Myths and Realities
Jay Nordlinger writes at The Corner:
Dept. of Enduring Myths [Jay Nordlinger]
I’ve just come back from a weekend in Vermont — and here’s how I understand it: Modestly off people — “real Vermonters,” as some people say — are voting for McCain and Palin. Comfortably off people, such as those who own ski chalets, are voting for Obama and Biden. And the following has been frequently noted about the city of my residence, New York: The rich are voting Democratic. And those who work for them — driving cars, cleaning rooms, and so on — are voting Republican.
Yet, when I was growing up, the Republican party was always called the party of the rich, and it still suffers from that label. Over and over, that which I was taught is contradicted by the evidence of my lived experience.
That may what “the evidence of [Nordlinger's] lived experience” says, but it would be strongly at odds with the historical pattern. Here’s Andrew Gelman’s map of voting patterns among the top third of the income distribution in 2004:
As you can see, John Kerry did win the votes of most rich people in California, New York, and Maryland. These states happen to be where most influential media people live, and this often gives influential media personalities a misleading impression of the voting behavior of rich people overall. But rich Vermonters, like rich Alabamans and rich Oregonians and rich Texans voted for George W. Bush. Which, if you know what you’re talking about, isn’t surprising — rich people vote Republican.
By contrast, this is the equivalent map for people in the bottom third of the income distribution:
Here you see overwhelming support for Democrats, including in Vermont. Those are the facts. Presumably the McCain-Obama map will look somewhat different, but it would be bizarre for the pattern to reverse itself as Nordlinger seems to be anticipating.
82 Responses to “Myths and Realities”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Nordlinger’s only talking about real people, i.e. white people.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Vermont actually has very few rich people (unlike most of the Northeast, it’s a poor state, and as things go, not one of the more unequal ones). It was also a state in which only a single county voted for Bush in ‘04.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
This map raises familiar questions. What would happen in the US if middle- and low-income citizens voted at the same rate as the upper-middle and upper classes? Wouldn’t our politics be extremely different if our country were a more inclusive democracy? Can progressives channel what appears to be widespread enthusiasm for Obama among the non-rich into a lasting enfranchisement, and change the political map forever?
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Nordlinger’s only talking about real people, i.e. white people.
Vermont’s almost all white though.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Thanks
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Krugman has debuked this before.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Krugman has debuked this before.
rebuke + debunk = debuke. I love it!
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
It’d be interesting to see maps for the top and bottom third of the distribution within each state. That could well heighten the contrast between these maps.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Vermont’s almost all white though.
I was referring to Nordlinger’s comments about New York. Regarding Vermont, I guess there are various reasons why it’s Democratic, but Nordlinger’s fact-free assertions don’t merit a response about actual voting behavior. The man is a propagandist always looking for a poor, oppressed conservative in the land of elite liberal tyranny.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Great post, but in a way, it’s working too hard. We all know that
a) Lots of Vermonters are “modestly off”,
b) Only a few Vermonters own ski chalets, and
c) Obama will win Vermont.
You don’t need any more than that to see what’s wrong with Nordlinger’s post.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Ah, the enshrinement of anecdotes over statistics – the pinnacle of true hack journalism.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
by now, it’s safe to conclude that anything written at the Corner is 100% bullshit. they have all the intellectual honesty of professional wrestlers.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Another Jay Nordlinger post at the Corner:
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I can’t can’t really change the poor map, but I’ll do my part to turn the rich one more blue. Hopefully we’ll see a nice blue rectangle where Colorado is on the next map. My vote won’t do it alone, but there are a lot of people like me. Yeah, my taxes might go up, but I’d rather just make more money in the first place. Expanding my market by giving more money to my consumers should help. More so than a tax break for me, anyway.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Another grossly superficial and misleading analysis from Matthew.
Since when has “rich” meant “in the top third of incomes” and “poor” meant “in the bottom third of incomes?” $50,000/year is “rich?”
Gelman explicitly states in the abstract of his paper that there is a significant correlation between income and voting only in “poor” states, and that “in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation
with vote preference.”
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Modestly off people — “real Vermonters,” as some people say — are voting for McCain and Palin.
