QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

The use of such words as "simplistic terms" by rosborne really doesn't answer why "people vote against their own interests." I think "lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorance" fits much better.

voters don't have the time or and inclination to check all the details. The only thing they relate with is -- who they like and don't like -- mostly don't like.

You have confirmed what I said; they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.

they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.

Why do poor white voters reject the Democrats? Well, why shouldn't they?

The white working class is said to 'vote against its own interests'. This only exposes the patronising assumptions of their accusers


Gary Younge
guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 May 2012


So white people who are struggling financially are going to vote Republican. And not by a narrow margin. Asked in a recent Washington Post poll which candidate would do more to advance their families' economic interests, middle-class white voters who said they were struggling to maintain their financial positions chose Mitt Romney. And not by a small margin. In this category he beats Barack Obama by 58% to 32%.

Such news is generally greeted on the left by a mixture of despair and ridicule. Here is a group of people, it seems, who simply do not understand what's good for them. Whites without college degrees, as reasonable if flawed an indicator of "class" in this country as exists, backed John McCain by 58 to 40 in 2008 and George W Bush in 2004 and 2000 by similar amounts. Failing to sense the liberation the Democrats have in store for them, they have been seized by a collective bout of false consciousness and are once again set to vote against their own interests. Having thus infantilised them as ostensible adults in need of protection against themselves, progressives will then wonder why this particular group of people do not flock to them at the polls.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/25/poor-white-voters-reject-democrats

Nonetheless, time and again during the Republican primaries Republicans evoked racial themes in the whitest places. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," said Rick Santorum in Sioux City. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

"Right," said one audience member, as another woman nodded.

"And provide for themselves and their families," Santorum added.

The black population of Sioux City is 2.9%. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13% of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26% since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.

Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich said: "I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks [instead of] food stamps." African-Americans make up 0.8% of Plymouth's population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6% – a 48% increase since 2007.

Those who are struggling and believe Romney will improve their economic lot are wrong, regardless of their race. Eight years of George W Bush proved that. But it does not follow automatically from that that their home should be supporting Democrats under whom things have gotten less bad less quickly. True, those are the only two choices on offer. But if you're poor they are not great choices. What they need is a party that represents their interests. In a country where corporate money chooses the candidates and therefore shapes the debate that will demand a change in politics, not just politicians.

ora wouldn't know pre and post if he was provided with all the facts and evidence on anything.

The use of such words as "simplistic terms" by rosborne really doesn't answer why "people vote against their own interests." I think "lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorance" fits much better.

Except the claim was NOT correct. Saddam was not holding onto those shells They were discovered discarded in the desert and they were declared as lost by Saddam. For you to try to argue Saddam had those shells and was lying about it is not borne out by any facts.

But feel free to make up whatever you want if it makes your reality better for you.

You have confirmed what I said; they are lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorant.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:

I have to love your logic oralloy.

So do you think I can take your guns away because of the shooter in Aurora? It makes as much sense as the argument that 9/11 justifies attacking Iraq.

My logic? Surely you don't think I am Newt Gingrich.

One normally doesn't post something claiming it justifies something unless they agree with it.

But then you are not a normal person, I guess.

If they listen to the lies of Romney-Ryan and don't listen to all the challenges from the media, then they are stupid.

So the invasion had nothing to do with weapons?

That's an interesting argument since you are trying to justify that Saddam had such weapons

I was just trying to explain to ora-how I concluded that Bush lied from the get-go.

If the Admin wasnt lying, then they were really gullible and stupid enough to believe their own tripe.

oralloy wrote:

Yes. And one of the Bush Administration's claims was that Saddam was still holding chemical weapons from before 1991

Thqt statement would only make some sense if it were used to justify the war plans before our little adventure.

AS it was , qe were already in Irag for 3 years when they found the IED and the piles of mustard shells (hich they wrroneously claimed "Could" have also contained sarin.

So, it appears they were scrambling around post facto to justify why they were already in Iraq.

IF WE COULDNT POINT TO ANY WMDS BEFORE WE WENT IN< WHY AGAIN WAS THE WMD CARD USED TO GO IN?
Dontya think e were lied to?

Sometimes people make mistakes. Mistakes aren't lies.

You don't know for sure that Saddam was not secretly stashing those shells intentionally.