Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Y'all are trying WAY to hard to draw a correlation between poverty and voting "red." Assuming most all of the poor in those states are black, they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats -- who have a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state.
Problem is, the south is full of poor whites, too, so you can't blame it all on black southerners.
I don't think it's a Democrat-Republican thing at all. The states that are the poorest also tend to have the lowest educational output, and that I blame on a culture that is anti-intellectual.
As politics/poverty are of interest in 2008 the New York Times electoral map indicates that counties with poverty rates of 22% or more (hence higher than the rate for Mississippi overall) did go for Obama by a fairly high 61% to 38% margin.
However the 22.0%+ poverty counties in California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia look to be largely/mostly Republican. They might be majority Republican in Arkansas too and Georgia plus Texas's look mixed. Not sure on Alabama and Mississippi. North Carolina's poorest counties look to be mostly Democratic and some of the most populous "poor counties" in Louisiana are Democratic.
According to Pew Research in 2008 whites who made less than 30K a year leaned Democratic 52% to 37%. However "poor whites", or non-blacks generally, who are married and Protestant tend to be more Republican. Currently Pew Research indicates poor whites lean slightly Republican. In states of the South "poor whites" are more Protestant than average so likely to lean more Republican. (Mormons also lean far more Republican than average, hence Idaho. Not sure on California, but I'm thinking that possibly the poor there are more likely to be non-citizens, so not voters, and also the "Okie influence" in the Joaquin/Central Valley. The counties in Missouri and Florida listed might be the more "Southern" ones.)
Going back to Electoral Explorer Elliott County, Kentucky look to be the most pro-Obama of "poor white" counties. Webster County, West Virginia is also mostly white, highly poor, and majority going for Obama. Interestingly those counties look fairly Protestant.
The poorest county to be Republican looks to be Owsley County, Kentucky. It's been Republican a fairly long time too. In 1944 Owsley went 86.11% for Dewey against FDR, in 1960 it gave Nixon 86.24%, and in 1976 it gave Ford 77.03%. Ford's might look comparatively low, but it's the second highest percent he received anywhere.
I have always found it strange how Arkansas (my home) is one of the poorest states in the United States, yet has some of the richest people in the world that live and have businesses here.
Why must anything be blamed on race? Race doesn't dictate our country's economic state.
I was just dealing with the demographics as they do tend to relate some to politics as politics was brought up. Poor whites are more Republican than poor of most other ethnic groups. In most groups (Hispanics, Whites, and I think even Asians) married Protestants are more Republican.
For whatever reason religious affiliation and affluence don't seem to have much relationship on Black voters. Upper-class Black Protestants tend to be just as Democratic as any other sub-group of the Black/African-American population. I might speculate that immigration status could vary things, that Blacks born in other countries are less Democratic whereas whites born in other countries are maybe more Democratic or no difference, but that's speculation as I have read no studies on Black voters by nation-of-birth. Although I think religious intensity has some role because, as I recall, more intensely religious Blacks are slightly less Democratic.
It's just statistically interesting. I'm not trying to say something about blacks or whites and poverty as an unvarying rule.
I was just dealing with the demographics as they do tend to relate some to politics as politics was brought up. Poor whites are more Republican than poor of most other ethnic groups. In most groups (Hispanics, Whites, and I think even Asians) married Protestants are more Republican.
For whatever reason religious affiliation and affluence don't seem to have much relationship on Black voters. Upper-class Black Protestants tend to be just as Democratic as any other sub-group of the Black/African-American population. I might speculate that immigration status could vary things, that Blacks born in other countries are less Democratic whereas whites born in other countries are maybe more Democratic or no difference, but that's speculation as I have read no studies on Black voters by nation-of-birth. Although I think religious intensity has some role because, as I recall, more intensely religious Blacks are slightly less Democratic.
It's just statistically interesting. I'm not trying to say something about blacks or whites and poverty as an unvarying rule.
I definitely understand what you're saying. I wasn't necessarily directing that towards you, just in general after reading all the other posts and what a few others were saying. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.
I figure you should read the rest of the post you're quoting from, and possibly click the link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
