On the poor, underprivileged voters being more Conservative in US… [Archive]

Aro

01-26-2004, 10:18 AM

It seems to me the US is a rather unique position in having the grass roots / poor / underprivileged masses within it’s boundaries leaning further to the right that the left. In most other countries age and wealth lead ideology to the right, whilst poverty and youth lead to the left (very generally).

The young, the underprovided for and the menial workers are commonly the ones who see the world and their situation as unfair, who wish the Government to provide legislation to help lessen the gap between rich and poor, to help bolster their position, to provide protection and security for them as they work. It is commonly this segment of the population who join or form unions, who attend anti-globalisation marches, who fight against corporations they view as unregulated monsters.

But, even those people in the US who have to work the most back-breaking dangerous jobs in factories, abattoirs or building sites will, more commonly, consider themselves aligned with conservatism, (whereas the rich Hollywood, academic types are the liberal thinking ones.) They will fight against the formation of unions (dismissed as ‘communist’ plots?), accept low wages as normal and tolerate their position in society as long as the Government doesn’t interfere too much in their lives.

Is this general conservatism stemming from an adoration or acceptance of one specific law or core belief within conservative thought (say, less government interference, freedom of gun ownership, defence / foreign policy ideals, patriotism), or from an intense hatred of all things socialist, regardless of how specific leftist ideas may help the members in question. Or something else?

I realise this is vastly simplified and probably a not entirely accurate blanket to throw over an entire nation and its people, but I’m interested in how this particular phenomenon (poor > right wing) has developed in the US in marked contrast to other countries.

If I am stupidly wrong in any/all of this, please be sure to tell me; this is all only random opinions at the moment, after all.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Wesley Clark

01-26-2004, 11:24 AM

i dont agree with that, go to a college and its filled with young and (temporarily) poor people and they are fanatical leftists more often than fanatical right wingers.

In regards to why some poor choose right wing views, i would say US culture seems to view the idea of a government as a babysitter as a bad thing, so anything intervention is frowned upon. its all hypocritical but people still believe it.

And because, im assuming, in the US the poor don't consider themselves poor by force of an evil capitalist society as much as poor because they are unwilling to do what it takes to better their lot in life (work 80 hours a week, go to night school, etc), and therefore not worth $10 an hour and healthcare for being a waiter. At least this mindset probably holds back unionization and attempts to better the lot of the working poor. From birth alot of us in the US are brought up on Horatio Alger stories and stories about how anyone can do anything in the US if you only work hard and if you end up at the bottom of the financial ladder its taken to be your own fault.

This is all my opinion and perspective of course.

Dignan

01-26-2004, 11:50 AM

Wesley Clark, Aro mentions in the OP, that young people are part of the left (poor or not). I think s/he is saying the working class tends to be more conservative, where in other places they would be on the left.

My personal opinion on it is that the "underpriveleged" vote more conservatively because of policies traditionally held by the right. The religious issues, (lack of) gun control, "low" taxes, and being against affirmative action are things that I think the "underpriveleged" might find appealing. A conservative candidate can tell a person that when he is in office he will cut taxes and let the worker spend it rather than "waste" it on government programs. It might sound good to someone that doesn't really pay attention, so they get a couple bucks back, but don't realize a program they use is being cut.

If I'm remembering correctly, in Catch-22, Major Major Major Major's father is a farmer that doesn't like the government giving people money ... except when the gov't gives him farm subsidies, then it's OK. If the program doesn't benefit him though, then he thinks it's a waste. It's been a while since I've read it, so I might not be sharp on the details.

For example, I know some older people that vote a straight Republican ticket, even though they heavily depend on government help for healthcare. They would benefit from socialized medicine, but for other reasons they're affiliated with the GOP.

msmith537

01-26-2004, 12:18 PM

Wesley Clark

01-26-2004, 04:49 PM

Other than that, I think your post is straight-on. Maybe there are still poor people who feel that they would rather work hard and earn what they can then to be dependent on the government handouts and subsidies controlled by the whims of well-meaning, if somewhat naive, liberals.

The other thing is that we middle class folks are the ones who end up footing the bill for all these high-minded government programs.

Hahaha. Yeah i guess you hit the attitude dead on. Doesn't mean i agree with it though. now if you could just earn $30k a year less than you do and you could probably answer this post perfectly.

Rashak Mani

01-27-2004, 07:41 AM

In the US its certainly stronger than elsewhere... but I would venture that right wing politicians are more likely to pander to the working class votes with promises and populist offers... whilst left wingers talk about ideology. The ignorant poor fall for the rhetoric and promises more easily.

The US is not alone... in Brazil for example many conservative and corrupt governors and mayors were elected using religion, rhetoric and a "I will protect you" BS. Their votes came mostly from the poor and less educated. Our formerly left wing President was elected heavily on the votes of the middle and lower middle class. So its not a US only phenomena...

An Arky

01-27-2004, 07:51 AM

'Cause poor people are stupid, that's why... :dubious:

Seriously, I believe that right now the right wing has a better line on the demagoguery required to sway those of lesser means (both financially and mentally) than does the left.

The Asbestos Mango

01-27-2004, 04:27 PM

[QUOTE=Wesley Clark]i dont agree with that, go to a college and its filled with young and (temporarily) poor people and they are fanatical leftists more often than fanatical right wingers.
QUOTE]

That's not even correct either. Go to a private college in the North East like BC or Villanova or a football school like Notre Dame and compare it to Berkley or some school in Oregon. Many schools, especially ones with a focus in business or engineering tend to be more conservative than your basic hippy-factory.

Other than that, I think your post is straight-on. Maybe there are still poor people who feel that they would rather work hard and earn what they can then to be dependent on the government handouts and subsidies controlled by the whims of well-meaning, if somewhat naive, liberals.

I was going to pit you for this,thinking, "Oh, it's the old 'if you're poor, it must be because you're lazy' argument again", but then I re-read the post and realized what it was you were really saying.

I've always had liberal tendencies, no matter what income bracket I've been in- even when I was making good money, I never had a problem with the idea that my tax dollars were going to help those less well off than I was, in fact, I felt a moral responsibility to the poor, but I've also always been one to, as you said, work hard and earn what I can... even at a point in my early working life when I was working my body into the ground and making so little I would have qualified for food stamps, I refused to apply for them.

Right now, I'm at a point in my life where working hard to earn what I can has put me into a physical state that within the next week or so, I'm going to be having to choose between my job and my physical health. Right now the job is winning. I have some Pell Grant money from school and I'm due a tax refund that would be enough that I could probably afford to not work the rest of the semester and still keep up my share of the household expenses, but the money wouldn't last much past that. If I quit, I can concentrate on my studies, continue in physical therapy and in a few months have my body back into good enough shape that I will be able to work as a massage therapist, which would be a lot easier on my body than my current job. But, at the end of the semester, I will be flat broke with nothing to fall back on, and if I don't find work in my chosen field quickly, I will be back in a situation where I may have to take a job that will wreck my body in order to make ends meet.

If I go back to work (I'm just in the last week of my leave of absence), I run the risk of wrecking myself physically to the point that even with the physical therapy I would be unable to do any kind of work that would involve being on my feet for any length of time, like, oh, massage therapy.

At this point in my life, I would have no qualms about going on welfare so that I could take care of my body and focus on my education, and be both physically and mentally ready to go to work in my field when the time comes. Unfortunately, I live in Nevada, where it is extremely difficult to qualify for any kind of state-administered public assistance, so either way, I'm going to be white-knuckling it for probably the next six to eight months.

Anyhoo, as far as the original subject of the thread, I think the reason the poor in this country tend to be more conservative has more to do with moral issues than with economic ones. Folks in the lower income brackets, especially rural residents, Southerners, and black people in all geographical areas, tend to be more religious, and more conservative to fundamentalist in religious flavor, and thus tend to vote for canditates who appeal to their religious and moral sensibilities.

London_Calling

01-27-2004, 06:08 PM

I realise this is vastly simplified and probably a not entirely accurate blanket to throw over an entire nation and its people, but I’m interested in how this particular phenomenon (poor > right wing) has developed in the US in marked contrast to other countries.

Not that different, imho, to that of another empire - it's more exaggerated in the US now because that country is in the middle of empire (actually past the middle but that's another day . . .)

Anyway, my response is equally superficial and generalised . . and not based on the US: Substitute as appropriate.

It kind of reminds me, in the broadest, most general terms, of the racist, ignorant working class football hooligan mentality around these parts – those people tend to be nationalistic right of centre types as well; Margaret Thatcher and all that.

A common explanation goes something like this:

Not bright knucklehead, not great self-esteem, working in a crap dead-end job and going anywhere much for the next 40 years; crap housing, crap relationship, crap money, crap education. Brought up on a diet of war films, Winston Churchill and the glories of empire (for US read similar crap).

Build your self-esteem, find a justification for your life and an identity by associating with a greater ‘good’ (as its popularly portrayed – you, of course, don’t question the merits of that portrayal) - we did great, we are the best, we saved the world, we are heroes: Agincourt, Crecy, Trafalgar, Waterloo, D-Day, etc., etc . . wave that Union Jack ‘Land of Hope and Glory’

And it’s great if you’re not the sharpest tool in the box because you get the whole mantra reinforced every Sunday afternoon (war films on the idiot box) Zulu., Battle of Britain, etc, etc. . .never mind the sports internationals and other media.

All of a sudden you feel really good about yourself and your life. Excellent.

Kind of thing . . . there are others explanation sbut much seems to centre on transposing ones own desires/needs onto this strange post-empire culture.

SnoopyFan

01-27-2004, 11:43 PM

Perhaps the poor in America are smarter than the poor in other countries?

Everyone who is poor in the US but is willing to work hard knows other poor people who are simply lazy and prefer to live off Uncle Sam. They also know that these people are trapped: stay on welfare too long and you may just end up stuck there for life. It follows that those who are poor, yet hopeful for the future, want conservatives in power so, when their lot in life improves, they don't get taxed to death so the lazy poor people they know can continue to sit on their asses.

