1
   

Democrats and the weather...

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 10:16 pm
That's a great collection of info, 2packs.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Nov, 2006 11:14 pm
Yep, it leaves little to be desired....Nimh must have had a hand in it.

--------------

I guess this is as good of a place as any to say this....

I just want to wish everyone the best of luck tomorrow, as in I hope things turn out for the better in each of your own respective states, which will of course in turn be reflected on our nation as a whole. Like it or not, the eyes of the world are upon us.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:33 am
2PacksADay wrote:
Yep, it leaves little to be desired....Nimh must have had a hand in it.


Laughing

It's de-lovely!! Thanks so much. The income part is pretty darn unambiguous:

Code: VOTE BY INCOME


Bush Kerry Nader

Under $15,000 (8%) 36% 63% 0%
$15-30,000 (15%) 42% 57% 0%
$30-50,000 (22%) 49% 50% 0%
$50-75,000 (23%) 56% 43% 0%
$75-100,000 (14%) 55% 45% 0%
$100-150,000 (11%) 57% 42% 1%
$150-200,000 (4%) 58% 42% *
$200,000 or More (3%) 63% 35% 1%


Except for a blip in the $75-100,000 range (and then a teeny one), it's a direct correllation -- more money, more likely to vote for Bush.

Then there's this, too:

Code:VOTE BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY

BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL

Big Cities (13%) 39% 60% *
Smaller Cities (19%) 49% 49% 0%
Suburbs (45%) 52% 47% 0%
Small Towns (8%) 50% 48% 1%
Rural (16%) 59% 40% 1%


That one also notes that the 39% for Bush figure (Big Cities) was +13 from 2000 -- so in 2000 Bush got only 26% of the vote in big cities.

2PacksADay wrote:
I just want to wish everyone the best of luck tomorrow, as in I hope things turn out for the better in each of your own respective states, which will of course in turn be reflected on our nation as a whole. Like it or not, the eyes of the world are upon us.


Hear, hear.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:34 am
Ew, those are some ugly tables, sorry. Hope you can read 'em.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
those tables are a pretty good way of testing my eyesight and brainfunction - i give myself a "B+" :wink: .
hbg
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 01:52 pm
One:

Over the years I've been offered rides to the polls several times by the Republican Party--never by the Democrats.

Two:

I've helped get various groups (Head Start Mothers, halfway-house young adults, residents of households on a rural road) get registered to vote. Checking back after the elections, I've found that many of these voters don't bother to turn out on Election Day. Weather is frequently an excuse.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 02:56 pm
Lash wrote:
Didn't we find out...generally....Democrats are wealthier than Republicans...?

Absolutely not.

In fact, it's the absolute opposite.

As - ironically - the article you subsequently pasted in itself notes - right in the part that you bolded and made red.

It says,

Lash wrote:
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.


Note. The support for Republicans begins at much lower income levels - as in, they are in majority everywhere above that level.

The "income threshold" of $23,300 that this research found may be lower than expected, but it is still exactly that: an income threshhold. As in: above it, the majority votes Republican. Below it, the majority votes Democrat.

So, yes, "the poor whites are voting", as you say - and according to the very article you quote, they vote Democratic. A majority of the whites who earn under $23,300 votes Democratic, a majority of those who earn more than that votes Republican.

Now you can rightly argue that earning over $23,300 hardly immediately makes you wealthy - which is what the article argues, saying that "the middle classes" voted for Bush. But it is certain that earning less than that makes you relatively poor - and that group in majority does vote Democratic.

And its the same group that is more likely to not have a car to drive to the polling booth, to not be able to afford childcare for the hours they're gone - hours they're gone because the long lines were overproportionally concentrated in less affluent districts. (Which is partly because, from what I understand, the costs of the election process - machines etc - are born by the local authorities, and poor cities tend to have less money to spend than wealthy exurb municipalities.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:24 pm
One

Not to hammer the point home, Lash, but this, too, is already in the WaTimes article you posted - emphasis added:

Lash wrote:
"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.


The wealthier Americans are - the less likely they are to vote Democrat - as it says here in the first sentence too.

The point that this article adds in the second sentence is that the breaking point, above which people are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, at least among whites, is actually quite low - 'underneath' the level of "middle income voters". Meaning that those, too, already in majority vote Republican.

Just like the rich.

But unlike the whites who earn less than $23,300. Who in majority vote Democratic.

So what the article shows is that, among whites:

Poor - Democratic
Middle class - Republican
Rich - Republican

Which all perfectly fits in with what Soz was saying.

------------------

Two

Furthermore, it bears repeating that the "income threshhold" of $23,300 found in this report is specifically about white Americans.

The exit polls that Soz quoted tell us that the "income threshhold" nationally, counting whites, blacks, Hispanics and others, is MUCH higher. Double as high, in fact. At $50,000.

Nationally, of those earning under $50,000, a majority votes Democratic.
Of those earning over $50,000, a majority votes Republican.

2PacksaDay made me smile, especially in juxtaposition with Soz's tables underneath - because yes, I did also make these tables here - even painstakingly setting the spaces exactly so that the columns would come out right - right after the 2004 elections..

I did so in this thread:

nimh wrote:
Bush/Cheney '04: The rich won this election ...

OK, got your attention.

