# Do food stamp (EBT) recipients now vote largely for the GOP? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563 "2014-03-01T00:33:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/21 "2014-03-01T17:11:17Z")
I agree with that point, the argument taken to its obvious conclusion is “you’re stupid if you don’t let a politician buy your vote but instead have other principles you care about more than your home economic situation.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/22 "2014-03-01T18:03:10Z")
Which is to say, people who vote as you prefer are more ethical, noble, and intelligent. As compared with most people, who tend to vote for their self-interest. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/23 "2014-03-01T18:13:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which is to say, people who vote as you prefer are more ethical, noble, and intelligent. As compared with most people, who tend to vote for their self-interest. Not so, I didn’t denigrate voting in self interest, I just denigrated the idea that you are _stupid_ if you don’t define your self interest in economic terms. I do actually define my self interest in economic terms, but if there was some great moral issue I’d hope I would vote on those lines. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/24 "2014-03-01T20:25:02Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Since poor people overwhelmingly vote democratic I’m a bit surprised by the thread. They do. But in rich states, rich people ALSO vote for Democrats in fairly large numbers. In poor states, voting patterns track much more closely with income. Poor people still vote for Democrats, but rich people vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. See [this article](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf) for details and further discussion of this phenomenon. Put another way, it isn’t that food stamp recipients themselves vote largely for the GOP, it’s that their better-off neighbors do so in areas where there are large numbers of food-stamp recipients. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/25 "2014-03-01T20:38:41Z")
> [@Fretful\_Porpentine](#): > > They do. But in rich states, rich people ALSO vote for Democrats in fairly large numbers. In poor states, voting patterns track much more closely with income. Poor people still vote for Democrats, but rich people vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. See [this article](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf) for details and further discussion of this phenomenon. > > Put another way, it isn’t that food stamp recipients themselves vote largely for the GOP, it’s that their better-off neighbors do so in areas where there are large numbers of food-stamp recipients. I haven’t read the article of book, but it’s been recommended several times. I’ve always been annoyed at the idiotic stereotype so many “progressives” have of poor peoe voting Republican which doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than letting well-off progressives feel better about themselves. It’s the left-wing version of Reagan’s welfare queens. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/26 "2014-03-01T22:24:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Not so, I didn’t denigrate voting in self interest, I just denigrated the idea that you are _stupid_ if you don’t define your self interest in economic terms. I do actually define my self interest in economic terms, but if there was some great moral issue I’d hope I would vote on those lines. I don’t think it’s stupid to not vote strictly in terms of economic self-interest. And I don’t think it’s necessarily stupid to vote against your economic self-interest. I would not vote for a candidate who promised to give a weekly stipend of $1000 to every citizen, even though having an extra $1000 a week sure would be nice. However, it is stupid to _always_ vote against your economic interests. For the last few decades, Republicans have not been about helping poor people. They may not be successful with every single program, but the Dem’s at least try. If you are trying to raise a family on minimum wage, SNAP benefits, and unemployment insurance, I don’t understand how you could possibly support the Republicans right now. I can understand being apathetic in the midst of all the polerization and not voting at all. But I don’t understand actively supporting the party that wants to keep minimum wage stagnant, wants to pare back social welfare programs, wants to kick the lazy bums off UI even when there aren’t jobs to be had. Oh yeah, and doesn’t want there to be affordable health care. Hell yeah this seems stupid to me. If you care more about someone else’s unborn babies than your own babies–the ones you can’t even provide for on your own–then something’s wrong with your brain, sorry. (“You” being no one in this thread, of course) ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/27 "2014-03-02T00:09:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The phrase “vote against their own interest” is used quite a bit on these boards. And it almost always means that people (e.g., poor Republicans) vote against the party who wants to give them less stuff. > > Do you people who use this phrase think the only wise or honorable thing to do is to vote for people who will give you a larger hand out? Well, no. We think that part of the role of government is to provide for the public welfare and that people that are poor would be wise to vote for the party that has traditionally been on the side of more public welfare (Democrats). We don’t consider it a hand out. