- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Location, Location, Location (Wall Support)
Posted on 1/15/19 at 8:20 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 1/15/19 at 8:20 am to AggieHank86
350 sure seems to be a random number to pick. Turns out it isn't so random. They went with 350 because it is just enough to include every major metropolitan area. I wonder how different the numbers would be if they went with 250 instead. That would exclude Houston, Dallas, Lubbock, Waco, Santa Fe, Flagstaff, most of Las Vegas and tons of wonderful mid-sized progressive California towns.
2
Posted on 1/15/19 at 8:36 am to AUTiger1978
quote:The article said that support for the wall decreased further as one got closer to the border than the 350, even among Republicans. It also said that the sample size was small enough at the shorter distances that the differences might not be statistically significant.
350 sure seems to be a random number to pick. Turns out it isn't so random.
Posted on 1/15/19 at 8:40 am to AUTiger1978
quote:I'd strongly suspect the number would rise. Will Hurd's vote being supportive of the premise.
I wonder how different the numbers would be if they went with 250 instead.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News