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.
[sup]Could it be that liberals aren’t as smart as they think they are?[/sup]
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.
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.
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 discusses the demographics of the “elusive swing voter”. An article by Democratic demographer Ruy Teixeira analyzing the implications of the 2002 elections comments:
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 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.
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.
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.
$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
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?
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.”
Excuse me for defining “poor” as “those living in poverty”.
Why is your definition better? Why ignore the actual poor in this analysis?
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 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?
So the conservative ideal of personal responsibility is somehow not applicable to the poor, just the rich?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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’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)
And “intentionally ignorant” is not an isult?
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.
BTW, are you going to respond to my previous post (which was in response to another of your posts)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry for the duplicate post. Damn computer!
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.
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?
I’m sorry but you have several posts here. Which one in particular do you mean?
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.
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.
Post #68
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.
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.
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?