If Nordlinger can name five ‘real Vermonters’ who voted for Bernie Sanders in 2006 and will vote for McPalin this time, he gets a cookie. Unless he’s going to argue that the 65% who voted for Bernie all own ski chalets, and that Richard Tarrant, who spent $7m of his own money on that election, is voting for Obama, in which case we can just laugh at him even more.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
The real question is why are the rich, in California and the north east, voting against their economic interests? It’s is quite clear that the economic liberals (big labour, the poor) are taking advantage of these affluent cultural liberals. Perhaps Thomas Frank could extend his ingenious thesis for why voters are so “irrational” to the democratic party.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
well my anecdote from calling for Obama today was the woman who was not sure about Obama (a lot about abortion) even though her husband was for Obama. She told me that one thing she had noticed was that McCain signs around here in the Shenandoah Valley were on the property of rich people.
Maybe she did not get Nordlinger’s memo.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
To Gordon G.,
The affluent cultural liberals are not voting for a very limited version of their self-interest — lower taxes for me, greater Treasury give-aways for me, screw everyone else — the way that affluent cultural conservatives do.
As educated liberals, they’re able to see that such short-term fixations always, always, end up hurting the entire economy, including themselves, in the long (10 – 20 year) term.
Voila.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Gordo,
Actually, the evidence indicates that all people do better under Democratic administrations, although the relative improvements are flipped in the manner you would expect.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
As educated liberals, they’re able to see that such short-term fixations always, always, end up hurting the entire economy, including themselves, in the long (10 – 20 year) term.
Yes, that must be why the overwhelmingly dominant trend in economic policy around the world over the past few decades has been those “short-term fixations” of lower taxes, deregulation and privatization.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“The real question is why are the rich, in California and the north east, voting against their economic interests?”
Good question. The answer is that we’re not. I can make more money two ways: someone can cut my taxes or I can earn more income. So I win either way. If upper class taxes get cut, I get a tax cut. If middle class taxes get cut, then more people have the money to buy my products, and I make more income. The Republican plan seeks to help the rich at the expense of our economy. So it ends up being a wash ( I get a tax cut on less income). The Democrats want to help everyone, me included. Yes, I won’t get a tax cut, but my income will go up with a more prosperous economy. You just can’t keep a rich man down (or even get them therein the first place). The Republicans should stop worrying about us rich folk and make the rest of the country do better. But they won’t. So don’t vote for them.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
man, you & gelman had a response up before i could even hit publish on my post. but check out the e-polls for vermont in 2006 at the link.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Nobody is going to take Nordlinger to task for dividing up Vermonters into those who real and those who are fake?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
thecoach and phein,
I am sorry but even if you believe the graph that shows under the past 5(!!!) democratic presidents average income grew faster for the rich, during the democrats rein, the rich are still better off economically under republicans. It is all about after tax income.
And I doubt even rich democrats would deny that they vote democratic for moral or social reasons not economic ones.
This is fine but to criticize poor republicans (who actually aren’t very poor where they live) because they vote for cultural issues instead of voting for a small handout is just as illogical as criticizing rich liberals.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
…yes, that’s worked wonders too! That’s why the Dow hit 36,000 recently.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
“Nobody is going to take Nordlinger to task for dividing up Vermonters into those who real and those who are fake?”
Only a Vermonter could go there. I’m only an honorary Vermonter for showing up at the New Year’s party with a cord of wood. But a cord of wood will win you praise from anyone who heats their house with a wood stove.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I wish we could get past the idea that voting your own interests begins and ends with the nominal tax rate in your bracket. It’s just silly.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Nordy never allows facts to inform his opinions, why should this be any different?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
The comment about New York is obviously totally ridiculous.
Let’s look at the 2004 vote in each borough and compare to the median income:
1. Bronx – Kerry 83%; Bush 16%; Median Household Income $31,494
2. Brooklyn – Kerry 75%; Bush 24%; Median Household Income $40,393
3. Queens – Kerry 72%; Bush 27%; Median Household Income $51,190
4. Manhattan – Kerry 82%; Bush 17%; Median Household Income $60,017
5. Staten Island – Bush 56%; Kerry 43%; Median Household Income $68,620
So we find that as we go up the income ladder of the outer boroughs, Bush’s vote goes up. Manhattan is an exception, but I’m going to guess that the poorer parts of Manhattan (Upper Manhattan, Lower East Side) are considerably more Democratic than the richer parts (especially the Upper East Side).