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/28 "2014-03-02T00:21:11Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I don’t think it’s stupid to not vote strictly in terms of economic self-interest. > > And I don’t think it’s necessarily stupid to vote against your economic self-interest. I would not vote for a candidate who promised to give a weekly stipend of $1000 to every citizen, even though having an extra $1000 a week sure would be nice. > > However, it is stupid to _always_ vote against your economic interests. For the last few decades, Republicans have not been about helping poor people. They may not be successful with every single program, but the Dem’s at least try. > > If you are trying to raise a family on minimum wage, SNAP benefits, and unemployment insurance, I don’t understand how you could possibly support the Republicans right now. I can understand being apathetic in the midst of all the polerization and not voting at all. But I don’t understand actively supporting the party that wants to keep minimum wage stagnant, wants to pare back social welfare programs, wants to kick the lazy bums off UI even when there aren’t jobs to be had. Oh yeah, and doesn’t want there to be affordable health care. Hell yeah this seems stupid to me. If you care more about someone else’s unborn babies than your own babies–the ones you can’t even provide for on your own–then something’s wrong with your brain, sorry. (“You” being no one in this thread, of course) It goes back to that “great moral issue”, I personally don’t see any in this day and age. I don’t really care that much about gay rights, if they were facing the kind of discrimination blacks were under Jim Crow I’d be up in arms but being ineligible for a few benefits here and there isn’t the same as being unable to vote because of a poll tax and having to go to a different, less funded and inferior school. So for me there is no great moral issue and I vote along what I perceive to be my economic self-interest. But some people do see great moral issues today. I’ve known people who legitimately, to the core of their soul believe abortion to be murder, and any vote for a candidate who is pro-choice as making themselves complicit in murder. Those voters I think, at least according to their moral compass, have a moral imperative to vote for pro-life candidates regardless of their family’s economic situation. To them the act of abortion is just as heinous as the Nazis murdering Jews, so wouldn’t you vote against your economic self interest 100% of the time if the alternative was a pack of murderers? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/29 "2014-03-02T00:33:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > To them the act of abortion is just as heinous as the Nazis murdering Jews, so wouldn’t you vote against your economic self interest 100% of the time if the alternative was a pack of murderers? If the choice is between the party of murdering Nazis (Democrats) and the party of greedy capitalists who are intent on keeping the poor man down (Republicans), I just wouldn’t vote at all. I think you would have a point if the low-income Republicans were _only_ about pro-life issues. But they often parrot back the Republican’s economic talking points. They are some of the loudest ones screaming about how Obama is a SOCIALIST COMMIE!! If it were just about moral issues, then we wouldn’t hear this crazy rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/30 "2014-03-02T00:45:23Z")
I vote Democratic and I don’t want “free stuff” nor do I get it. Supporting the party that wants a government that works is not seeking “free stuff”. Government infrastructure stimulates the economy and creates jobs, not “free stuff”. A safety net is not “free stuff”, it protects all of us against economic catastrophe. A strong public educational system is not “free stuff”, it is the foundation of a strong economy. Unless you are filthy rich, your economic self-interest is served by voting Democratic. Some people may feel strongly enough about abortion that they vote Republican for that reason, some may be under the impression that they have the right to guns and that Democrats want to take them away, so they vote Republican. And there are plenty of poor people who get outraged at the thought of taxing the wealthy because they are “job creators”. I rather doubt that EBT recipients vote predominately Republican, but they are not a Democratic monolith either. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/31 "2014-03-02T02:33:38Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If the choice is between the party of murdering Nazis (Democrats) and the party of greedy capitalists who are intent on keeping the poor man down (Republicans), I just wouldn’t vote at all. > > I think you would have a point if the low-income Republicans were _only_ about pro-life issues. But they often parrot back the Republican’s economic talking points. They are some of the loudest ones screaming about how Obama is a SOCIALIST COMMIE!! If it were just about moral issues, then we wouldn’t hear this crazy rhetoric. That’s a good point–keep in mind I’m not a fan of the expanded electorate and don’t believe “one man one vote” or “universal suffrage” are good ideas because they result in poor outcomes and put societal decision making in the hands of people that do not merit decision making authority. But the discussion was about whether or not it makes sense, at least I thought, to vote against your economic self interest. I was simply pointing out that is a craven position to hold, that you either vote in your economic self interest or you are “stupid” and was pointing out some people might have moral convictions that override their economic self interest. I’m not saying that’s a perfect representation of poor people who vote Republican. I don’t even concede voting Republican is against the self interest of the poor, the GOP has done a lot for the poor and I don’t concede that it’s in the self interests of the poor to be dependent on government handouts. But that’s a whole other thread. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/32 "2014-03-02T06:35:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in last year’s presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. Kentucky’s Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried. Is this supposed to be some kind of big surprise? Romney presented no threat to food stamps. Food stamp expenditures increased drastically under Bush. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/33 "2014-03-02T13:49:05Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Is this supposed to be some kind of big surprise? Romney presented no threat to food stamps. Food stamp expenditures increased drastically under Bush. And this is why George Bush has always been known as the [food stamp president](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/food-stamp-president-enrollment-70-percent-under-o/), right? ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/34 "2014-03-02T14:40:23Z")