Seriously though. Analyses are abounding about the various electorate breakdowns. Turnout was a record high and new voters were mostly Kerry supporters. But Bush got through by mobilising a massive majority of white protestants and evangelical christians and by securing the preference of older voters. To be fair, he also got through by winning a larger minority of women, Latinos (up from 35% to 42%) and Jews than last time, and half of the Catholics.

But though one can play up the image of Bush propped up by the white, older Christians, or emphasise the inroads he made among minorities, one thing is sure:

He was elected by the wealthy. [If you'll agree with me that earning over $50,000 makes you wealthy. - nimh]

And this cannot be said often enough among all the inane rhetorics about "liberal elites" who've lost touch with "the people".

Here's the exit poll data for the presidential elections. Note, the exit polls may have been imperfect, especially when it came to predicting individual states; but they've got these overall totals at Bush 50, Kerry 49, so pretty much on-target on the top lines.

Here's the numbers by income:

2003 total family income:

Code:
% Total Kerry Bush Nader

Under $15,000 8 63 36 1

$15,000-$29,999 15 58 41 0

$30,000-$49,999 22 51 48 0

$50,000-$74,999 23 44 55 1

$75,000-$99,999 14 46 53 0

$100,000-$149,999 11 43 56 1

$150,000-$199,999 4 43 57 -

$200,000 or more 3 37 62 1


0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:35 pm
Re: Democrats and the weather...
A Lone Voice wrote:
"Poor weather conditions will help Republicans."

I've seen this headline and have heard this topic discussed by pundints; why is this?

Is this an urban myth?


No, it isn't.

Which is why George Bush is going to cause another hurricane to strike the East Coast momentarily.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:44 pm
Three

Here's another way to look at the question (borrowing slightly from an earlier post of mine on the House & Senate races thread. Look here:

2006 Election Guide - Senate, House and Governors' Races.

Maps, maps, maps. It's a political nerd's walhalla. Above all, because they are interactive maps.

Not just can you immediately get an overview of where the poor or rich districts are, or where (for House races) the urban and rural districts are, or the majority black, Hispanic and white ones. You can also mix and match!

Thump a few check boxes, for example, and you'll get only the poor, white, rural Democratic House districts - because yes, there are still some, as it turns out. In fact, of the 8 districts listed as poor, white and rural, five are still held by a Democrat (though none voted for Kerry).

I can show you actually, because - wonderfully - you can save a URL for bookmarking any selection you make! These are the country's eight poor, white, rural districts.

OK, now take out the race and urban/rural factor, and simply look at where the low-income voters live:

These are the 22 House districts where the median income is lower than $30,000.

They break down as follows..:

  • 18 Safe Democratic seats
  • 4 Safe Republican seats
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:45 pm
:-)

(How long did it take you to make that table line up perfectly? 'Tis a thing of beauty...)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:50 pm
Re: Democrats and the weather...
Ticomaya wrote:
No, it isn't.

Which is why George Bush is going to cause another hurricane to strike the East Coast momentarily.

Razz

Sozobe wrote:
(How long did it take you to make that table line up perfectly? 'Tis a thing of beauty...)

Too effin' long... Razz
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:22 pm
sozobe wrote:
:-)

(How long did it take you to make that table line up perfectly? 'Tis a thing of beauty...)


A tip, soz, for your future tables: First line up your data in a word processor using a proportionate font (like courier). Then cut and paste into your post. Voila.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:24 pm
Ah! Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:26 pm
Soz' earlier tables:

Code:VOTE BY INCOME

Bush Kerry Nader

Under $15,000 (8%) 36% 63% 0%
$15-30,000 (15%) 42% 57% 0%
$30-50,000 (22%) 49% 50% 0%
$50-75,000 (23%) 56% 43% 0%
$75-100,000 (14%) 55% 45% 0%
$100-150,000 (11%) 57% 42% 1%
$150-200,000 (4%) 58% 42% *
$200,000 or More (3%) 63% 35% 1%


Code:VOTE BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY

BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL

Big Cities (13%) 39% 60% *
Smaller Cities (19%) 49% 49% 0%
Suburbs (45%) 52% 47% 0%
Small Towns (8%) 50% 48% 1%
Rural (16%) 59% 40% 1%
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:28 pm
<swoon> straight lines <swoon>

Btw nimh already posted the bigger one here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2365800#2365800

But thanks! :-)
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 05:17 pm
The 8th District in Mo {Jo Ann Emerson}...is my district, and one of the poorest in the nation...at least in the white/rural/poor category.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 08:59 pm
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
Didn't we find out...generally....Democrats are wealthier than Republicans...?

Absolutely not.

In fact, it's the absolute opposite.

Thank you for the graphs. I had a vague recollection of some income statistic between Dems and Republicans having surprising results--but this wasn't it.
As - ironically - the article you subsequently pasted in itself notes - right in the part that you bolded and made red.

It says,

Lash wrote:
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.


Note. The support for Republicans begins at much lower income levels - as in, they are in majority everywhere above that level.

It was at an income level much lower and a percentage much higher than I expected, and I thought it should be noted. I didn't know Bush drew support at that level.



I appreciate hearing your opinion. I hope if anyone runs across any other articles that approach this particular subject, they'll bring them in. It is curious.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:49 pm
Thank you for your gracious response. <smiles>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2022 at 02:18:35