But obviously most of the poor people in New York don’t count, because they’re Black or Brown. These people are unbelievable.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Gordon Gekko, perhaps you could show us some evidence that “after tax income” has been better for rich people under Republicans than under Democrats, rather than simply asserting it?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
(especially the Upper East Side
yes. the southwest part of the upper east side is the only area of manhattan where republicans and democrats are at parity.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
And the following has been frequently noted about the city of my residence, New York: The rich are voting Democratic. And those who work for them — driving cars, cleaning rooms, and so on — are voting Republican.
Not true. The people who do that kind of work in New York are overwhelmingly nonwhite. New York has almost no remaining white working class. And nearly all nonwhite voters in New York vote Democratic.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
A good mark of an individual who lacks any intellectual weight is when one puts forth numerically/statistically based arguments without stopping to think that there are numbers out there that will simply prove or refute the argument.
What kind of idiot thinks that wage workers in NYC vote republican?
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
John,
One caveat is that even when we look at after tax income under democratic or republican presidents we cannot reasonably determine who was responsible for this growth. That been said I will use Daniel Gross and Yglesias’ graph comparing average annual income growth and who was in the oval office. For the rich (top 20% say), average annual income was at most .75% higher under a democratic president.
Under Bush II income tax dropped 2% for 60% of a 100k income (or 1.2%). Under Reagan income taxes dropped 25% in all brackets. If you include less capital gains tax and more dividends it is far better economically for the rich to vote for a republican.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
What an arrogant douche. He spent a weekend in VT and now thinks he understands the the state? Bullspit. If he had actually taken some time to understand the state, he would have learned that the ski chalets are owned by flatlanders who come up from Boston and New York for the weekend.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
“If you include less capital gains tax and more dividends it is far better economically for the rich to vote for a republican.”
I’m not sure that’s true. There is no question you will pay less taxes under a republican administration. But you will make less money, too. Look at the performance of the stock market. It does better under the Democrats. So you pay higher capital gains taxes, but you have more capital gains. In the end, you probably keep more money. And right now, I don’t really care about capital gains taxes because I’m not selling my stocks. I’m buying stocks in the low market, not selling. Unless the capital gains tax becomes strongly negative (like -40%), I won’t be selling. But really, do we want a system that matches people’s gains in the market with additional money from the government?
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Nordlinger’s out of his mind.
Granted I live in Chittenden county (most “cosmopolitan,” home of UVM, and also the most populous county), but the large majority (regardless of socio-economic class) is voting for Obama. I’d assume that the majority of “the Kingdom” (the 3 northeastern counties) is voting for McCain, but that’s not surprising. These are the same people who painted the sides of their barns with the words “Take Back Vermont” in response to the civil union vote (to which the most awesomest bumper sticker ever replied: “Take Vermont from Behind”).
Those who own “ski chalets” are out-of-staters anyway and will vote in CT, MA, NY or NJ.
Our republican politicians are pretty sane. Like our governor – Jim Douglas. Good guy. Nordlinger obviously didn’t do a scientific study.
Also – as any “Real Vermonter” can tell you – you aren’t a “Real Vermonter” unless you were born here. Some will even go so far as to require you to be second generation to be a Vermonter. Being a “Real Vermonter” has nothing to do with how much money you make – it’s all about heritage.
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
I have to agree with msAnne – this guy Nordlinger has been hanging out with the out of state types in Stowe.
Also, I just came back from a week of moose hunting in the Northeast Kingdom (Ferdinand, to be exact), and you might be surprised at the number of Obama/Biden signs in yards along the way from Chittenden County up and into Orange County.
Our Republicans are what Republicans used to be known as – fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Not neocons or theocons.
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
I’m no expert on Vermont or NYC, but my own lived experience leads me to suspect that a lot of those who work “cleaning rooms” are noncitizens who cannot vote.
I think Krugman once made the argument that Bush’s economic policies were politically possible because a significant chunk of the working class (illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents) was disenfranchised — as was the case in the original Gilded Age, then because of Jim Crow. (Nordlinger must hate every clause.)
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 am
I think we may see evidence here of The Nordlinger Effect. The Nordlinger Effect is when non-rich people respond they’re voting like the rich jerk asking them who they’re voting for just so he’ll shut up and leave them alone.
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
When people on the right talk about voting by class, its important to remember that they are talking about white people only. I’d be interested in seeing the maps about white rich voters, white middle income voters, etc.
