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.
If you break down voter demographics - the poorest ones vote Democrat.
By Education, the poorest group are high school drop outs - Obama had a massive landslide victory in this group.
By Family status, the poorest group Single Mothers Obama won by a large margin.
By Race, the poorer the group the bigger Obama's margin of victory pretty much.
Straight up by income the lowest group, you know actual poor people - Obama won.
It is so easy to point out by state, but then ignore who in that state is voting red versus blue.
Why not point out by counties instead of states? Obama won less than 25% of the counties nationwide, yet Obama DOMINATED the list of poorest counties, DOMINATED the list of counties with highest welfare rates, etc...
Democrats also claim to have more feelings about the poor and "care." So their message is tailored to winning and holding on to this poor vote.
If someone doesn't think that the Democrats beat the Republicans in the poor vote - they either are lying or ignorant of reality. Nonetheless, millions of poor do vote GOP, but the Democrats are winning the poor vote hands down - and this is not debatable among sane-informed-honest people.
I can also cherry pick Republican voter statistics if I felt the need.
You've listed poor people, high school drop outs, single mothers....etc...and picked the presidential race, where we elected a man of color....and oddly enough colored folks are highly represented in those groups....weird huh? 93 percent of the african american vote went to obama....maybe you should think about correlation and causation. Maybe its that the poor folks recognize that giving tax breaks to the richest 1% as the Republicans do isn't to their benefit?
But really...look at the original discussion. And say..wait..this is about poor people in the poorest STATES. not counties. And then look at what I was replying too. And think....wait how did we get from 45K incomes one with benefits, and one without, to discussing presidential elections on a county basis, and how people vote.
We got from this:
Quote:
Imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. They earn $45,000 a year, they have the same amount of debt on their homes, and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other does not. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual? The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more a man or woman feels like captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.
I can also cherry pick Republican voter statistics if I felt the need.
You've listed poor people, high school drop outs, single mothers....etc...and picked the presidential race, where we elected a man of color....and oddly enough colored folks are highly represented in those groups....weird huh? 93 percent of the african american vote went to obama....maybe you should think about correlation and causation. Maybe its that the poor folks recognize that giving tax breaks to the richest 1% as the Republicans do isn't to their benefit?
But really...look at the original discussion. And say..wait..this is about poor people in the poorest STATES. not counties. And then look at what I was replying too. And think....wait how did we get from 45K incomes one with benefits, and one without, to discussing presidential elections on a county basis, and how people vote.
We got from this:
To your response. The link is a bit tenous.
In one moment you are proud of Democrats for holding the 1% accountable and helping the 99% and thus earning the poor vote...
In the next moment you are again pretending that Democrats don't easily win the poor vote.
If you are on welfare - you are more likely to vote Democrat. Sorry, even if you break down for whites - poor whites are more likely to vote Democrat than the rest of the whites, etc...
If you are in poverty you are more likely to vote Democrat.
If you are a single mother you are more likely to vote Democrat.
If you are on welfare you are more likely to vote Democrat.
Etc... This can't be denied in an honest conversation. Democrats will in one moment acknowledge it as a prideful boast of their compassion, in another moment that will pretend it is not true and distort by looking at states to ignore that it is primarily the blue voters getting federal/state handouts in those red states. Reminds me of Democrats disingenuously pretending that Social Security benefits that people paid in to their whole lives are welfare if handouts if the person is in the Tea Party or works at Walmart.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 03-18-2015 at 04:01 PM..
The whole point of the right-wing is to worship the majority monoculture. Diversity of opinions would defeat the purpose of being right-wing. The left-wing tends to be more technocratically issue-focused, and there's more than one way to skin a cat, hence debate.
I use to think that in most countries political conflict was mostly about the left fighting the right, but now that I have some life experience I have started to notice that the left actually spends almost as much time hating on other portions of the left as it does the right.
Why is it that right-wingers generally are more able to work with other right-wingers while left-wingers are always at each others throats?
As a group conservatives all think the same, but as a group liberals do (not) think the same.
The documentary "Billionaires Tea Party" shows how the Koch brothers control where the Tea Party protests with a phone call. If some group or event is disliked by the Koch brothers they make a phone call to a high level corporate Tea Party member, then all the Tea Party groups protest the event the Koch brothers ordered.
The left's major internal argument is over who gets to take how much money out of other peoples' wallets. This naturally sets the stage for endless internecine squabbling. Look at any of the youtube videos of the Serengeti. The hyenas are always the most contentious.
While I don't agree that lefties argue more than righties, I do think that many lefties are arrogant and humorless. The San Francisco Bay Area is overflowing with such tight azzes, who are convinced they are superior in every conceivable way. It gets old. That said, they are more right than wrong overall, even if self distance is often sorely lacking. Not all lefties are like that though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
That theory does not really hold water. How is that most comedians are liberals and most neocons humorless war mongers?
Most liberals I encounter aren't liberal in the same way some one like Bill Maher is liberal. Just look at the reaction he got from badmouthing Islam. People were barring him from speaking at UC Berkeley. This isn't his first time he went on about religion and the reaction wasn't coming from conservatives either.
Speaking of conservatives, Chris Rock brought up how college campuses have become too conservative, but not in a political sense since most college campuses aren't usually conservative.
I'm not excusing Conservatives for being intolerant and so forth but from the examples I've pointed out, it's hard to say that his theory doesn't hold water, especially if the examples I've pointed are considered "liberal".
This is an easy one. Today's left is steaming with inconsistencies. For example, they support killing babies under a "my body my choice" theory but push mandatory vaccines. They claim to support women's rights but also defend islam. They claim to like free speech but then want students in public schools thrown out for their free speech. The list goes on and on. Of course they will have massive internal strife with so many illogical and irreconcilable stances.
The left historically turns on the left, from Brezhnev to Mao, from Shining Path to MRTA, from the Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party to Stalin, from UNITA to MPLA, from Vietnam to Democratic Kampuchea, from Bloomberg to Occupy, from Quan to Occupy, there is no shortage of internecine left-on-left rivalry.
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.