Y’know, as I was pasting in the quotes (from Kennedy’s website, by the way), I thought that you would object to the latter two, asking, “What have they to do with Massachusetts?” (I even began to word my retort.) It appears I overestimated you.
That’s possible, even probable. Certainly I can’t think of too many states that would elect a man as liberal as he is nine times running. However, you expressed surprise that anyone would think he does a good job. Being one of those who believe the Senator does, in general, do a good job (I voted for him when I lived in Northampton in 1988), I pointed out that the citizens of Massachusetts must think so, and I submitted some examples of what they might think were good jobs. (And I would submit to Shagnasty that his legendary name is part of what enables him to do a good job.)
Whether or not Kennedy is any more part of the mainstream than you are was not, I think, the question.
Most of that stuff is worked out in committee, and doesn’t necessarily have anyone’s signature on it. However, having worked at a huge company with a huge operation in MA that is hugely dependent on military contracts, and having heard my share of management talks about those contracts, I can pass on only warm, generous observations about all the DoD money he’s helped bring into the state.
Which is a large part of why he keeps getting re-elected - Kennedy brings home the bacon, always has, and we know it. The fact that his very name makes hate-filled fools enraged is a part of it too.
Are you familiar with the theological concept of a “remnant”? In shorthand, it means you have the luxury of considering your set the “mainstream” even when it’s a clear numerical minority.
(Quote from memory, probably inexact.)
In exactly the same way, many in the religious-conservative minority (a very large and substantial and well organized minority, but still a minority) probably think of themselves as the remnant of “real” Americans.
Actually, while I am sure that a certain amount of donations to churches go to building and maintaining “crystal cathedrals,” I would not be surprised to find that Conservative Christians actually do donate more to charity than some other groups. It is somewhat like the inversion of the effect where divorce and teen pregnancy rates are higher in areas dominated by Conservative Christians. Every group seems to give better lip service to those virtues that they do not necessarily practice.
It’s an interesting observation, and it supports the larger point that conclusions drawn from a state by state comparison are thoroughly specious because they do not control for a huge range of variables which may or may not be starker and more impactful than differences in political ideology. I mean after all if this is a more accurate representation of political ideology in the United States, it’s pretty clear that assuming that any difference between, say, the South and the North is just the result of political ideology is bunk.
And from a statistical point of view, the “generosity index” (which is just aggregate contributions as a percentage of aggregate income) is also bunk. The the only valid way of gauging the impact of political beliefs of charitable contributions is by weighting for income/assets, not just averaging it. And that’s assuming you can divide your population accurately along political lines (as opposed to geographic location). Like I said, nobody has come up with such a study.
Yes, of course. Of which one was a technicality, and the other was the closest a “wartime” president had ever come to losing reelection. It’s a shame that somehow, despite your mainstreamishness, you lost six Senate seats, including incumbent losses in such well-known liberal hotbeds as Virginia, Missouri, and Montana.
I don’t have a dog in this particular hijack. I’m more interested in the hijack you have apparently abandoned. But…
Without IRS or possibly Census figures, I’m not sure that this could be proved, either one way or the other.
Intuitively, it seems to me that most of the super-rich would live in the northeast - you got your Boston, New York, and Philadelphia - than are scattered around the Chicago’s, Omaha’s, and Houston’s of the world. On the other hand, there’s Los Angeles.
That said, seems to me that the super-rich (where ever they live) would be much more inclined to lean Republican. That’s only common sense and human nature.
I could be wrong on both counts, but then, so could you. I can’t think of any way for either of us to prove our point. Can you?
Yep, almost no classic well to do super rich family (and many do remain so) outside the North East. And regarding your sorry second demand, what **Frank ** said.
I have to admit I don’t have a clue what was the political persuasion of Henry Cabot Henhaus the III
Of course, the Pubs, like the Dems, are a “big tent” party of several groups and factions with very different ideas on some points who are willing to work together for strategic purposes. And some of those groups are more “mainstream” than others. (E.g., the neocons are a purely elite-intellectual movement with no electoral mass support base to speak of. And some of them are :eek: Joooooos! Secular, but, you know, still! )
Personally, I “back” and cut’n’paste real quick, then wait till the board is up again to see if my post displays. But that’s just me. I’ll delete your spares.
)