One point I noticed is that all income classes in the Northeast favor the Democrats to some degree. The Republican Party has been taxing the Northeast and spending the money in the South and West for some time. Even if you are wealthy, and live in the Northeast, you may get hurt economically by Republican policies. They have created a situation where if you live in this reason there is no reason to vote Republican at the federal level, unless you really get off on invading other countries, so its got to the point where the only people in the Northeast who still vote Republican in federal elections are the types who really get off on invading other countries.
Also, as the site Matt linked to points out, there is nothing wrong with using anecodatal evidence as long as you check the numerical data too, the anecdotal evidence can guide you to which data to look for. That is not quite what the journalist is doing.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
Facts and data mean nothing to armchair pseudo-social scientists like David Brooks and this guy from The Corner. No. You start with the ideology, find some convenient anecdotes or idiosyncratic data, squeeze them into the ideology, and there you have it: “reality”.
And, besides, The Corner has really become a cartoon page lately. Wednesday should be the best.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Which, if you know what you’re talking about, isn’t surprising — rich people vote Republican.
Hmmmmm. Isn’t there an ethnic group that as it makes its way up the economic ladder still leans heavily Democratic?
One who as the joke went lives like Episcopalians but votes like Puerto Ricans?
One who might make up only 2 to 3% of the national population but who could be heavily represented in Matt’s native New York thus skewing that chart a bit more to the blue.
Well, something for our young blogger to think about during the duller portions of next year’s Rosh Hashanah services. Maybe it’ll come to him then.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:38 am
msAnne,
There is an exception to the two generation rule provided
you own a dairy, cut your own wood and tap at least twenty trees
November 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 am
Even Nordlinger’s classical music criticism is stupid.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 am
Selection bias. Who said the top third are the “rich”?
Show us the numbers for the top 0.1%.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 am
The real question is why are the rich, in California and the north east, voting against their economic interests?
Coz money isn’t everything and not everybody who has money is a greedy, selfish jerk who doesn’t care about his fellow man?
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 am
Maybe some rich people actually want to have a functioning country in which to enjoy their wealth, instead of simply accumulating dollars while they avoid what Republicans have been trying to make into a crumbling, 1970’s Brazil-style sh*t-hole.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 am
In terms of explaining Nordlinger’s comment, I think Erik (10) and a (47) nail it. I don’t have the numbers, but it’s always been my understanding that Republicanism and wealth tend to increase in tandem until you get up to the “ultrarich,” for lack of a better term–people making at least several million a year. We’ve discussed on this blog before the fact that much of the upper middle class/lower upper class doesn’t consider themselves rich, and thinks you have to be making that much to be rich. (I doubt most people making $200,000 a year own Vermont ski chalets). Hence, it’d be perfectly logical to say something like, “The rich are voting for Obama, but the people making $100,000-$1,000,000 a year are voting for McCain.”
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 am
by leaving out the middle third and including the top third WAGE earners as “the rich”, you skew the entire thing. if you take the middle 3rd ignored in this, you end up with the working Joes who do support republicans. The trust fund babies and those living off their holdings, and the suddenly-super rich are all bluestaters.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 am
Then why is it that Redstaters give more to charity (time and money) than Blue staters?
Liberal policies are not about helping anyone except economically ignorant people like you feel good about themselves (without the real effort of giving)
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Then why is it that Redstaters give more to charity (time and money) than Blue staters?
I’m not sure about the explanatory value of such claims, since several factors are left out of the equation. Be that as it may, while giving to charity is certainly not a bad thing, it is not the way to achieve a more egalitarian and just society.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 am
I’ve got two responses to Nordlinger, one anecdotal and one statistical.
Anecdotal response: I’m from Vermont, from a smallish town (not Chittenden county…). Though my family has been in the state since the late 1700s I was actually born in Massachusetts, making me a non-real Vermonter. Most of the people I know are definitely in Nordliner’s “modest” category (no ski chalets, sorry) and most of us are voting for Obama. I spend a lot of time driving around the eastern half of the state, between Springfield and St J, and I
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 am
Whoops, accidentally hit “submit” too soon….
I’ve got two responses to Nordlinger, one anecdotal and one statistical.
Anecdotal response: I’m from Vermont, from a smallish town (not Chittenden county…). Though my family has been in the state since the late 1700s I was actually born in Massachusetts, making me a non-real Vermonter. Most of the people I know are definitely in Nordliner’s “modest” category (no ski chalets, sorry) and most of us are voting for Obama. I spend a lot of time driving around the eastern half of the state, between Springfield and St J, and I think that pattern holds most places.