Doomtrain

01-28-2004, 02:17 AM

Let me explain some of the great American cultural myths that basically pervade our culture and hopefully I can tie it to the OP. The first is the American As Rugged Individualist. The Ideal American makes his own way in the world, never accepting help from anyone, because We Are A Land of Rugged Individualists. Everyone should take care of themselves (and be a Rugged Individualist). Lost your job? Shoulda saved your money! Can't afford health insurance? Shoulda stayed in school and got a better job! It's not MY problem.

We're not a country with a sense of the Common Good, we're a country with a sense of I Got Mine. Or I Will Get Mine Eventually.

The second is the Hard Work/American Dream. We're taught that if you just work hard enough, you will eventually get whatever you want. Consequently, there's a deep cultural suspicion towards those in poverty. They just Don't Want To Work Hard Enough.

This pervades discussions on the poor, especially those who have trouble finding a job. Let's take a someone that lives in housing projects as an example. Here's what I've seen time and time again, in various forms:

"Why doesn't she just get a job?"
"Well, there aren't a lot of jobs in the inner city, for starters."
"So, if she wanted one, she could get one! There's plenty of jobs!"
"Yea, but it has to be within walking distance, cause she doesn't have a car."
"So?! Is she too good to take the bus?!"
"Um, there's very little bus service, it usually runs late when it runs at all..."
"Well, if she WANTED the job, she'd TAKE it and wait for the bus TWO HOURS if that's what it takes! Or walk! A little walking never hurt anyone!"
"Have you *ever* walked in the projects at night? It's pretty scary."
"Well, no, I Work For A Living, not like these slackers who waste my tax dollars! They should just move if it's so bad there!"
"They can't move! They don't have any money!"
Etc.

I guess I'll call this the Work Will Make You Free Principle. So it's pointless to spend money on job training, better public transportation, whatnot, because these people just don't want to work bad enough, if they did, they'd just get a job. Or they would've stayed in school. Or they should move. Or whatever.

Thirdly, we're a country where the Government Can't Be Trusted and this is where the conservatives got a lot of their appeal. If the government is crafty, devious, and untrustworthy, the smaller it is, the better. Conservatives in the US have traditionally been against larger government (and some of the articles I've read have hinted that Old School Conservatives are kinda pissed about Bush's expansion of the government, here's (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/27/cpac/index.html) an interesting article on the subject). Since the government is bad and can't be trusted, why would we want to entrust them with our health care/our guns/our safety/our money/whatever?

I don't think a lot of Europeans/others realize just how deep this runs. Do you guys know that Britian is frequently held up as an example of government gone crazy (they took all your guns away!)? That for a lot of people, having British/Canadian style health care is used as a scare tactic (Do you want THE GOVERNMENT picking your doctor?!)? I'm not joking.

And, yes, I think the Republicans draw a lot of their support from the types London_Calling was describing, though I'd change it to a white guy, worried because blacks/Mexicans/whoever are coming in in larger and larger numbers, weaned from the Golden-Arched Teat of Momma America on America is Number ONE and We Don't Take No Crap and The Government Is Coming To Take Your Guns and here come the Republicans, wrapping themselves in the flag, fighting for God, country, and apple pie, and how can the Democrats compete? Well, they want to take your tax money and give it to poor people (who don't deserve it, see above) and they think we should try and get along with other countries (Hey Europe! We saved your ass in the WAR! If it wasn't for us, you'd be speaking GERMAN now!) and the UN (none of whom realize America is Number ONE! We saved their ass in the WAR!).

Wrap THAT around the social changes that have been taking place lately--keep in mind, 40-50 years ago, White Male ruled the roost around here--and all the upheaval that entails, and you get the Republicans that offer the "Your Way Of Life Is Under Attack!" along with the more base "Those damn Blacks/Mexicans/Gays want your job/rights/whatever and they just don't deserve it!" There's a not-insignificant chunk of the population that's scared shitless of the idea of gay people getting married or being recognized as human, so you have that chunk of their support. And if the poor happen to be more religious and more prone to fundamentalism, well, there's that chunk of their support. Also, our Nostalgic Golden Age is the 1950s as portrayed in sitcoms like Leave It To Beaver. So when the Republicans say they're for Traditional Family Values and Supporting the Nuclear Family and Upholding Marriage, well, it resonates with a lot of people, especially if they're poor/more religious.

That clear anything up?

Excalibre

01-28-2004, 09:18 AM

The sad truth is that it's because the poor are less educated in general, and therefore more inclined to believe conservative rhetoric - the right in the United States has a very well-run propaganda machine, and the left, at least at present, has been unable to match it.

Therefore, the conservatives manage to attain populist appeal with notions of tax cuts and smaller government, even when these tax cuts hardly make a difference to the poor - although they certainly help the right's financial backers.

This ties into the myth of the American Dream; self-sufficiency and hard work have been talked about above, so I'll just reiterate that in the U.S., we have a collective notion that hard work is all it takes to succeed - we live to work - and this dates back to the earliest days of our nation, even though nowadays hard work is hardly ever enough.

Finally, America is a more patriotic country - nationalistic, really - as compared to the rest of the industrialized world. And the right has always managed to inflame the nationalism of the uneducated, as it's done recently, with talk of war, and threats to our grand empire, and talk of the American Way. Pacifism is harder to sell.

What can the left do about it? I don't know. It's hard to sell peace and reasonable government when the other side is screaming about war and how "our hard-earned money" is going to support big government. The poor simply do not have the education or the luxury of enough time and energy to research and understand the real meaning of this right-wing demagoguery.

SnoopyFan

01-28-2004, 02:51 PM

"The sad truth is that it's because the poor are less educated in general, and therefore more inclined to believe conservative rhetoric"

Do you have any evidence to back this up or is this just your own little theory?

"The poor simply do not have the education or the luxury of enough time and energy to research and understand the real meaning of this right-wing demagoguery."

How condescending can you possibly get? Do you have to have a Ph.D. to think for yourself these days? ONLY "educated people" research and put thought into their political opinions? Let me guess: only liberals have thoroughly researched their positions, right? If you're a financially poor conservative you MUST be some illiterate hick who listens to whatever the nice anchor on the TV tells you.

Furthermore, only the wealthy are educated? Since when? I know lots of poor people with college degrees. They're poor either because of bad choices or poor job availability, that or they're on disability because of bad health.

"The poor" that I assume you are talking about: welfare recipients, for example, would be FAR FAR more likely to vote liberal, IMHO. All the democrats have to do is tell them the eeeevil Republicans want to take away their check and off they go to the polls to vote for The Party That Is On The Little Man's Side(tm).

astorian

01-29-2004, 12:36 AM

First, the OP is ill informed. "The poor" in the U.S. DON'T vote Republican. Black Americans, the poorest of all ethnic groups in the U.S., vote almost exclusively for the Democrats. About 90% of the black vote in nearly every election goes to the Democrats.

Now, if the question is why so many blue-collar Caucasian voters often go Republican... well, read through some of the posts from liberals on these threads, and you'll see EXACTLY why blue-collar folks are so leery of liberals! NOBODY likes to be looked down on, NOBODY likes to be patronized, and NOBODY likes to be treated like an idiot. And yet, that's precisely how liberals approach the blue-collar voters they claim to represent.

Liberals treat blue-collar white Americans as morons, then wonder why they aren't beloved.

scr4

01-29-2004, 01:02 AM

Liberals treat blue-collar white Americans as morons, then wonder why they aren't beloved.
I think you got the cause and effect reversed. If liberals tend to look down on blue-collar white Americans, it's because because they are (or at least vote for) conservatives.

Rashak Mani

01-29-2004, 01:06 AM

Liberals treat blue-collar white Americans as morons, then wonder why they aren't beloved.

So the blacks are so stupid that they don't notice it... but poor whities are smarter and notice they are looked down upon ?

ruadh

01-29-2004, 01:17 AM

Aren't American Indians the poorest of all ethnic groups in the US?

Also - to my knowledge, the far right isn't currently attracting working class votes in America the way it is in parts of Europe (I am knocking, actually pounding on wood as I type this).

wolfman

01-29-2004, 02:23 AM

You have to be more specific about the working class. Working class union people tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Dems, because that's what a union guy is supposed to do. And it is often the only thing they are voting on. When I was in Michigan I new several people from long time union families. If you went issue by issue with them , they would agree with the republican platform almost unanimously But they never even considered voting against the dem.

Merkwurdigliebe

01-29-2004, 06:41 AM

I think that the US is different from other countries in many ways, actually. The US is the only developed Western nation without a socialist party, which is the result of some underlying factor that also causes the poor people in our country to be liberal. Many of the protestant religions and especially puritanism if I recall correctly require a personal relationship with God and require the believer to make it on his own. You basically have to save yourself. America has had this puritanical background since the Pilgrims. Also the same reason why we are more closed towards sex than other countries in Europe. In most of Europe, Catholicism was the norm, where people are members of the church, and there wasn't at that time so much emphasis on personal responsibility to find God. On top of that we have the whole westward expansion which also affected us to a serious degree. America has been, since the beginning I believe, based on taking action for yourself. The first settlers left Europe to better their lives. The first western settlers also did the same. From that, I believe we have this attitude of, "well if your life isn't how you like, why don't you just pick up the pieces and start again." This has the effect on people that their own social class that they were born into is basically their own fault. Now, America does have a social ladder that is much more upwardly mobile than many other countries, but at some point there is a glass ceiling for some people. Take the dotcom boomdays for example. There was a huge stardom of the new millionaires. Everybody was envious, jealous, and respectful for the new millionaires at the same time. In Europe things are quite different. Rich people aren't looked upon so kindly here. Sure there are many factors leading to why America has no socialist sentiment, but the main reason is that the poor basically think that they at least "could have" accieved whatever they would have liked had they applied themselves. This is basically true to anyone to a greater extent. I could have been accepted into Harvard if I had only worked "that" much harder (just an example, btw. didn't apply). If you think about those kind of sentiments, then its true. Most of the American society was possible for any of us to achieve. Thinking that it is their own choice to live on a minimum wage salary of two parents, the poor blame themselves. And why not? You've seen the success stories of all the rags to riches in America. There are a lot. I think the poor will have to get a lot more poor and numerous before we get to a situation like the one is in Europe where there are socialist parties. Also countries like German have representative elections, meaning that third parties are viable in Parliment, giving some of these ideas constant play. There is nowhere in America for Socialists to take a foothold on the national stage. I wish there would be.

