They’ve always been there, that’s why. A third of the dirt poor have always voted for Republicans; a third of the very rich have always voted for Democrats. People aren’t that simple.
Then again, we are debating the voting preferences of people in Bumblefuck who cited Terrorism concerns and morals as the reason they went for Bush.
Maybe it comes down to different uses for the word “simple.”
You really should read the numbers.
I did, I just like making fun of Southerners.
A masterly summary Flowers. We need look no further for why democrats loose elections.
Flowers- I liked you more when you were trolling about killing American hippies.
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
A masterly summary Flowers. We need look no further for why democrats loose elections.[/quote]
I’m not a democrat though.
And Ben, I was serious about that, Hippies force the drug war into higher profile by their refusal to not drive around with drugs in their car and totally get caught by the fascist pigs who read their bumper stickers and then are like totally all about harshing their gig. There’s like, fifty studies about that. Harvard studies. Harvard. Har-vard. So, “they must die.” (Not my words, Harvard’s words, but I agree.)
And that is a drain on resources that could be avoided by a little prudence on the part of pot heads. The cost of incarcerating all of these low level drug offenders is such that we must find an alternative to warehousing these nonviolent individuals. And I propose we set them on fire and catapult them into things.
Ahh, my apologies. I would have picked you as one from your posts. Libertarian perhaps? Extremely moderate republican?
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
Ahh, my apologies. I would have picked you as one from your posts. Libertarian perhaps? Extremely moderate republican?[/quote]
I am an Abraham Lincoln, blood-in, blood-out, Republican. I resent the return of the Dixiecrats to the Republican fold.
Flowers- No, I was talking about that thread about China enforcing gametime limits where you were defending the Chinese government.
I remember, but I was defending Hippie Reduction policies both at home and abroad. Whether they are drug dabbling Trustafarians on walkabout in the Far East or Peaceniks chicks just wearing their smocks while flailing off-tempo to a jam band, my response is the same, they must be stopped.
By Any Means Necessary.
Return to the fold? Dixiecrats are to the GOP as Conquistadores are to the Incas. They’ve already killed your leaders, now they’re just finishing up stealing the gold and raping the women before they head to the Carribean.
Return to the fold? Dixiecrats are to the GOP as Conquistadores are to the Incas. They’ve already killed your leaders, now they’re just finishing up stealing the gold and raping the women before they head to the Carribean.[/quote]
I know, stupid Sherman and his stupid half assed job…
Am I the only one that finds the term “Abe Lincoln Republican” hilarious? It is virtually meaningless in todays political landscape, unless you’re talking about nothing but heavy handed federalism.
I am. I thought the phrase, “Blood in, Blood Out,” would demonstrate that.
How about a Plato’s Republican?
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001317.php
A recent paper by Larry Bartels of Princeton University, “What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas”, offers good news and bad news. The good news: “Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party,” asks Bartels. “No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections…”
The bad news: Bartels’s definition of the white working class–white voters whose incomes put them in the lower-third of the household income distribution–is quite different from the prevailing definition of the white working class.
In a broad version of the prevailing definition, the white working class consists of white voters whose education has stopped short of a four-year college degree. (A narrower definition might focus on the voters within this segment who are ages 30 to 60, work in blue-collar and pink-collar and lower-white-collar jobs in the service sector and what’s left of the manufacturing sector, and have household incomes that surround the median household income for the nation, $44,000.) In 2004, voters who fit the broader definition–noncollege whites-- favored George W. Bush by a margin of 23 points in the NEP national exit poll.
The Bartels paper doesn’t include a demographic profile of the voters who fit his definition of the white working class. But if you turn to the NES, the same survey he uses for the data in his paper, you can determine some of the demographic features of the Bartels group. And they don’t bear a strong resemblance to the demography of the prevailing definition. For one thing, the median household income for his group is $21,000, less than half as high as the median household income in the prevailing definition. And the income figure is lower largely because only one-third (35%) of the Bartels voters were actively doing paid work. Also, of those who were working nearly half were under the age of 30. This leaves only 19 percent of the voters in Bartels’ group who were at least 30 years old and also actively on the job. The plurality of voters in Bartels’ definition were retired (35%) or permanently disabled (8%). An additional 4% were unemployed or laid-off.
Urg. Well.
I blogged Larry Bartels’ take-no-prisoners critique of Thomas Frank last week; now Franks has come back with an equally frank rejoinder. It seems to me that Frank’s riposte to Bartels on the issue of how to define the white working class strikes home, although some of his other jabs miss the target.
Franks makes a pretty good case that Bartel’s definition of “working class” is rather silly.
Franks also makes an astounding case that he is an idiot:
To begin with, consider the barren landscape of American politics as Bartels describes
it—a featureless tundra swept of history, ideology, and any hint of the raw emotional
resonance that everyone knows politics possesses.
That almost reads like parody. Tragically, it is not. That wouldn’t even pass muster on a message board debate.
McCullough, I know you really want Franks to be right as his conclusions are, how shall I put this… gratifying?.. but it is time unhook the buggy.
Rise from your grave!
Summary of the current state of this argument.
On this point, everyone ought to agree with Barack Obama: Republican electoral dominance is predicated on strong support among voters in the working class socioeconomic stratum. In 2004, George W. Bush won among members of the white working class as denoted by income by 23 points. In 2006, Democrats managed to reduce their deficit to ten points, which was one of the reasons why they picked up so many Congressional seats. What’s behind this trend? Why does it exist?
Obama’s remarks have unshackled a number of theories. Timothy Noah of Slate does an excellent job of summing up the political science literature and arguments here. Thomas Frank popularized the “problem” for Democrats in What’s the Matter with Kansas. Political scientist Larry Bartels wondered whether the problem even existed. Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz, both Democrats, make the case that the definitional debates are methodological, and by the broadest available measure of the working class – the four variables that make up socioeconomic status (SES), clearly, the Democrats have a problem.
Nevermind. Not going to necro. :-)
Interesting post though. Suffice it to say that I’m a moderate socialist myself who thinks that we need to start admitting that capitalism frequently fails and that socialist measures can offset many of its deficiencies.