Statistical response: There aren’t a lot of polls of Vermont, but on average they show the state leaning 58% Obama, 34% McCain. If Nordlinger’s claims were true, then Vermont is much, much better off than I expected — with a large majority of its households in the “comfortably well off, ski-chalet owning” category. I wish that were true — in point of fact, Vermont is a bit poorer than our New England neighbors to the east and the south. But we’re doing OK.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 am
Ah facts! The enemy of NRO and the modern so-called “conservatives”! Don’t you get the feeling with the NRO crowd that maybe masturbation IS bad? I wouldn’t touch a towel if I visited them…..
The funny thing is there are great conservative thinkers like Daniel Larison at Eunomia, who does NOT support Obama but tries intellectually in a fashion that engages me and you as liberals to cut through all that phony Baghdad Bob NRO stuff AND honestly critiques Obama and our culture.
If Obama wins, let’s take an oath (those of us who support and have such high hopes for him) not to turn into the K-Lo crowd. We should encourage Obama and progressive ideas, but when he is wrong, let us call him out honestly and sanely.
In other words, let’s use this opportunity to change our Discourse into something that is fact-bound and argument based. If we get out of the wilderness, let’s stay out this time.
Go Barack go! And Sarah, Alaska needs you so please stay there.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
Because there is higher church attendance in Red State areas. But this is a feature of church attendance, and not of wealth.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 am
The Righties are just trying to cook up a.) some excuses for when they lose (”the rich people beat us…”) and b.) some last delusional hope for a McCain win by saying all the poor folks in the world will vote for McCain – the Man For The People.
But isn’t it McCain and the Right who are defending the rich against Obama’s tax plan as “drivers” of our economy? They should love them…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
According to the National Center for Charitable Giving, the following are the top 15 states in terms of money given to charity (”red” states marked with *):
California
New York
Texas*
Florida*
Illinois
Georgia*
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
N. Carolina*
Michigan
Ohio
Virginia*
Maryland
Massachusetts
Washington
Top 15 by percent of tax returns claiming charitable deductions
California
New York
Florida*
Texas*
Illinois
New Jersey
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia*
N. Carolina*
Virginia*
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Washington
In each case, only 5 of the top 15 states in charitable giving are “red” – and, ironically, 3 included on both lists (Virginia, N. Caro., and Florida) are likely to go to Obama this year. So where do conservatives get the idea that red states give more than blue ones?
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
And the bottom 15 in each category. First, total giving::
N. Dakota*
S. Dakota*
Vermont
W. Virginia
Wyoming*
Alaska*
Delaware
Rhode Island
Hawaii
Maine
New Mexico*
Nebraska*
Idaho*
Arkansas*
Kansas*
Now, percent who give:
Wyoming*
S. Dakota*
N. Dakota*
Alaska*
W. Virginia
Montana*
Hawaii
Idaho*
Maine
R. Island
Nebraska*
N, Hampshire
N. Mexico*
Arkansas*
Mississippi*
Kansas*
10 of 15 lowest in terms of total giving are red states; 12 of 15 in terms of lowest % of givers are also red. Why do facts have such a liberal bias?
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Another Vermonter chiming in to call bullshit.
Exactly. Think Jim Jeffords. And Jesus goddamned Christ, ’ski chalets’? Most of this state doesn’t even have any fucking ski chalets. Get out of Stowe and Woodstock and look at the whole fucking state, loser.
As for why some ‘rich’ states, like CA, vote blue, I think it’s also got to do with their desire to live their lives how they choose, and not how the State mandates (think abortion, birth control, etc.).
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
I wouldn’t even trust Nordlinger’s self-reported “lived experience”. Not saying he’s a liar, just that he seems like the type who would see what he wants to see, and ignore/forget whatever doesn’t fit the pattern.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
I am absolutely sick of people being divided into “real” people and everyone else. The only people I’ve ever met who are literally fake were in a Madame Toussaud’s museum.
For instance, I lived my whole life in N. Carolina, but my job, income, political tendencies and voting preferences are different from the traditional NC positions. I still love the state, however, and I would punch anyone who would claim that I’m not a “real” North Carolinian.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Nobody is going to take Nordlinger to task for dividing up Vermonters into those who real and those who are fake?