Czarcasm

01-29-2004, 07:15 AM

Moving this to Great Debates.

BobLibDem

01-29-2004, 07:26 AM

As pointed out earlier, blacks are certainly no voting block for the GOP. It's the lower income white voters that we're really talking about. Many of these are single issue voters for one of two issues: abortion and gun control. The GOP has exploited these single issue voters for years- if you are against abortion and you are against gun control, and if you are a single issue voter, then you will vote Republican. In the case of abortion, it would not be in the Republicans' best interest to see either Roe vs. Wade overturned or an amendment ratified to ban abortion. In such an event, the single issue voters suddenly become free to vote their economic interest- bad news for the GOP.

Eveready

01-29-2004, 08:06 AM

A lot of it has to do with religion and idiology.

Many blue collar workers see some people on welfare that are "cheating the system" and think that "my hard earned tax dollars are going to support that lazy bum".

I know a majority of welfare recipiants are not doing this but lower middle class workers always can point to who they think is "cheating the system" when they vote for Republicians.

Renob

01-29-2004, 08:28 AM

As someone who grew up lower-middle class in a very poor area, I find some of these condescending comments about the poor quite insulting. It's pretty easy to justify your political beliefs by calling someone who doesn't share them ignorant. However, that fails as real political analysis. It's also completely off the mark to say that poor people are more conservative because they are ignorant or because they are fooled by the media. Well, if that's the case, it's a good thing that we have such educated liberals around to take care of them and tell them what to do! Perhaps you should read David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest to see where this type of liberal arrogance got our country in the 1960's.

What most liberals don't seem to realize is that poor people generally vote conservative not because of any economic issues but because of values issues. Poor people are generally very conservative when it comes to values and they vote accordingly. Ben Wattenberg's book Values Matter Most explores the issue in some detail. These people aren't being fooled into voting for anyone, and they aren't too ignorant to cast a "correct" vote for some benighted liberal who will save them for themselves. They vote for candidates who share their values and to whom they can relate.

Sofa King

01-29-2004, 08:55 AM

I think Renob just nailed down a very good point.

It's not about "ideology," it's about "values." Heheheh.

I, too spent some time growing up in a rural and highly conservative area. It was God's country. God paved the roads, God funded the schools, God ran all the telephone, cable, water, sewage and electrical lines, God built and ran the ammunition plant which employed most everyone, God subsidized the farmers and ranchers.

And God hated indolent minorities who soaked up all our tax dollars by living on welfare in cities.

Pábitel

01-29-2004, 09:46 AM

scr4

01-29-2004, 10:18 AM

Poor people are generally very conservative when it comes to values and they vote accordingly.... They vote for candidates who share their values and to whom they can relate.
What exactly are these "values"? Is there more to it than the candidate's stance on "social" issues (abortion, gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state or lack thereof)?

John Mace

01-29-2004, 10:22 AM

SnoopyFan

01-29-2004, 11:05 AM

The GOP has exploited these single issue voters for years- if you are against abortion and you are against gun control, and if you are a single issue voter, then you will vote Republican.

Not necessarily.

I guess you could call me a single issue voter. I absolutely will *not* vote for a candidate with a pro-abortion voting record.

Anyhow, here in WV many times this means I have to vote for a democrat because the other candidate either supports abortion, or there IS no other candidate. Makes me wanna cry when I do it but I'm not going to ignore my conscience just to "vote the party" and vote Republican no matter what.

The democratic party may support abortion but many of their candidates do not, especially in states like WV and KY, where the democrats are basically the same as the Republicans.

BobLibDem

01-29-2004, 11:25 AM

I'm so glad you posted, SnoopyFan. Yes, there are a smattering of districts in the US where single issue abortion foes would have to vote Democratic, thank you for that correction. But please satisfy my curiousity- do you vote the pro-life candidate out of any hope of changing abortion legality or is it purely a matter of principle? I'm more pragmatic and my approach would be: candidate A is pro-choice, candidate B is pro-life. But no matter which one wins, abortion is still going to be legal so I might as well see where A vs. B stack up on other issues.

John Mace

01-29-2004, 11:54 AM

I did some more googling, and still can't find party affiliation by income level. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer what I think the data would turn up. I'm open to retracting this if someone comes up with some real data that contradicts it.

The "poor" are actually more likely to vote Democract, if they vote at all. I'm defining "poor" as someone who receives some sort of direct gov't aid (welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credit, etc). I suspect that these folks vote at a lower frequency than other income groups. I suspect that more vote Dem than Pub, especially at the local level. I also supsect there is a significant regional and racial difference. Poor northerners are more likely vote Pub than are poor southerners; poor Blacks are more likely to vote Dem than are poor Whites.

I think the OP is confusing the middle class (or maybe lower middle class) with the poor.

John Mace

01-29-2004, 12:26 PM

First, a correction from my last post. That should have been "Poor northerners are more likely vote Dem..."

Second, here's a pretty good artilce that addresses at least part of this subject: Voter Values Determine Political Affiliation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56905-2001Mar25?language=printer). Note that the even among whites in the lowest income level (< $15k/yr), a majority voted for Gore in 2000.

Balle_M

01-29-2004, 12:26 PM

The republican hold on poor, rural voters has got to be the biggest ripoff in history. That party regularly uses blatant scares tactics to demonize the left to this constituency. Then they go back to Washinton and raise the tax burdon of this same group and give the money to rich urbanites.

Hmm...I suppose that the left's claims that the right wants to end Social Security, poison drinking water, and cut off Grandma's Medicare benefits are 100% correct.

If the majority of Americans voted their minds instead of their hearts the Republicans would be a minority party at all levels of government. They only continue in their possition of prominance because of pandering to the fears of religious fundimentalists.

And if the voter had to pay federal, state, and local taxes in one lump sum where he saw the actual total instead of being slowly robbed every paycheck the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party would be a museum piece.

Ohh...and easy on the paintbrush. Since I'm not particularly religious let alone a fundie, which of my fears are being pandered to?

The rich will always vote Repulican. I think the days may be numbered where other voters are willing to line up to be screwed in exchange for the occational meaningless vote to allow prayer in the public schools or to ban abortion. But then I still think that people are rational animals, so what do I know.

Well, we agree on one point. I also think that people are rational. And that explains the lack of a viable Socialist Party here.

Rashak Mani

01-29-2004, 02:08 PM

Might a factor be that blacks are mostly URBAN POOR and the RURAL POOR WHITE ?

Renob

01-29-2004, 02:17 PM

What exactly are these "values"? Is there more to it than the candidate's stance on "social" issues (abortion, gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state or lack thereof)?

Generally, I'd say social issues, but not in the sense that many liberals understand.

Take gun control, for instance. A lot of rural people (who often happen to be on the poorer end of the spectrum) would never vote for anyone who supports gun control. It's not just about that issue, though. For a lot of rual people, owning and using a gun is part of their lifestyle. It's part of their culture. Someone supporting gun control indicates to them that this person fundamentally does not understand their culture. Why would they support someone who just doesn't get them? That person would not share their values and would not make decisions that reflect or respect those values.

It's the same way with many social issues, such as religion. It's not so much the issue of prayer in school or whatever. Instead, it's what that issue represents. They are skeptical of people who can look at the world and dismiss the need for prayer in school. It is clear to them that a person who can do this does not share their, no pun intended, fundamental view of the world. And it's clear that this candidate cannot effectively represent them.

I don't know if I said that clearly or not. Let me know and I'll try and elaborate.

I must also say that the attitudes by some of the liberals on this board illustrates exactly why poorer (mostly rural -- I think this divide is much more of a rural/urban divide than a poor/rich one) people are more conservative. The absolute arrogance of some here who think that the poor are stupid and easily led around, and this is the only reason they vote conservative, only shows that they are correct in voting conservative. It's clear that these liberals do not share their values and completely misunderstand their culture. Why should anyone vote for pompous bastards who look down on them and think that the poor need their enlightened views to save them from their own stupidity? If you liberals here have such a hard time understanding why the poor don't vote the way you thnk they should, you really need to look at yourselves in the mirror.

John Mace

01-29-2004, 02:49 PM

Renob:

From the Washington Post article I cited above:

Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democratic.

Frequency of church attendance has become a better indicator of partisanship than income or education: Among whites who go to church more than once a week, Bush won by a decisive 79 percent to 20 percent. Among those who never attend religious services, Gore won 59 percent to 33 percent, according to VNS.

Southerner

01-29-2004, 02:57 PM

I must also say that the attitudes by some of the liberals on this board illustrates exactly why poorer (mostly rural -- I think this divide is much more of a rural/urban divide than a poor/rich one) people are more conservative. The absolute arrogance of some here who think that the poor are stupid and easily led around, and this is the only reason they vote conservative, only shows that they are correct in voting conservative. It's clear that these liberals do not share their values and completely misunderstand their culture. Why should anyone vote for pompous bastards who look down on them and think that the poor need their enlightened views to save them from their own stupidity? If you liberals here have such a hard time understanding why the poor don't vote the way you thnk they should, you really need to look at yourselves in the mirror.

Well said Renob. Some of the posts in this thread by the liberals are most telling.

SnoopyFan

01-29-2004, 04:11 PM

But please satisfy my curiousity- do you vote the pro-life candidate out of any hope of changing abortion legality or is it purely a matter of principle?

Most of the time, simply principle unless they are running for a big office (governor, etc.).

