I was simply going with the logic of our little thought experiment. IF welfare recipients mostly voted Democrat, that would be a threat to our democracy if it was causal.
So you’re already retracting your claim of radicalism? That was fast.
That’s radicalism in a country where only 20% of Americans self identify as liberals. It’s radicalism in a country where we haven’t had a blatantly liberal Democratic Presidential campaign since 1984, and before that, 1972. Do you really think the country has changed to the point where those 49-state losses can turn into electoral wins?
I would bet it’s an overwhelming majority. Mostly because it stands to reason that someone who is dependent on public assistance would support the party that more strongly backs these programs, but partly because it also correlates to ethnic group voting.
I don’t have a cite and am not going to look one up. If you disagree so be it. My main point here was not to establish this position but to comment on how it was impacted by the CNN poll numbers.
How overwhelming?
But this is different – “dependent on public assistance” is not the same as “receives public assistance” is not the same as “welfare recipient”. Which category are you confident that an overwhelming majority supports the Democratic party?
I don’t know. I would guess somewhere between 2/3 & 4/5.
First and third are the same in my books (I leave out programs in which the person has ostensibly paid for, e.g. SS & Medicare).
Okay. This doesn’t seem likely to me. If I have time, I’ll search for it.
What about disability, farm aid, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment, and other aid and assistance? Do you consider all of this “welfare”?
I think disability and unemployment are ostensibly paid for by contributions (public disability is part of the SS system). Farm aid support seems non-partisan and is geographic based, and in any event my impression is that farm aid is a big chunk of money for the federal government but is not the primary source of income for people who are not working.
Medicaid and food stamps would fit the bill, but again, the correlation would be far stronger for people who are on both of those programs plus HUD/Section 8 rental subsidies, TANF, HEAP etc. etc., rather than one specific program, and would be stronger for long term recipients than for temporary down-on-their luck people.
Let’s keep slicing and dicing then …
“The working vote” implies “the working class” to most of us I suspect. But accepted that in this context we are talking not about the unemployed of that which is often referred to as that class.
But boy we can start slicing an dicing in so many ways. White Southern working class? Northeners? Evangelicals? Mainstream Protestants? Catholics? Single women? Married women? Hispanic males? Hispanic females? Whether we are discussing “full time workers” or “the working class” these are not monolithic groups that can be predicted in one or the other camp.
…while the Republicans are focussing on advertising. This makes sense as Democrats have an off-year problem with turnout.
Charlie Cook gives the Republicans 60% odds. He doesn’t have a formal model, though he is statistically literate. Given informal usage, it’s possible he really means something like 70%.
538: 58.3
Sam Wang: 51
Upshot: 67%
Ave of 3: 59%
Hopefully, we won’t have to find out if a Republican Senate would refuse a Supreme Court appointment. Even more hopefully, any vacancies will occur in the Gang Of Four right wingers.
Jindal will not be the nominee because the GOP will not nominate a minority. End of story.
Christie has a good chance of living in federal housing, but not in the White House.
No other potential GOP candidate other than Romney has emerged who isn’t a certified whack-a-doodle.
I’m part of the who cares crowd. There are two kinds of Senates, those with 60+ Democrats and those that won’t work for the people. It’s a lead-pipe cinch we won’t get the former.
The reason you are wrong about this is that you are going by their regular craziness and not the craziness they will have to adopt to get through the Republican primaries. It doesn’t matter what their positions are now, none of them are getting the nomination without giving up their claim to sanity.
But he’s Indian. The *good *kind of brown. A radical Christianist at that. A fine token for the #2 slot.
Even if we did, we’d still constantly need to keep them focused.
Obama just handed Republicans a gift:
I don’t think this means anything at all.
The only people who pay attention to things like this are poitical junkies, all of whom already know what they think of the issues and know who they’re voting for. The uncomitted middle-of-the-road voters don’t pay attention to 4 sentences 2/3 of the way through Obama’s speeches whose only import is in that they frame issues differently than their candidate does.
Thing is that a lot of political junkies don’t appreciate the extent to which other people are disinterested in these nitty-gritty political issues. Like so many other people, they overestimate the extent to which most people are similar to themselves. This leads to them misjudging the impact of matters like this.
Hm. Nate Silver is getting into it with Princeton’s Sam Wang. Says Wang’s electoral-forecast model is “flawed.”
If I was Silver, I would wait until after the election to attack Wang. Because even Silver’s model shows a 40% likelihood of the Democrats holding on. And if they do, this will be (incorrectly) interpreted as vindication of Wang.
On another note, I have to hedge a bit on my prior post. Apparently Republican red state candidates have begun running ads starring video of Obama saying that his policies are up for reelection.
I’d like to see those. Link?
On edit: never mind. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/219711-gop-uses-obamas-words-on-economy-against-dems-in-new-ads
That only mentions Pat Roberts, who is a special case anyway.