Democrats and the weather...

It would seem to be a bit more than a myth:

That makes sense to me.

Specifically, it makes sense that people in urban areas and who tend to be lower on the economic scale would be more impacted by bad weather than those in suburban areas and those who are higher on the economic scale. (To take just one variable, whether you drive a car. People who rely on public transportation are much more inconvenienced by bad weather than those who have cars.)

And urban areas definitely tend to vote Democrat -- I'm pretty sure that people who are lower on the economic scale tend to vote Democrat too but I remember being surprised by some figures about that in the 2004 election.

Alternatively, one party is not sufficiently interested in the process to go out in the rain.

I don't think it's that simple. In the 2004 elections, there were horrible long lines in downtown Columbus in horrible wet sleety weather. Many, many people waited for hours and hours before giving up. They said things like they had to pick up their kids from childcare or if they were late to work their boss would fire them.

This seems to presuppose only Democrats have mean bosses.

I really have to object.

Interesting observation from the above cited study:



Evidently, inclemment weather has greater statistical impact on voter turnout in rural areas than in urban.

That fits with cars. The yucky sleety weather we had in 2004 was simple enough to drive in (though not pleasant),

Lash, I think that it would make sense in general that people who are lower on the economic scale are more likely to have mean bosses than people who are higher, regardless of party affiliation.

Hi, soz. Yeah. My satirical delivery just doesn't come through.

You sort of intimate that Democrats and GOPers are almost homogenous groups of poor and wealthy.

I just don't think that's supportable.

Some of the most loyal types I've seen would stand through a tornado to vote. They are quite poor, rural and conservative.

"Tend" doesn't seem that homogenous to me. But if it needs saying, I'll say it overtly -- there are poor Republicans and wealthy Democrats. There are very poor people who will vote no matter what. Definitely.

But in terms of "tends to" or trends, timber's study establishes that poor weather conditions DO help the Republicans. Why do you think that is?

I lost my response in cyberworld.

Briefly, I hate going out in the rain. I postpone grocery shopping a day if I have to eat Vienna Sausages, I hate the rain so much.

I think the answer sometimes is the obvious one.

A contingent of the Democrat party large enough to have a deleterious effect on election outcomes chooses to stay home rather than vote.

I am open to other theories, though.

I already responded to that when Roger brought it up.

Nothing is said about "stay home."

Another thing I thought of re: urban vs. rural is related to what I said about Columbus and lines, too. The lines (as in, snaking out the door, having to wait IN the rain) were overwhelmingly in the urban areas. I don't know why. Rural areas presumably are much less crowded and much less apt to have lines.

And lines -- their existence -- certainly doesn't seem to indicate a general unwillingness to vote.

Re "unwillingness".

I think it speaks more to the lengths that segment of Democrats will go to in order to get in the booth.

Possibly not as stubborn as their conservative contemporaries...

Or the conservative contemporaries could have a lot easier time of it.

Scenario A -- enter attached garage, get in car, drive through drizzle to voting venue, dash 20 yards to voting venue, enter, buy some brownies at the bake sale, saunter to voting booth, wait in line (inside, warm and cozy, noshing on brownie) for 10 minutes, vote, dash 20 yards, drive home.

Scenario B -- wait at bus stop in cold drizzle for 10 minutes. Get on bus. Get off bus near voting venue. Walk 4 blocks in cold drizzle. Get to voting venue, see that there is a long snaking line. Take place. Wait. Get drizzled on. Wait for an hour. Keep getting drizzled on. Chat. Look at watch. Figure out how much childcare is charging you to be late. Wait more. Get more thoroughly drenched. Think about dinner. Realize kids haven't eaten in 5 hours and won't get more from daycare. Sigh, give up, go home.

Apples and oranges.

Circular.

I can't believe you think in these terms. Conservatives get rained on too. They have children and day care and corns and hard lives, too.

Didn't we find out...generally....Democrats are wealthier than Republicans...?

Do I have to keep spelling out the "trend" and "tend" thing?

Nobody is saying it's homogenous or monolithic. When it rains, Republicans do not get 100% of the vote. It is some sort of presumably small but nonethless significant difference.