Dignan

01-29-2004, 04:21 PM

The right has managed to turn the political scene into an "Us vs. Them" situation. It's easier when there are only two sides to an arguement; villify the opposition and you win. Right wing talk radio pundits shriek about the "liberal dominated media" while dominating the air waves. W. benefited from his country boy behavior. His "I'm your buddy, I'm your pal, I'm a compassionate conservative" act struck home with people that buy the "liberals think they know what is best for you and think you're dumb" line. (Gore didn't help himself in this regard, by playing into that idea.)

The same reasons that people like Rush, O'Reilly, and Savage are popular radio hosts, are the same reasons the poor, (non-union) blue-color workers vote conservative. It's easier to show conservative issues in black and white, right and wrong.

The people I mentioned in my first post would benefit from better prescription drug coverage and better healthcare as a whole. They're older, and if they were voting in their personal interests, wouldn't continue to vote Republican, but their parents were Republicans, they don't think the gays should be given special rights (the Bible says it's wrong!), they don't want the blacks getting favored for a job over their more-deserving nephew, or the Mexicans coming in and taking jobs (that they don't want in the first place), they don't want these minority teen mothers going out and acting reckless and then getting abortions instead being abstinent and eventually starting a loving nuclear family like God wants, they don't want the government taking away their guns, or their right to a gun, because that's what the Nazis did, they want revenge on them Arabs, and they sure as hell ain't going to wait for them to attack us first again! and if they want to go after the Arabs, they don't need nobody's permission. I realize that this is from a very small sample, and I'm not suggesting that everyone fits this description, but in my experience it's accurate.

What it comes down to is that it's easier to get people heated up by taking a simplistic approach that isn't anything more than "Us vs. Them". Good always prevails, and as long as you're on "our" side, you're on the "good" side, and God is on "our" side, the good side.

An Arky

01-29-2004, 04:28 PM

I think that some people here are confusing "belittling the poor" with "taking umbrage at the fact that the poor are being taken advantage of", just like they think liberals just want to tax the hell out of you and spend it on welfare queens. I really don't think that running up the deficit by giving the rich tax cuts and going around invading other countries under false pretenses is really any better, especially morally, than what they mischaracterize liberals of doing.

Hell, real conservatives are pissed at the Bush admin for spending so much...so anytime you hear a word from the Bush admin about being fiscally reponsible, etc., is pure, deliberate and cynical falsehood. And they have the audacity to go around chanting"liberal, liberal! Tax and Spend Democrat!"

Bullgoddamnmotherfuckingshit! :mad:

01-29-2004, 05:05 PM

Hard to pigeon hole people, John Mace. I never go to church and I'm no democrat (nor a republican either). However I am (at least on THIS board) fairly conservative I suppose.

My experience has been the opposite than the OPs. My family (my EXTENDED hispanic family) is mostly poor. With the exception of one uncle and my father, NONE of them are republicans...nor are they conservative. They are very much blue collar, union rules, money for the minorities (well, for hispanics anyway) kind of folks. They hate Bush with a passion that would make some of the folks on this board blush.

Uniformly they are democrats. We are talking a BIG family here, with 9 of the first tier (my uncles and aunts on my fathers side), each of which has anywhere between 2 (my folks) and 9 children of their own in the second tier (my generation :)), and OUR children in the third tier (and a new 4 tier started as THEY have children...gods I feel old sometimes)...all presided over by the matriarch of the family, my grandmother. The point of all this digression is that, of the lot, only my father and uncle are 'conservative republicans'. They ALL go to church btw (big time Catholics from the old scary school with saints and stuff all over their houses), and they are mostly as poor as it gets (well, some of my cousins are starting to seriously acclaimate like myself)...with the exception of myself and my father who DON'T go to church nor decorate our houses like some wierd religious amusment park....and aren't poor.

In my old neighborhood in south Tuscon this trend was iron....ALL of the folks with very few exception were democrat/liberal...and they all went to church big time. And you just don't get any poorer than South Tuscon IMO...least not when I was growing up.

So, I'm not buying the OP that poor folks are necessarily republicans...unless you mean poor WHITE folks.

-XT

Odesio

01-29-2004, 05:32 PM

The people I mentioned in my first post would benefit from better prescription drug coverage and better healthcare as a whole. They're older, and if they were voting in their personal interests, wouldn't continue to vote Republican, but their parents were Republicans,

It wasn't so long that Democrats ruled the south. I wouldn't doubt if many of the middle-aged voters in the south had parents who voted Democrat.

Marc

Odesio

01-29-2004, 05:39 PM

Neither liberal nor conservatives are a cut from the same cookie cutter. Most of the black democrats I know support welfare, are against the death penalty, and love affirmative action. Hear them speak of homosexuals and they sound very much like Pat Robertson. LIkewise I've met people who were very convserative but wanted ot end the war on drugs. I'm really starting to hate the liberal/conservative labels.

Marc

Bone

01-29-2004, 05:52 PM

What arrogance to assume that the reason individuals voted a certain way is because they are "uneducated" or ignorant. Might as well say, "Oh, but only if you were smart enough, you'd agree with me, since you dont agree with me, you must be stupid!"

The Left epitomizes this attitude of arrogance, presuming to know better than the individual what's in the individual's best interests. Maybe voting republican is actually a sign of intelligence, no?

monstro

01-29-2004, 05:58 PM

The poor tend to vote conservative because they tend to be more religious. The Right champions things like "morals", "family values", and "Judeo-Christian principles" while the Left tends to shy from such terminology and imagery. Plus, the Left is seen as a group of hippies who just want to buck the system. Who can afford to buck the system? Not people who are living pay check-to-pay check.

Blacks, who tend to be socially conservative outside of civil rights and social welfare issues, lean to the left because leftism leads to rebellion and rebellion led to the Civil Rights Movement. The Democratic Party is the party of the civil rights struggle. It's also the party that prides itself for being for poor people's rights. For the longest time, blackness was synonomous with poverty. And as a generalized group, black people have not bought the American Dream mythology that many whites have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. As a black person, it made more sense to vote with the party that created things like the New Deal and the Great Society. They were helpful programs that brought poverty to the front lines, at least for awhile.

I think the Democratic Party will have most of the black vote for some time simply because everyone tends to vote the same as our parents. And also, the Republican Party still has a long way to go before it's seen as anything but a Good Ole Boys club. Perhaps poor whites believe they are in the Good Ole Boys club simply because they share the same "values" as its members. I don't know. I'm not a poor white.

Avalonian

01-29-2004, 06:03 PM

The Left epitomizes this attitude of arrogance, presuming to know better than the individual what's in the individual's best interests. Maybe voting republican is actually a sign of intelligence, no?

So, were you actually trying to be an example of the arrogance you just finished criticizing, or was that just something you let slip by?

Voting on one side of the political spectrum or the other is not a sign of intelligence (or lack thereof)... it's simply a sign of what the voter believes in. I know (and respect) intelligent examples of almost every political camp.

For what it's worth, I'm firmly ensconced in the working class of America, and I tend to vote left. Of course, I am also college-educated, so I guess I fit at least some of the stereotypes being thrown around here. :rolleyes:

(Just in case, I don't think being college-educated has anything to do with it either.)

An Arky

01-29-2004, 06:07 PM

... I'm really starting to hate the liberal/conservative labels.

No kidding. It's really become quite silly. I think if politics were like a menu, people would pick some things from column A and a few from column B. Instead we have people berating each other like if someone happened to pick one thing from column A, the people who are mostly column B would go "You're column A, you're column A, nyah, nyah"

For instance, I'm basically identified as a liberal, but I have a few views that jive with conservatism, i.e. the gov wasting money on silly programs, etc. Of course, I think the DoD is the worst offender there, so must be a pinko-commie-faggot. :rolleyes:

Bone

01-29-2004, 06:30 PM

Dignan

01-29-2004, 06:31 PM

It wasn't so long that Democrats ruled the south. I wouldn't doubt if many of the middle-aged voters in the south had parents who voted Democrat.

I know, I should have specified that the people I'm talking about are in the Midwest. People that I would expect to be for small family farms, and farm subsidies, but they vote Republican. Always.

I have another family member from the south that's a Democrat, though he's more of the old school, Strom Thurmond type of Democrat that didn't switch sides when Strom did.

What arrogance to assume that the reason individuals voted a certain way is because they are "uneducated" or ignorant. Might as well say, "Oh, but only if you were smart enough, you'd agree with me, since you dont agree with me, you must be stupid!"

Give me a break. Have you read the thread? On average would you agree that white people that would qualify as lower or lower-middle class that are working in a non-union, blue collar job are not as well educated as the middle and upper class? Would you agree that on average those people have more conservative views? On average would you agree that those people also vote Republican?

The Left epitomizes this attitude of arrogance, presuming to know better than the individual what's in the individual's best interests. Maybe voting republican is actually a sign of intelligence, no?

Yep, it's just the left that presumes to know what is best for the individual, which is why those crazy Democrats are always trying to get prayer in school and prevent irresponsible women from murdering their unborn children; because they know what's best for the individual. Oh wait ...

Avalonian

01-29-2004, 06:38 PM

Commentary and hyperbole, in that order.

Nice, how one cancels the other out. Well done.

far_born

01-29-2004, 06:49 PM

My bet is that there isn't any systematic way to prove anything about this subject without injecting some kind of political bias.

On the whole though, US nationals are just more conservative no matter what their economic status. There's no need to single out poor people.

My own experience with the poor here is that they probably are still holding out and hoping they will win the lottery. They can accept being treated like crap because that's exactly how they would like to treat their employees if they could employ any.

Americans are individualists and outside of rah-rah military violence, we don't have much going on in terms of cultural unity. It's been the easiest way to structure a nation of mostly immigrants. Individuals have to be left alone to do their thing because we wouldn't all agree.

Heck, we just started letting black people vote a few decades ago. We still have the largest prison population per capita in the world. It's obvious the US is a cultural backwater that hasn't been on the cutting edge since the 18th century. We still have a long way to go before we can create a unified society that would have interest in helping others.

Pábitel

01-29-2004, 06:52 PM

Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democratic.

Frequency of church attendance has become a better indicator of partisanship than income or education: Among whites who go to church more than once a week, Bush won by a decisive 79 percent to 20 percent. Among those who never attend religious services, Gore won 59 percent to 33 percent, according to VNS.
My point exactly.

