You haven’t said what you mean. I, for one, haven’t a frackin’ clue.
Maybe he said Democrats weren’t sufficiently pro-Jewish. Or maybe he said that the gostak distims the doshes.
Put your guess on the back of a $50 gift certificate for lap dances at the Itchy Kitty Club, and mail them to me here at Cecil Plaza…
According to Atlantic Monthly, income/voting (Dem,GOP,Other) from 2010 exit polls follows
Income Dem GOP Other
< 30k .57 .40 .03
30-59k .51 .46 .03
50-75k .45 .51 .04
75-100k .42 .56 .02
100-200k .43 .56 .02
> 200k .34 .64 .02
What does this chart tell us?
[ul][li] There is a positive correlation between higher income and voting Republican. No one denied this. Given the shrill shrieks of “leftists are stealing money from job creators to enrich Welfare Mamas”, the only surprise is that the correlation is as weak as it is.[/li][li] Combining the 30k-100k groups as “middle class”, by weight and discarding Other, the GOP “wins” this portion of the electorate by a 52-48 margin. I stand by my “about as Democrat as the whole.” If someone’s argument requires that this 52-48 margin become “never mind the fact that the “middle class” has been voting Republican for a while”, that person has my sympathy.[/li][li] From the chart we see that rich voting GOP is a stronger trend than poor voting Demo, the opposite of OMG’s claim.[/li][/ul]
In a debate about whether “wedge issues” or “income level” most influences voting in America, I think the paper you cite would be used by those arguing for “wedge issues.” It was the best you could do? :dubious:
Unrelated question. Your cite (via docs.google.com) took too long to load on my machine, so I just stripped off the Google junk from your URL and loaded the pdf at stat.columbia.edu directly.
But I’m curious. What is the “value added” by google docs?
You said it was against their interests to vote for them. What did you mean if not that the Democratic Party is anti-Jewish?
It sure is what we mean when we tell you that you are voting against your own interests by voting Republican, that there is a significant portion of the Republican party that is anti-Black.
…Yeah…
I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or not. In order to somehow “refute” what I typed out, you somehow look at the 2010 mid-term elections, while completely disregarding the above two sources I gave you, and then proceed to pat yourself on the back and exclaim “See, see! I’m right!”? Ehhh, no. Sorry. Midterm elections are generally a poor gauge of overall voting patterns because the party who lost the presidential election two years prior almost always has a stronger showing than the party who won (“referendum on the president” and all that), not to mention that midterm elections generally skew towards the right as younger Americans are far less likely to participate in them than are older Americans while voter turn out is a fraction of what you find during Presidential elections.
BTW> Check out how income played a part in the 2008 Presidential election (though that’s far from proving anything other than the fact that Democrats won big at lower income levels and then saw more parity at higher income levels).
I’m not sure how you got that from the paper. If anything, it would mean that “wedge” issues are more likely to be of importance to those in “richer” with more disposable income than those in “poorer” states with less.
Loads quicker than a .pdf (at least for me).
It’s quite a leap in logic from “not in their best interests to vote for the Democratic Party” and “the Democratic party hates Jews”. Of course, since I see that leap made in regards to the GOP and most everyone who dares vote for them, I’m not too terribly surprised.
Could you please explain why it against their interests for Jews to vote for the Democratic party?
Still waiting on a list of those Jewish “interests” better served by voting Republican. Feel free to submit a PDF, Excel spreadsheet, link to Google Docs, or if you’re feeling frisky you can just post them here.
ETA: Curses… sniped by Jas09!
I’m not sure that “framing” always has to be about lying. I have never understood how the Democrats can’t take the issue of environmentalism and reframe it to appeal to both sides. The left wants to decrease fossil fuel usage, and the right hates Islamic regimes. Well, wouldn’t finding an alternative to oil appeal to both sides? The right doesn’t have to get all tree huggy, while the left doesn’t have to hate on Islam and both sides get something they want.
They’ve tried - “Ending dependence on foreign oil” is the frame usually used. The difficulty is there is a readily available counter-frame - “increase domestic production” (a.k.a. “drill, baby, drill”). This is often couched in a larger frame of “an all-of-the-above approach”.
Well played, sir. Had a good laugh about that one.
Yes, that’s a good example. Or charging that “Republicans voted to end Medicare”, which is a terrific way to shut down any rational debate about controlling Medicare costs.
*Or “framing” tax increases as “revenue enhancement”. Or “framing” Republican refusal to consider any tax hike as part of a balanced budget plan as “Republicans just want to help the rich”. The sort of tax cuts they favor would “help” everyone in the short run and be disastrous longer-term, but discussing that in an honest way is politically disastrous in the short-term, so it’s much easier to yammer about Republicans being for the Rich.
Or, one could frame reasonable debate over whether or not raising taxes should be part of an overall budget plan to lower the deficit, and call it “yammering”
I’m all for raising taxes as part of an overall budget plan to lower the deficit (any realistic plan relies on a general tax hike along with lowered spending). If you don’t like the term “yammering” in reference to the idea that raising taxes solely on the very wealthy will have any meaningful budget impact, we can substitute “pretending”.
Well, even if both sides could agree to raise taxes (an idea the republicans are almost always dead-set against, no matter what), the base problem is that the two sides are way waaaaay far apart on what is acceptable to cut.
Republicans will cut medicaid, welfare, money for schools, and government agencies like the EPA.
Democrats will not cut those things, if they can avoid it, but will cut the military budget. Which the republicans will fight against.
In addition, the democrats also would like to close tax loopholes and benefits for big businesses, so that companies like Boeing and GE could maybe pay a bit of Federal taxes, instead of paying $0 dollars like they have for years. IF they are people, how come they don’t pay taxes like people?
That’s terrific. It puts you in the majority of Americans. It also puts you so far outside of the Republican thought, and the actual words spoken by Republican leaders at the moment that you might as well have “I am a communist” tattooed on your forehead.
They do. Framing their side of the abortion debate as Pro-Choice is one example of it done very well. The call to have richer people “pay their fair share” is another example, though a really dumb and dishonest way to frame a debate that is worthy of more.
Will the majority of Americans vote for a candidate who is honest about the need for an across-the-board tax hike? Color me doubtful.
I am pleased to be so far out of both the Republican and Democratic mainstream.