I think -- and can look up later -- that it's been established that urban areas tend to be more Democratic than suburban or rural areas (this goes to cars, public transportation, socioeconomic status, and a bunch of other things). Again, "tend," in case you're going to come back with "oh so now you're saying that nobody who lives in a city drives a car, huh?"

Yeah, what kind of outrageous broadbrush claims are you trying to perpetrate here, Sozobe? Next you'll be trying to say something really crazy like most blacks are democrats, or something!! You need to watch those wild generalizations, for the sake of reasonable debate!!!!!

Soz-- Your generalizations with the vignettes of a day in the life of a Dem and GOP voter along with your "conservative contemporaries having an easier time of it" and "apples and oranges" do lend to a homogenous viewpoint. But, no need to argue. We're just repeating the same things.
______________________________

For anyone interested :

Loss of middle class a 'crisis' for Democrats

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed defender of the middle class, was trounced by Republicans among those voters in the 2004 election, according to a Democratic advocacy group that says the party faces "a crisis with the middle class."
A report released yesterday by Third Way says support for Republicans begins at much lower income levels than researchers had expected: Among white voters, President Bush got a majority of support beginning at an income threshold of $23,300 -- about $5,000 above the poverty level for a family of four.

The report says the economic gains of Hispanics have translated into strong Republican gains, as have economic strides across every category, save for black voters.

"As Americans become even modestly wealthier their affinity for Democrats apparently falls off. With middle income voters, it is Democrats -- the self-described party of the middle class -- who are running far behind Republicans, the oft-described party of the rich," the report says.

Although Mr. Bush's popular-vote margin of victory over Sen. John Kerry in 2004 was less than three percentage points, the Massachusetts Democrat lost the middle class -- defined by the report as voters living in households with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 -- by six percentage points. Among white middle-class voters, the gap was 22 percentage points.

Voters from middle-class households made up 45 percent of the electorate last year, those making less than $30,000 constituted 23 percent of the vote, and households above $75,000 accounted for 32 percent of the vote. The median income among the voters was $54,348.

Polls show that voters identify the Democratic Party as the party of the middle class and that Democrats beat Republicans on middle-class issues such as jobs, health care and education, but that hasn't translated into votes, said Jim Kessler, policy director for Third Way, which was created after the 2004 election with the goal of "modernizing the progressive cause."

"Middle-class voters think Democrats care about issues they care about, but they don't care about the middle-class voter as much as they care about other voters -- that they're No. 4 or 5 on the priority list," Mr. Kessler said. Put another way, he said, "they think Democrats care about somebody else's schools, health care, jobs."

The report showed that Democrats continue to do well among black voters, and that did not change with income or education levels. But those findings "masked the deficit they faced with the remaining middle class," Mr. Kessler said.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee didn't return calls for comment. Sarah Feinberg, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said House Democrats plan to push for middle-class voters in the 2006 election cycle.

"Democrats are certainly going to be working to talk to middle-class voters and to make sure middle-class voters understand that their priorities are our priorities," she said, pointing to polls that show voters concerned about rising gasoline prices and access to affordable health care.

She said Congress instead has focused on business-friendly measures such as class-action lawsuits and bankruptcy reform.

"One of the main things we've been talking about this election cycle is the fact that the Republican leadership and the Republican Congress are very out of step with middle-class families, and almost everything in this country," she said.

Many in the Democratic Party, particularly among those on the left, say there are no policy lessons to be learned from the 2004 election, that the party failed to get out its message and that it was overshadowed by a strong president at war. But centrist Democrats have continued to argue that the party may be in bigger danger than many loyalists think.


This month's issue of Blueprint, a magazine published by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, has several articles looking at statistics similar to Third Way's income data, such as Mr. Kerry's losing married parents of young children by 19 percentage points, taking 40 percent of the group compared with Mr. Bush's 59 percent. Those parents made up 28 percent of the electorate.

______________________

So, the poor whites are voting. It does seem to break down among racial lines.

OK, happy to have it go in a more factual direction. This topic is about whether it's a general effect -- not just 2004 -- and timber's study is also in those terms. I did note earlier:



I think the stuff I said about urban areas being more Democratic is easily verified. I also want to look up some stuff about Columbus and the 2004 elections. But I'm here for just a minute now, will do it tomorrow.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


Income is near the top, location is at the bottom. A lot of this differs greatly from the 2000 results, that I have around here somewhere on actual paper.