These people are not voting for national policy. They are voting for who thumps the Bible the hardest. They don't give two hoots about the economy. They couldn't care less if we are at war or not. All they care about is whether the candidate mouths religious sounding noises while standing on his stump.

The vast majority of these same people would benefit from liberal policies. But becasue, "All liberals are heathen" they don't even think about voting for them. They end up stabbing themselves in the back and praising god when their congressman casts his 100th symbolic vote to ban abortion.

Merkwurdigliebe

01-29-2004, 06:56 PM

Oh dignan, I'm sorry to go OT, but my old account FUTUREMAN doesn't work anymore. I thought we would make a great team in this debate if only my old name worked. Its not banned BTW it just doesn't work anymore. I got dibs on Bob Maplethorpe

Odesio

01-29-2004, 07:07 PM

The vast majority of these same people would benefit from liberal policies. But becasue, "All liberals are heathen" they don't even think about voting for them. They end up stabbing themselves in the back and praising god when their congressman casts his 100th symbolic vote to ban abortion.

Just because someone might benefit from a set of policies doesn't mean they'd support it. Conservatives are often accused of being selfish and greedy. If they're not voting for programs that benefit themselves maybe they're not so selfish and greedy after all. Maybe those who disagree with the democratic party do so out of genuine philosophical differences.

Typical from both sides of any issue. If they don't agree with you they've either been bamboozled or they're bad people.

Marc

John Mace

01-29-2004, 07:44 PM

My point exactly.

These people are not voting for national policy. They are voting for who thumps the Bible the hardest. They don't give two hoots about the economy. They couldn't care less if we are at war or not. All they care about is whether the candidate mouths religious sounding noises while standing on his stump.

The vast majority of these same people would benefit from liberal policies. But becasue, "All liberals are heathen" they don't even think about voting for them. They end up stabbing themselves in the back and praising god when their congressman casts his 100th symbolic vote to ban abortion.

No, you are taking this piece of data to an absurd conclusion. The state of the economy has typically been a key issue (if not the key issue) in all presidential campaigns.

And you're ignoring the one finding of this report that is actually relavent to this thread: More poor whites voted for Gore in '00 than voted for Bush. If you put blacks into the mix, that will only skew the results further in favor of Gore.

I'm frankly disgusted with the direction this thread has taken. Most people are just spouting unsubstantiated opinions. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has actually brought some facts to the table. And those facts contradict the thesis of the OP. I'll check back in when some reason and facts creep into this discussion-- if they ever do.

Milum

01-29-2004, 09:56 PM

Ok Mace, you want facts, I'll give you facts. Poor, undereducated, underprivileged people are naturally more conservative. They are also naturally more intelligent and more in touch with reality than the educated and the rich. They know this. They know that an advanced education gives priviledge and sometimes wealth at the cost of being able to properly think. They know instinctively that it was through the tenants of Christanity that this Republic was made great. They know. And if you are lucky, you do too.

jshore

01-29-2004, 10:25 PM

Well, we can always count on Milum to give us the facts! With "facts" like that, who needs unsubstantiated opinions!?!

01-29-2004, 10:27 PM

Avalonian

01-29-2004, 11:19 PM

They know instinctively that it was through the tenants of Christanity that this Republic was made great.

The tenants of Christianity are always so loud, though... you can hear them right through the walls! I could never live in that building.

(I know, I know... lame joke. But it was a lame post anyway.)

kniz

01-29-2004, 11:47 PM

astorian

01-29-2004, 11:50 PM

It's worth remembering that, until relatively recently, Southern whites and blue-collar ethnics (Irish, Poles, Italians, etc.) of the big Northern cities were the most loyal, reliable Democratic voters imaginable. Are we to believe that "poor" whites USED to be smart enough to vote for liberal Democrats, but suddenly got too stupid to do so?

I speak fro mexperience. In the 1960's and 1970's, when I was a kid, Franklin Roosevelt was a god to the working class folks in my neighborhood in New York City. Blue-collar New Yorkers almost always voted a straight Democratic ticket, and would never have dreamed of voting Republican. And yet, most of those folks voted for Reagan in 1980, and now regularly vote for the GOP.

I ask again, liberal commentators: did these folks just get stupid all of a sudden? Or isn't it possible that the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the leftn some issues that these traditional Democrats find there's no longer a place for them in their old party?

Mind you, even in the South, the redneck vote (to put it crudely) is NOT something the Republicans can always take for granted. Many, perhaps most working-class Southern whites voted for Bill Clinton, after all. A lot depends on which issues are most important to them at a given moment. Consider a few imaginary Southerners:

Ida Mae is 75 years old and a devout Baptist. She thinks abortion is an atrocity, that homosexuality is immoral, and that children should pray at school. So... she's a lock for the GOP, right? No- not necessarily. She's on Social Security, after all. And if she's worried about cuts in Social Security, she can and WILL vote for a Democrat.

Bubba is a 45 year old factory worker. He likes to hunt, he'd dead set against gun control, he hates affirmative action, and thinks "the system" is too soft on crime. A lock for the GOP, right? Again, not necessarily. A lot of factories have been closing down, and moving overseas. Bubba is worried about his job, and might well be open to voting for a Democrat who addresses his concerns.

The right Democrats CAN win the votes of Ida Mae and Bubba, and of the
"Archie Bunkers" in the North. But NOT if they persist in treating these people like ignorant rubes, and NOT if they persist in mocking such people's values! Treating working class whites with scorn and condescension, then wondering why they don't vote for you, is idiotic. But it's become a habit among the Democrats.

kniz

01-29-2004, 11:59 PM

What Astorian just said has to do with why Dean's statement was not taken positively in the south. Fact is that Dean had an inkling about the problem but not a clue about how to state it.

:confused: Could it be that liberals aren't as smart as they think they are?

Aro

01-30-2004, 03:05 AM

I'm frankly disgusted with the direction this thread has taken. Most people are just spouting unsubstantiated opinions. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has actually brought some facts to the table. And those facts contradict the thesis of the OP. I'll check back in when some reason and facts creep into this discussion-- if they ever do.John, I think it is worth remembering that my OP was written from a point of personal experience and was never meant to be definitive (or even factually correct). It was based solely on something I had observed on several trips to the US and may well be far off base with the current realityl. I did try to clarify this point in the OP.

Also, bear in mind I started this thread in IMHO specifically to garner other opinions about my observations. Obviously any factual correction of my OP will be welcome, but many of the people posting here may have done so while the thread was still in IMHO so perhaps didn't feel the necessity to bolster their posts with facts and statistics. It may be a little unfair to judge the posts here with the same scrutiny generally given to posts in GD.

But I do apologise if my assumptions in the OP are very wrong and have caused offense to anyone.

devilsknew

01-30-2004, 03:10 AM

I think it's really simple- idealists and the working poor are attracted to the Democratic interest. They are a beacon in a capitalist world of "bottom line profit" versus humanity.
Democratic ideals include everybody, not just the rich and powerful.
They are more tolerant of religous diversity (translation: You are welcome if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.).
Democrats think about the people before they make a decision
Republicans think about the money before they make a decision.

Kimstu

01-30-2004, 07:24 AM

Crumbs, this really has become an exercise in unsubstantiated bashing on both sides, hasn't it? The trouble seems to be that there's so little clear and comprehensive data out there on what type of people vote what type of way.

A recent Atlantic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/green-voter.htm) discusses the demographics of the "elusive swing voter". An article (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0305.teixeira.html) by Democratic demographer Ruy Teixeira analyzing the implications of the 2002 elections comments:

In the 2000 election, 54 percent of whites voted for Bush and 56 percent for congressional Republicans; in 2002 that figure rose to 58 percent, which, coupled with higher turnout of whites, especially conservative whites, was enough for victory. [...] Republicans' core constituencies among white voters--those in rural areas, married men, married homemakers, and so forth--are also shrinking relative to other voter groups, which makes the demographic challenge of maintaining a majority even tougher. [...]

[I]n the 2000 election, Al Gore got 90 percent of the black vote; in 2002, blacks appear to have voted at similar rates--if not slightly higher--for Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates. Hispanic support for Democrats was similarly rock solid, despite strenuous GOP outreach efforts. [...] Nationally, a Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner poll taken after the 2002 election indicated that Hispanics supported Democrats by 62 to 38 percent, figures nearly identical to 1998 numbers. [...]

One of the most fashionable of the theories put forward is that Republican gains reflected the rise of "exurbs"--those fast-growing edge counties on the fringes of large metropolitan areas that tend to vote Republican. [...] [However,] exurban counties are generally too small to outweigh pro-Democratic developments elsewhere in large metropolitan areas, and also [...] as exurban counties become bigger, denser, and more diverse, they generally become less--not more--Republican. So, in a sense, today's right-leaning exurb is tomorrow's left-leaning suburb. [...]

Survey data from the 2002 election indicates that the gender gap favored Democrats about as much as it ever has. [...]

So: are "the poor" right-wing? Actually, it seems that the real "poor" tend not to vote on either side; they have much lower turnout levels than higher-income groups. See the study (www.communitychange.org/buildcos/CVP%20description.doc) by the Community Voting Project noting that "In 2000, voters living below the poverty line had a voter turn-out rate of 38%."

So I don't think that what Aro is observed is actually a significant trend of low-income populations being conservative in the US. The large majority of truly low-income people don't vote at all, while minority groups on the bottom of the income ladder (blacks and Hispanics) are strongly Democratic. What Aro seems to have identified is just a relatively small demographic group who vote their (right-leaning) ideology instead of their pocketbook. But you can see that in the other direction too, where wealthy liberals support Democratic candidates even though Republican policies would give them more short-term financial benefit. (Hi jshore! :))

Now, can we take the discussion on from here based on demographic assertions that are reasonably fact-based? No more essentializing about Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives or poor people or white people or rural people or urban people or ignorant people, please.

