworthy when the game is over.

Why do you think Lebo said this after the Florida game? (and "he's an idiot is not an acceptable answer   )

Foul shots were the difference in the game

Why do you think he said that?  

It didn't account for most of their points.  And teams shoot foul shots every game, so it was nothing new.  The reason it was emphasized, and even called "the difference", was because it was out of the ordinary in relation to expectations or "the norm" of any regular basketball game.  It stood out.  It was excessive.   And the unusually high number of foul shots was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Florida's point total.  Instrumental to the point that Lebo, when looking at the loss, was led to point to it as "the difference in the game".

What I'm doing is no different.  The 68% youth vote is the exact same thing.  It was out of the ordinary in relation to expectations and "the norm" of regular elections.  It stood out.  It was excessive.  The unusually high % was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Obama's vote total.  Instrumental to the point that I, and tons of the press, when looking at the election results, were led to point to it as "the difference" in the election.

MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/

Youth vote may have been key in Obama's win
Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin

TIME - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.html

Obama's Youth Vote Triumph

CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3837466.shtml

His victory may well be the first in which the youth vote played a decisive role.

Thenextright.com - http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/the-straight-ticket-youth-vote

Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.

On a different note, kinda, here is some of the text to the link posted above.  I hadn't seen this broken down anywhere before, but it's very interesting and makes the last quote I posted above make sense.

People have been focusing on whether the youth vote was up. It was -- slightly: going from 17 to 18 percent. But the real story about the youth vote is not how many "new" voters Obama got to show up. It's how he produced a gargantuan 25% swing among existing young voters, or those who were sure to vote for the first time anyway.

How big?

18 percent times a 25 percent increase in the Democratic margin equals 4.5 points, or a majority of Obama's popular vote margin. Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.

Related to this are African Americans. Here too, turnout was up a point from 12% to 13%, or Census + 1. But that's only part of the story. The biggest part is Obama's increased margins, moving from 88-11 in '04 to 95-4 in '08. The black vote's net contribution to Democrats moved from 9.7 points to 11.8 points (91% x 13%), or an increase of 2.1 points.

Now, let's be generous and shave 10% off the youth effect assuming some of these youths are African American, but also tempered by the fact that the young black vote is already so highly Democratic that a 25% swing is impossible here. 4.1 percent (18-29) + 2.1 percent (AA's) equals 6.2 percent. Obama's current popular vote margin is 6.1 percent.

Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.

[Vandy Vol]

All of those things you admitted to in the quotes above are my main point.  At no point did the youth vote ever become the largest number of votes.  But being the biggest change, the most drastic change, and larger % than normal....all contributed to why I'm saying it could be labeled "the" reason.

The "biggest," most "dramatic," or "uncanny" change in percentage does not mean that it is the "biggest" change or the "biggest" reason.  100% of ten people is a large percentage, but not a large number of people when compared to 50% of 100. 100% of ten people when compared to a previously recorded 20% of ten people is a large percentage increase, but that "drastic" percentage change doesn't compare when you're talking about percentages of other groups that are much larger.

However, getting 68% of a particular age group is a big deal  It is drastic.  It is out of the ordinary.  Shooting 40 foul shots in a game is unusual.  It is excessive.  It is noteworthy when the game is over.

It's unusual, drastic, uncanny, noteworthy and a host of other adjectives.  However, it is not "the" reason (meaning the only reason) they won.  Saying that X happened only because of Y means that A, B and C didn't have to occur; only Y is required.  Stating that the 32 points and the 32 points alone is the reason they won is not true, because 32 points alone won't cut it.  Noteworthy?  Yes.  A part of the reason why they won?  Yes.  Did it stand out?  Yes.  But saying that it is "the" reason is suggesting that, absent everything else, the 32 points alone would have made them win.  That's not the case, just as the 13% of votes for Obama from the youth would not have made Obama win.  That 13% was not "the" reason he won.

The fact that he received 53% of total votes is "the" reason that he won, just as Florida scoring more total points than Auburn is "the" reason they won.  There is always going to be differences between games, and between elections, but the only one real reason as to why a person/team wins is because they get more votes/points.  Every voter/player has a part in that, and some voters/players have more of a part than others.  Nonetheless, it requires a majority of votes to win, and unless a particular group can, by themselves, make up that majority, then they are not "the" reason that the election turned out as it did; their votes, whether it was a change from the past or not, required the addition of other votes in order for Obama to win.

Case in point:

Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.

According to that article that you posted, Obama would have won even if the youth vote had not drastically changed and had remained the same as it was in 2004.  The change in the youth's voting can not be "the" only reason he won if he would have won without that change.

[wreckingball]

You guys should write a paper.

[jadennis]

According to that article that you posted, Obama would have won even if the youth vote had not drastically changed and had remained the same as it was in 2004.  The change in the youth's voting can not be "the" only reason he won if he would have won without that change.

We're mostly just choosing to look at it differently, obviously.  

And you're right, he would have won.  But he would have won by 2 points, not 6+ points...that's an enormous difference caused by such a small group.  My whole point was that the youth vote has never had that kind of impact on an election.  They have never provided a candidate with such a significant bump in % of overall votes.

Can we agree then that the change in the youth vote and the change in the African American vote were "the" difference?  Because combined they account for more than the total 6.1% margin of victory Obama won by.  

 

[Vandy Vol]

And you're right, he would have won.  But he would have won by 2 points, not 6+ points...that's an enormous difference caused by such a small group.

It's a difference, yes.  And you can even go as far to say that the youth is "the" reason why he won by 6 points and not by 2 points.  However, the youth vote is not "the" reason for him winning.  Even though the margin of victory would have been smaller, and even if the change in the margin of victory is "enormous," the fact still remains that he would have won.  Therefore, the youth vote is not "the" reason for winning.

My whole point was that the youth vote has never had that kind of impact on an election.  They have never provided a candidate with such a significant bump in % of overall votes.

They had a noticeable impact, yes.  It was a noticeably different impact than they've ever had before, yes.  It was a drastic change in their impact from the past, yes.  And it was such an impact that his victory margin was greater.  My only point is that the youth vote is not "the" reason for the victory.  "The" reason that anyone wins an election is the fact that they received more votes.  The youth did not supply the majority of the votes, nor would the absence of their drastic voting pattern affect the fact that Obama would still win by a majority, albeit a smaller one.  I point this out because the comment had been made that the youth was "the" reason for the current administration.  I'm not trying to disagree that the youth did not play a part, I'm just pointing out that we didn't single handedly do it.  And, more precisely, I'm pointing out that we were only 13% responsible.  The remainder of the votes required to win were made up by older generations.

Can we agree then that the change in the youth vote and the change in the African American vote were "the" difference?  Because combined they account for more than the total 6.1% margin of victory Obama won by.  

I can agree that it was certainly one difference.  And I can agree that it was probably the largest difference, when you combine those two groups together.  But again, it is the largest as far as changes in percentage go, not the largest difference in number of voters.  So we're still back to the point that it may be a noteworthy change, and may equal the margin of victory, but it is not, by itself, "the" reason for a victory.  "The" reason for victory is receiving the majority of votes (or, more accurately, receiving majority votes in enough states to win the electoral college).  Unless the group you are pointing out constitutes the majority of votes, then it can not be considered "the" reason for winning.

[AUChizad]

 

[Vandy Vol]

 

[BZ770]

 

Back to the original subject an update.

http://blog.al.com/birmingham-buzz/2010/03/going_down_fighting_only_adult_album_alternative_station_leaves_airwaves.html