The ten states with the lowest median income all voted for Romney. Eight of the ten states with the highest median income voted for Obama. That’s a very interesting way to present the statistics, and this would support the OP. Unfortunately, these ten “poorest” states are mostly from the deep South where many voters will never, under any circumstance, vote in favor of a damned [non-white]. I personally vote strictly according to what benefits my wallet, because no one else will. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/35 "2014-03-02T16:51:46Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > And this is why George Bush has always been known as the [food stamp president](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/food-stamp-president-enrollment-70-percent-under-o/), right? Well, the fact that food stamps increased under Bush (May have doubled if I remember correctly) wouldn’t gel with the phony narrative pushed by the two parties. Iow, if it was known that Bush was the real food stamp president, it would confuse both conservatives who fall for Republican rhetoric and Democrats who fall for Democratic rhetoric. It is an inconvenient truth. Conservatives would have to explain why they support enlargement of the welfare state, and Democrats would have to explain a) why Bush was able to expand the welfare state more effectively than patron saints Clinton and Obama and b) why their rhetoric paints Republicans as uncaring for the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/36 "2014-03-02T16:55:43Z")
Bush wasn’t really a fiscal conservative though, the whole point of “Compassionate Conservatism” was you take social conservatism, combine it with tax reduction and combine it with various forms of social welfare that while different from previous Democratic proposals are still types of social welfare. That’s what the school voucher plan was, and in terms of things Bush actually passed look at the massive expansion of benefits under Medicare Part D. Don’t look at Bush through the Tea Party lens, for whatever issues many have with Bush he wasn’t a Tea Party President and in fact his fiscal and social policy programs, many of them, would make him a high ranking public enemy if he had been in office during the start of the TP movement. Of course the problem with compassionate conservatism is you’re combining big tax cuts with big spending increases, and anyone with a small bit of knowledge of fiscal policy should know where that leads. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/37 "2014-03-02T16:58:46Z")
I don’t know if anyone has followed him but Kasich, Governor of Ohio, has made himself quite popular in that State by pulling the Compassionate Conservative card. He couches it as being a tax-cutting, pro-business Republican who follows “Christian principles” on helping the poor and et cetera. He’s one of the few Republican Governors to expand Medicaid for the ACA for example. But of course that still has the same problem–how do you genuinely cut taxes and increase spending on social welfare without bankrupting the State? In Ohio he does slight of hand, by basically offloading most spending requirements onto local governments, so Ohio has municipal income taxes which have gone steadily up, School District taxes that have gone steadily up, and property taxes that have gone steadily up as counties/municipalities have to absorb spending requirements–but it allows Kasich to steadily chip away at the State income tax and potentially eliminate it at some point (his ultimate goal.) I guess you could do the same at the Federal level and we’d all just see massive increases in our State income taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/38 "2014-03-02T17:00:01Z")
> **[The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/)** > > The House on July 11 passed a farm bill stripped of funding for food stamps. A Pew Research survey last year found about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/39 "2014-03-02T18:37:09Z")
> [@](#): > > But of course [expanding Medicaid] still has the same problem–how do you genuinely cut taxes and increase spending on social welfare without bankrupting the State? By cutting the budget elsewhere, not that I think the states’ budgets are the best places to look, rather, the Federal budget. ---
**Author:** ![Fretful\_Porpentine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fretful_porpentine/32/2873_2.png) [@Fretful\_Porpentine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fretful_Porpentine)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563/40 "2014-03-02T20:16:51Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Democrats would have to explain a) why Bush was able to expand the welfare state more effectively than patron saints Clinton and Obama Um, what? You do realize that “expanding the welfare state” is not actually a Democratic goal? Most of us would greatly prefer that there were no need for welfare, even if we ALSO think that those people who DO need it should have access to it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-food-stamp-ebt-recipients-now-vote-largely-for-the-gop/682563.md?page=3)