Pábitel

01-30-2004, 07:56 AM

No, you are taking this piece of data to an absurd conclusion. The state of the economy has typically been a key issue (if not the key issue) in all presidential campaigns.
No I don't think I am.

I can't find the relevant links on this issue because it is like looking for a needle in a hay stack when you start searching on religion and politics. Not to long ago though I saw one of the news shows do a piece on the demographics of the last several elections. The divisions in this country are all most all religious, not political or economic. The original issue was "poor" rural voters. This has been taken as, "country people living in poverty." That is a narrow view. I would include anyone making less than $50,000 a year. Not dirt poor but not in the country club either. Also not, "living in the sticks," but "living in a state dominated by towns rather than cities."

Again I can not find the stats via a search but I have seen this group shown as being the largest group of one issue voters. That issue is almost always religious. If they have a choice of two candidates and one of them is pandering to their one issue then that is how they will vote. This group doesn't have a dog in the race on most other issues. So by pandering to just the abortion, homophobia, and government sponsored religion cliques the republicans can count on 20-30% of their voter base.

Because these voters don't even look at any other issue they are shooting themselves in the foot. This isn't hysteria. This isn't a lefty plot. This isn't arogance. This is an inescapable conclution.

And you're ignoring the one finding of this report that is actually relavent to this thread: More poor whites voted for Gore in '00 than voted for Bush. If you put blacks into the mix, that will only skew the results further in favor of Gore.

I'm frankly disgusted with the direction this thread has taken. Most people are just spouting unsubstantiated opinions. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has actually brought some facts to the table. And those facts contradict the thesis of the OP. I'll check back in when some reason and facts creep into this discussion-- if they ever do.Your "facts" are irrelevant. You defined "poor" as those living in poverty. That is not the definition that I was assuming in this thread. As I said before the relevant group in this thread is not the dirt poor but the working poor. Those making just enough to get by.

It is very frustrating to know the facts but not be able to cite them because I can't spend 100 hours reading through a google search of several hundred thousand sites looking for the relevant information amonst all the drivel that mentions Religion and Politics in the same page. There are states where there is a concentration of low income, religious, one issue voters. These people vote but, by their own admission, they only consider one or two religious based issues in casting their vote. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

Yes they have the right to decide their vote however they want. It is also my right to find their behavior naive. It is also my right to consider the Republican Party despicable for preying on their naivite.

Odesio

01-30-2004, 09:22 AM

No I don't think I am.
The original issue was "poor" rural voters. This has been taken as, "country people living in poverty." That is a narrow view. I would include anyone making less than $50,000 a year. Not dirt poor but not in the country club either. Also not, "living in the sticks," but "living in a state dominated by towns rather than cities."

$50,000? You should be able to support a family of four on $50,000 with little difficulty throughout most of the country. $50,000 isn't anywhere close to poor.

Marc

Pábitel

01-30-2004, 09:24 AM

Here's another way to look at my original contention.

Lets assume 20% of the republican constituency are in the group I identified, that is, are individuals who vote solely on the basis of a single religious issue. (I happen to think that number is low by the way.)

Right now the country is pretty evenly split as far as the two major parties go. So let's say that in most any national election the vote will aproximate 50/50.

Lets now take our religious voters and turn them magically into descriminating voters. It seems reasonable to assume they would follow national trends and half vote republican and half democrat. That would take the national race to a 55/45% win for the democrats.

That would also be true on a regional level in at least some cases. I know here in Michigan that the legislature would be controlled by the democrats instread of the republicans if the single issue religious vote were split evenly between the two parties.

And, I'm sorry but these religious voters ARE ignorant. They have bought into the idea that congress, or even their state representitive for goodness sake, can take something unconstitutional and make it constitutional by voting for it. How much more ignorant of our system of government can you get than that?

John Mace

01-30-2004, 09:31 AM

John, I think it is worth remembering that my OP was written from a point of personal experience and was never meant to be definitive (or even factually correct). It was based solely on something I had observed on several trips to the US and may well be far off base with the current realityl. I did try to clarify this point in the OP.

Also, bear in mind I started this thread in IMHO specifically to garner other opinions about my observations. Obviously any factual correction of my OP will be welcome, but many of the people posting here may have done so while the thread was still in IMHO so perhaps didn't feel the necessity to bolster their posts with facts and statistics. It may be a little unfair to judge the posts here with the same scrutiny generally given to posts in GD.

But I do apologise if my assumptions in the OP are very wrong and have caused offense to anyone.

Point taken, although my comments apply equally was well to those posters chiming in after the move to GD (except Kimstu, who added a welcomed dose of sanity here). I didn't mean to come down on your OP, as you are obviously not a US residient. And it's probably true that Americans, of all income levels, are seens as more "conservative" than their European counterparts.

Some posters seem flummoxed that anyone other than greedy rich bastards would vote "conservative". That's a scary mindset, as it's a pretty short step from there to "well, if people don't know what they really want, we'll have to force them to want it."

Your "facts" are irrelevant. You defined "poor" as those living in poverty. That is not the definition that I was assuming in this thread. As I said before the relevant group in this thread is not the dirt poor but the working poor. Those making just enough to get by.

Excuse me for defining "poor" as "those living in poverty".:) Why is your definition better? Why ignore the actual poor in this analysis?

It is very frustrating to know the facts but not be able to cite them because I can't spend 100 hours reading through a google search of several hundred thousand sites looking for the relevant information amonst all the drivel that mentions Religion and Politics in the same page. There are states where there is a concentration of low income, religious, one issue voters. These people vote but, by their own admission, they only consider one or two religious based issues in casting their vote. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

If you can't find a cite to back up your facts, you might consider questioning those "facts". Look, no on denies that the demographic you are describing exists. You stated in your earlier post, however, that this somehow represented "the vast majority" in that socio-economic class. That simply is not true. Plenty of "working poor" vote Democrat and plenty of "bible thumpers" are comfortably in the middle class (or upper class).

I'm objecting to your broad generalizations, not that you have inaccurately described some people. I hope you are not now going to redefine what "vast majority" means.:)

Renob

01-30-2004, 10:24 AM

I think it's really simple- idealists and the working poor are attracted to the Democratic interest. They are a beacon in a capitalist world of "bottom line profit" versus humanity.

I think you used the wrong word here. Your analysis is not "simple," it's "simplistic." Your political "analysis" states that people are liberal because they are, when it comes down to it, good people and that others are conservative because they don't care about humanity. How is that a realistic view of the world? Do you fail to see that two people can hold opposing views on an issue not because one is stupid or evil, but because their views and life experiences have led them to different conclusions?

Democratic ideals include everybody, not just the rich and powerful.

So the conservative ideal of personal responsibility is somehow not applicable to the poor, just the rich?

They are more tolerant of religous diversity (translation: You are welcome if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.).

I think this thread has shown in great detail that liberals are not at all tolerant of different religions if that different religion happens to be a conservative brand of Christianity.

Democrats think about the people before they make a decision
Republicans think about the money before they make a decision.

Are you serious? Do you really have this simplistic of a view of Republicans? If you do, that's very sad. Republicans are people, too, just like Democrats. A variety of impulses govern their behavior, just like Democrats. Perhaps it never occurred to you that the policies that Republicans support may very well be better for the poor and middle class than the policies that Democrats support? And, if you don't believe this, then can you at least see how someone could believe this? There is a lot of evidence that social welfare programs actually hurt poor people and that government programs do more harm than good. Someone doesn't have to be evil or greedy to believe this. You may disagree with someone on this issue, but you need to realize that the peson with whom you disagree very likely has a good reason to hold that position.

Renob

01-30-2004, 10:32 AM

And, I'm sorry but these religious voters ARE ignorant.

Actually, they're not ignorant. They just have a different way of seeing the world than you do. In fact, they have a different way of seeing the world than I do, but at least I recognize this and don't just resort to cheap generalizations.

They have bought into the idea that congress, or even their state representitive for goodness sake, can take something unconstitutional and make it constitutional by voting for it. How much more ignorant of our system of government can you get than that?

That can easily be said about liberals, too. How many of these huge government programs are constitutional? I don't see anything in there about the federal government providing medical support for the aged and disabled, education, the arts, etc. I don't think either party has a commitment to the Constitution and both are willing to support programs which are clearly unconstitutional. Of course, there are also many people who view what the Constitution permits much differently than I do, so I'm not going to sit around and think so highly of my own opinion to call anyone who disagrees with me "ignorant."

Pábitel

01-30-2004, 01:50 PM

Actually, they're not ignorant. They just have a different way of seeing the world than you do. In fact, they have a different way of seeing the world than I do, but at least I recognize this and don't just resort to cheap generalizations.
They are ignorant. You are taking this as merely an insult. It isn't. The word has a very specific meaning. It means lacking education or knowledge; unaware or uninformed. These people are intentionally ignorant about how their own government works. They are intentionally ignorant about the history of the United States (a country, according to them, founded on Christianity and the Bible). They are intentionally ignorant about the issues effecting themselves, their community, their country and the world at large. They throw all that away when they intentionally limit their scope to include only what they can see from their church pew.

That can easily be said about liberals, too. How many of these huge government programs are constitutional? I don't see anything in there about the federal government providing medical support for the aged and disabled, education, the arts, etc. I don't think either party has a commitment to the Constitution and both are willing to support programs which are clearly unconstitutional. Of course, there are also many people who view what the Constitution permits much differently than I do, so I'm not going to sit around and think so highly of my own opinion to call anyone who disagrees with me "ignorant."I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are on about here. The liberal programs that are unconstitutional are declared unconstitutional just like any other by the only opinion that matters, that of the Supreme Court.

What I'm talking about is the yearly vote in both the US Senate and House on a bill to ban abortion. Everybody in the room knows that what they are voting on isn't gonna fly. The only reason they do it is so they can go back to the congregations they rely on for an easy vote and shout about the vote they cast to end the evil of abortion. They use this shtick constantly. After 30 years you would think that a few of these single issue voters would realize that all those yearly votes have had exactly zero impact on the constitutionality of abortion but they seem able to be fooled by the act on an annual basis. (See Above)

John Mace

01-30-2004, 02:30 PM

Renob

01-30-2004, 02:39 PM

They are ignorant. You are taking this as merely an insult. It isn't. The word has a very specific meaning. It means lacking education or knowledge; unaware or uninformed. These people are intentionally ignorant about how their own government works. They are intentionally ignorant about the history of the United States (a country, according to them, founded on Christianity and the Bible). They are intentionally ignorant about the issues effecting themselves, their community, their country and the world at large. They throw all that away when they intentionally limit their scope to include only what they can see from their church pew.

I know what ignorant means. All I'm saying is that you seem to be ignorant about the particularly community you make such sweeping generalizations about.

I admit that some people fall into your broad stereotype, but I think you fail to realize that many conservative Christians have put quite a lot of thought into their beliefs. Some do indeed just accept whatever is told them and they limit their scope of inquiry, but I would say most do not. I agree that they are mis-reading the history about our nation's founding, but that issue is far from being as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There is a lot of room for debate over the nature of our Founders' religious beliefs and how that should translate into action now. Your posts show that you fail to realize that two reasonable people can have different conclusions on this issue. That does not mean that one of them is ignorant.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are on about here. The liberal programs that are unconstitutional are declared unconstitutional just like any other by the only opinion that matters, that of the Supreme Court.

What I'm talking about is the yearly vote in both the US Senate and House on a bill to ban abortion. Everybody in the room knows that what they are voting on isn't gonna fly. The only reason they do it is so they can go back to the congregations they rely on for an easy vote and shout about the vote they cast to end the evil of abortion. They use this shtick constantly. After 30 years you would think that a few of these single issue voters would realize that all those yearly votes have had exactly zero impact on the constitutionality of abortion but they seem able to be fooled by the act on an annual basis. (See Above)

You need to do a little research. There is no yearly vote on any bill to ban abortion. There are votes on certain bills to restrict abortion in some way (which the Supreme Court has said is completely constitutional) and some movement to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion completely (notice that this is a constitutional amendment, though; apparently these folks aren't as ignorant about the Constitution as you assume). As far as I can recall (and I've been watching politics for a while now) there has never been a vote on any law (as opposed to a constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. And the constitutional amendment is rarely brought up anymore. I don't think it has been voted on in the past couple of Congresses.

Every conservative Christian whom I've ever talked to knows that a constitutional amendment is needed to end abortion. Many also think that Roe v. Wade was a flawed Supreme Court decision, but they don't think that its precedent somehow doesn't apply. Your assertion that these people are so ignorant as to think a simple law can overturn what has been, since 1973, a constitutionally-protected right is way off base. Their movement to ban abortion in this country takes the shape of the afore-mentioned constitutional amendment. They are far from ignorant about this.

Renob

01-30-2004, 02:40 PM

They are ignorant. You are taking this as merely an insult. It isn't. The word has a very specific meaning. It means lacking education or knowledge; unaware or uninformed. These people are intentionally ignorant about how their own government works. They are intentionally ignorant about the history of the United States (a country, according to them, founded on Christianity and the Bible). They are intentionally ignorant about the issues effecting themselves, their community, their country and the world at large. They throw all that away when they intentionally limit their scope to include only what they can see from their church pew.

I know what ignorant means. All I'm saying is that you seem to be ignorant about the particularly community you make such sweeping generalizations about.

I admit that some people fall into your broad stereotype, but I think you fail to realize that many conservative Christians have put quite a lot of thought into their beliefs. Some do indeed just accept whatever is told them and they limit their scope of inquiry, but I would say most do not. I agree that they are mis-reading the history about our nation's founding, but that issue is far from being as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There is a lot of room for debate over the nature of our Founders' religious beliefs and how that should translate into action now. Your posts show that you fail to realize that two reasonable people can have different conclusions on this issue. That does not mean that one of them is ignorant.

What I'm talking about is the yearly vote in both the US Senate and House on a bill to ban abortion. Everybody in the room knows that what they are voting on isn't gonna fly. The only reason they do it is so they can go back to the congregations they rely on for an easy vote and shout about the vote they cast to end the evil of abortion. They use this shtick constantly. After 30 years you would think that a few of these single issue voters would realize that all those yearly votes have had exactly zero impact on the constitutionality of abortion but they seem able to be fooled by the act on an annual basis. (See Above)

You need to do a little research. There is no yearly vote on any bill to ban abortion. There are votes on certain bills to restrict abortion in some way (which the Supreme Court has said is completely constitutional) and some movement to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion completely (notice that this is a constitutional amendment, though; apparently these folks aren't as ignorant about the Constitution as you assume). As far as I can recall (and I've been watching politics for a while now) there has never been a vote on any law (as opposed to a constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. And the constitutional amendment is rarely brought up anymore. I don't think it has been voted on in the past couple of Congresses.

Every conservative Christian whom I've ever talked to knows that a constitutional amendment is needed to end abortion. Many also think that Roe v. Wade was a flawed Supreme Court decision, but they don't think that its precedent somehow doesn't apply. Your assertion that these people are so ignorant as to think a simple law can overturn what has been, since 1973, a constitutionally-protected right is way off base. Their movement to ban abortion in this country takes the shape of the afore-mentioned constitutional amendment. They are far from ignorant about this.

Renob

01-30-2004, 02:43 PM

Sorry for the duplicate post. Damn computer!

Pábitel

01-30-2004, 02:49 PM

And "intentionally ignorant" is not an isult?I never said it wasn't an insult. I said it wasn't, "merely an insult." In other words I didn't say it just to be insulting but because it is an important fact in this discussion. Just because something is an insult doesn't mean it isn't true or that it shouldn't be pointed out.

I'm completely non-Religious, and have no problem with abortion. But I can understand how someone who accepts the Christian faith would be opposed to abortion. In fact, I'm amazed that some people claim to accept that faith, but still favor allowing abortion to be legal. It's a different conclusion reached by way of different assumption. The assumptions are not "ignorant", intentional or otherwise.You've gone way out on a tangent again. I don't care what their religion teaches them. I care what a good civics book could teach them. They are spending their precious, only one they get, vote on an erroneous concept. They think that by voting for a person that says they are anti abortion will somehow effect the constitutionality of abortion. That is wrong. That is why they are ignorant. Not because they don't like abortion. They are ignorant because they throw their vote away on a lie. Voting for a anti-abortion candidate will have zero effect. Yet they vote that way anyway. Get it?

BTW, are you going to respond to my previous post (which was in response to another of your posts)?I'm sorry but you have several posts here. Which one in particular do you mean?

Renob

01-30-2004, 03:09 PM

They think that by voting for a person that says they are anti abortion will somehow effect the constitutionality of abortion. That is wrong. That is why they are ignorant. Not because they don't like abortion. They are ignorant because they throw their vote away on a lie. Voting for a anti-abortion candidate will have zero effect. Yet they vote that way anyway. Get it?

I think you fail to realize some very important things:

One, I don't think any conservative Christian thinks that abortion will be ended any time soon. I also think it's highly unlikely that anyone votes for a candidate in the belief that if that candidate is elected, abortion will be outlawed the next year. From my experience with these people, it's clear that they vote for only pro-life candidates because of the wider implications of a pro-life belief. In effect, being pro-life is only a symbol for them. They know that someone who is pro-life likely shares their world-view. They are skeptical of anyone who has come to the conclusion that abortion should not be outlawed. If a candidate thinks this, then the candidate obviously does not think like them. And since it's such a fundamental issue for them, any candidate who does not agree with them on this is clearly not in sync with their way of thinking. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't vote for pro-life candidates in the ignorant belief that abortion will be outlawed any time soon. They vote for pro-life candidates, in large part, because of what the pro-life position symbolizes to them.

Two, along with this, there is the hope that abortion will, some day, be made illegal. But conservative Christians know that the way to accomplish this is through a constitutional amendment, not through mere legislation. So when they support pro-life candidates, they do so knowing full well that the constitutionality of abortion can be changed and that the candidates they support will vote for the proper constitutional amendment. They also know there are incremental steps that can be taken, such as a partial-birth abortion ban, and that these steps can be enacted through legislation.

John Mace

01-30-2004, 03:11 PM

You've gone way out on a tangent again. I don't care what their religion teaches them. I care what a good civics book could teach them. They are spending their precious, only one they get, vote on an erroneous concept. They think that by voting for a person that says they are anti abortion will somehow effect the constitutionality of abortion. That is wrong. That is why they are ignorant. Not because they don't like abortion. They are ignorant because they throw their vote away on a lie. Voting for a anti-abortion candidate will have zero effect. Yet they vote that way anyway. Get it?

No, I don't get it. Firstly, you don't know how many people vote this "single issue", and you also don't know how many people vote "pro-choice" as a single issue. I don't know either, but wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were roughly equal. Additionally, it's not unreasonable to use a person's stance on abortion as an overall guage of where that person stands on other issues. I'm not saying I'd do it, and I'm not saying it's a perfect predictor. But I'm saying, for many people (on either side of the issue), it's a good barometer.

Politicians send up "hopeless cause" legislation all the time. This practice is not restricted to pro-life folks. Look at the recent effort by Charles Rangel (sp?) to reinstate the draft. No chance in hell, and all he wanted to do was make a big to-do about his belief that minorities are being taken advantage of by an all-volunteer military.

If a person is a devout Christian, they will think that abortion is murder. I disagree with them, but I understand their point of view. If you believed politicians were responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders every year, wouldn't that be on the top of your issues list when voting? You don't have to accept someone else's beliefs in order to understand that those beliefs still have validity to that person.

I'm sorry but you have several posts here. Which one in particular do you mean?

Post #68

Pábitel

02-02-2004, 09:12 AM

I think you fail to realize some very important things:

One, I don't think any conservative Christian thinks that abortion will be ended any time soon. I also think it's highly unlikely that anyone votes for a candidate in the belief that if that candidate is elected, abortion will be outlawed the next year. From my experience with these people, it's clear that they vote for only pro-life candidates because of the wider implications of a pro-life belief. In effect, being pro-life is only a symbol for them. They know that someone who is pro-life likely shares their world-view. They are skeptical of anyone who has come to the conclusion that abortion should not be outlawed. If a candidate thinks this, then the candidate obviously does not think like them. And since it's such a fundamental issue for them, any candidate who does not agree with them on this is clearly not in sync with their way of thinking. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't vote for pro-life candidates in the ignorant belief that abortion will be outlawed any time soon. They vote for pro-life candidates, in large part, because of what the pro-life position symbolizes to them.Realize some things!?!?

This is what I have been arguing from my first post!

Republicans play unmercifully on this weakness you point out. These voters are duped by their own narrow focus. Most republicans don't give a rodents hindquarters for most of these issues including abortion and homosexual marriage and many others. They see them only as easy points in the polls. I'm not saying this out of sheer speculation either. I worked at the state senate and some of the most fire and brimstone conservatives who went out on the stump and condemned all homosexuals to the deepest pits of hell had gay staff members, including chief of staff, or had family members who recieved the benefit of a safe and legal abortion but voted anti-abortion on evey bill that came up on the issue. When republicans vote on social issues they are doing it predominantly for one reason and that is to garner votes from those who otherwise wouldn't vote for them in a million years.

It is the republican's behavior that makes these people dupes. If the litmus test of being anti abortion really meant anything then you may have a point. The only thing you can judge about a republicant who rants about these hot button issues is that they want to be reelected and not a single thing about their personal beliefs or religious views, etc.

Pábitel

02-02-2004, 09:35 AM

Excuse me for defining "poor" as "those living in poverty".:) Why is your definition better? Why ignore the actual poor in this analysis?
Well because the poverty level has not been redefined because then we would have more people living in poverty and that wouldn't look good (this isn't a Republican thing the Dems did the same thing.) In fact there are huyndreds of thousands who are living in poverty who earn quite a bit more than the official "poverty level." That level is a political relic and not statistical in nature and therefore has no relevance. I can certainly cite this for you if you want but I thought it was common knowledge.

If you can't find a cite to back up your facts, you might consider questioning those "facts". Look, no on denies that the demographic you are describing exists. You stated in your earlier post, however, that this somehow represented "the vast majority" in that socio-economic class. That simply is not true. Plenty of "working poor" vote Democrat and plenty of "bible thumpers" are comfortably in the middle class (or upper class).

I'm objecting to your broad generalizations, not that you have inaccurately described some people. I hope you are not now going to redefine what "vast majority" means.:)I think you are quoting me out of context. The only reference to the phrase "vast majority" I can find in my posts was this quote, "The vast majority of these same people would benefit from liberal policies." It is clear from the context there that I was saying that a vast majority of the demographic I was discussing would suffer under tose they voted for and would benefit by having the other party in charge and NOT that this demographic was the vast majority of anything. In fact in another post I estimated the demographic as being aproximately 20% of the republican voter base.

All I was trying to do was describe some people. Do you agree that this "some" is statistically significant, even to the dergee that it decides some elections?

Voodoochile

02-02-2004, 10:48 AM

I think whats missing and what adds to some of the confusion here is the difference between regions. In the west, I would agree that the poor in general vote conservative, while in the east/northeast the poor in general vote liberal.

I agree with the poster who pointed out that the northeast workingclass, traditional democrats, have been increasingly likely to vote for non-democrats, and this isnt so much a result of a change in the workingclass attitude as it is a shifting in just what the word 'liberal' means.

When 'liberal' meant individual freedom and opportunity, the chance to compete and work ones way to success irregardless of superficial things such as race or background, when it meant being given respect based on ones accomplishments and ability and not on ones family name or skin color, the vast majority of americans were 'liberal'.

But someway, somehow, the term has taken on different meaning. Now, rather than breaking down barriers to individual opportunity and accomplishment, 'Liberal' has connotations of compensating for them. Many many poor people have self respect; they may not do things that make a great deal of money, but they have value none the less. This may be hard for some to understand, but just being given things isnt what many people want. They want the freedom to earn them themselves.

How can it be that you can work for years as, say, an electrician, but never get promoted to being an electrical engineer? Why is the liberals answer to this to merely insult the electrician by offering to use other peoples money to put them through school (when their years on the job were more than enough of an education already) rather than try to break down the barriers in the system (due diligence rules, etc) that place more value on a piece of paper than practical experience? Why dont the 'liberals' focus on the practical reasons causing companies to only promote non-college educated people so far, and from there on only hiring people with degrees, even if straight out of college? Many many fields can be done just as good or better by people with on the job experience as they can by someone with a degree; yet there is still a ceiling there.

This is just one example, and what are the legal/economic reasons causing companies to do this and why dont liberals act to change them rather than just compensate people for them?

This whole attitude of 'Well the poor should vote democrat because the democrats are offering better handouts...' that Ive seen reflected on here is absolutely disgusting. Not many people want handouts. They just dont want to be shut out. They want opportunity, and at one time the Democratic party stood for opportunity, but today it only stands for treating the poor as if they were some kind of sub-species who obviously cant take care of themselves and so need to have bread thrown at them. Either that or dictating what paths are 'acceptable' paths for success, rather than leaving the doors open to let people go as they please.

Theres nothing wrong with being poor, yet the liberals act like poverty is some kind of disease that needs to be eradicated, and then wonder why more of the poor dont vote for them. Some people just get more satisfaction out of what they do than the money they make doing it. Some people just want to know that what they have, they earned, so they start at the bottom. Some people have too much self respect to take a handout from mommy or daddy or the governemt. Figure it out.

The working poor didnt leave the Liberals, the Liberals left the working poor.

kwildcat

02-03-2004, 03:18 PM

1) Concur w/ several posts stating the OP is somewhat flawed. It is reflective of a political myth and not backed by hard statistics. Far from all "poor, underprivileged voters", the demographic that appears to defy traditional voting trends (the Washington Post article does a great job of defining the issue) are poor non-urban whites. They come in two primary (but not only) flavors - Southerners with religious proclivities and South-Mid-Westerners with strong anti-immigration and/or anti-gun control ideologies.

2) John Mace's point about "it's the economy, stupid", is well taken, but we should NOT assume that economic self interest is an actual determinant for voting patterns for the demographic in question. Rather the state of the economy is a powerful determinant of voter turnout. When the economy is good, individuals tend to be swayed by the "values" issues when making voting decisions. Concomitantly, voter turnout (and I would expect the numbers to back me up, although I have no cites at present) would be lower during prosperous times. Happy people have little incentive to rock the boat, and they wrongly conclude that apathy reinforces the status quo. Those two factors would contribute to the state of affairs we had during the 2000 election: fewer people in total voted, and it was more likely that the voters would base their decisions on so-called "values" issues rather than reasoned policy platforms.

The result was that a detail-oriented technocrat like Gore came off badly compared to a polished image machine with a highly recognizable last name, and even then still garnered a majority of the electorate.

3) Bold (and possibly incendiary) statement: the demographic we're talking about here, the poor non-urban white, is a fading demographic. I believe the impression of U.S. conservatism is actually the last bitter gasp of a white America trying to forestall the inevitable demographic shift in our population. For only one or maybe two more generations will high voter turnout among poor non-urban whites be able to swing elections. To that end, conservatives have relentlessly campaigned to that group, touting "values" and painting elections as single-issue, right-wrong, black-white affairs. However, during my lifetime the United States will become less than 50% white. This is a statistical certainty. Unless something fundamental changes in conservative ideology (in which case it wouldn't be conservative, would it?), on that day, bye-bye Republicans.

John Mace

02-03-2004, 03:54 PM

Well because the poverty level has not been redefined because then we would have more people living in poverty and that wouldn't look good (this isn't a Republican thing the Dems did the same thing.) In fact there are huyndreds of thousands who are living in poverty who earn quite a bit more than the official "poverty level." That level is a political relic and not statistical in nature and therefore has no relevance. I can certainly cite this for you if you want but I thought it was common knowledge.

Be that as it may, one measure of the "poorest of the poor" clearly indicates that that group votes Dem more than Pub. But I agree that any discussion needs to clearly define poverty.

I think you are quoting me out of context. The only reference to the phrase "vast majority" I can find in my posts was this quote, "The vast majority of these same people would benefit from liberal policies." It is clear from the context there that I was saying that a vast majority of the demographic I was discussing would suffer under tose they voted for and would benefit by having the other party in charge and NOT that this demographic was the vast majority of anything. In fact in another post I estimated the demographic as being aproximately 20% of the republican voter base.

A careful reading of your context will, I believe, show otherwise. And your last sentence here is irrelevant to that discussion since we're not talking about Republicans in general, but poor people in general. But I'll take your word for it and just say that either you were unlcear in your original post or I read it incorrectly, or both.

All I was trying to do was describe some people. Do you agree that this "some" is statistically significant, even to the dergee that it decides some elections?

Perhaps. But no more "statistically significant" than the so-called minority vote that the Dems can pretty much count on regardless of how much they actually pay attention to those voters. There are all kinds of voting blocks out there and I don't find much value in describing any of them as mindless robots who vote without thinking.

Pábitel

02-04-2004, 07:59 AM

Perhaps. But no more "statistically significant" than the so-called minority vote that the Dems can pretty much count on regardless of how much they actually pay attention to those voters. There are all kinds of voting blocks out there and I don't find much value in describing any of them as mindless robots who vote without thinking.
They self describe as mindless robots who vote without thinking. They may not use those same words but that is exactly what they are saying about themselves. Anybody, ANYBODY, who uses their vote in this way is abusing the privilege. I don't care if your single issue is abortion or race. If one issue is all that goes in to your thinking on how to vote then you would better serve your own interests by staying home.

Pardon the outrage but I take voting very seriously. It is a great gift from the founders that we all get to help choose our leadership. I am greatly offended that these gits throw that gift away after trampling it in the mud by using it to make some inane religious "statement". If you are not going to vote intelligently then please just stay home. And, since you are about to ask, the choices made by these voters could not, under any generally accepted definition of the word, be considered intelligent.