I am absolutely sick of people being divided into “real” people and everyone else.
I love seeing all the other Vermonters in this comment thread, and they’re right – it’s not fair to blame Nordlinger for that. Everyone in rural Vermont knows who is a real Vermonter and who isn’t. I don’t think anybody means anything mean by it; it was just a joke more than anything else. Flatlanders talk about it more than woodchucks. Well, more recently I have noticed people talking angrily about flatlanders in town policy and legal cases and stuff, but it seemed like a joke as a kid.
Shit, I know I’m getting old now that I’m looking back nostalgically on my teenage years. Uh oh.
There is an exception to the two generation rule provided
you own a dairy, cut your own wood and tap at least twenty trees
LOL, it’s so true. I know two Addison County dairy farmers, active in the community and stuff, one with an English accent and one with a Dutch accent.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
The Republican party is the party of married, child-bearing, white wage-earners, and their immediate social contacts. The Democrat party is the party of everyone else.
In 2004 the r-square between the Bush margin of victory/loss and the average number of years a white woman was married between 18 and 40, childbearing years, was .91. In lay terms, this means that white/married/women explain 90 percent in the variations of a state’s preference for GOP or Dems.
I live in Seattle, which will probably vote 85 percent for Obama, but as you leave the city things start to get very, very Republican. Childless/non-white households in the city making 50 grand? Very Democrat. Child-bearing, married households in the suburbs making 50 grand? Very Republican.
All very interesting.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:30 am
The Republican party is the party of married, child-bearing, white wage-earners, and their immediate social contacts. The Democratic party is the party of everyone else.
You would think that creating a party made up of one particular demographic and then ceding “everyone else” to the opposite party would not be a wise strategy.
I live in Seattle, which will probably vote 85 percent for Obama, but as you leave the city things start to get very, very Republican. Childless/non-white households in the city making 50 grand? Very Democratic. Child-bearing, married households in the suburbs making 50 grand? Very Republican.
Correlation != Causation. If you married young and had children early and didn’t want to live in a city, odds are you never had Democratic party inclinations to begin with. In any case, as we’re seeing in DC and the NY-metro area, even the inner-ring suburbs are going for the Democrats.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Plus, as noted above, the only reason conservative parts of the country are even in the running vis-a-vis “charitable” giving is that their church tithing counts as “charitable” technically because of tax status, whereas what REALLY goes on at many of these places is “charitable” only in the most, er, charitable interpretation of the word.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
You would think that creating a party made up of one particular demographic and then ceding “everyone else” to the opposite party would not be a wise strategy.
Well, for starters, this class is positively huge, and its objective, material class-interests are markedly at odds with most other classes of people in society. Let’s imagine two hypothetical people: the first aspires to get married, have 4 kids, live in a nice home large enough to comfortably house 6, live in a nice school district, and have a low-crime environment; the second never wants kids and is mainly interested in discovering the next hot indie band, expanding their culinary horizons, smoking a little pot on weekends, clubbing, and spending time traveling Europe during career changes every 4 or 5 years.
The OBJECTIVE interests of those two people, and the classes they represent, are diametrically opposed. Policies that lead to fulfillment of one hurt the possibilities of fulfillment for the other.
Most of my social circle, I’m single, is Democrat and I keep pointing out that people who get married and raise children are the class of people in which society thrives or perishes. And they overwhelmingly vote Republican. You’re going to have to figure out how childless urban professionals and low-IQ minorities are going to keep society going, because the married/childbearing class of people clearly view Democrat policies are detrimental to their class of existence.
Correlation != Causation. If you married young and had children early and didn’t want to live in a city, odds are you never had Democratic party inclinations to begin with.
Yes, politics is primarily about identity, despite GOP protestations about “identity politics”. It’s evidence of the progressing fragmentation of the American body-politic, where vast portions of the population have virtually no common interest.
In any case, as we’re seeing in DC and the NY-metro area, even the inner-ring suburbs are going for the Democrats.
Not all suburbs are alike. I suspect that the suburbs you listed have low percentages of white, married, child-bearing households.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
The Duncecaps in the Corner along with many on the right continue to imagine that they create the reality others read about. Even the so-called realists on the right continue to contend that somehow the largest government in the history of the planet can be shrunk to a size they can drain down their sinks, and that tax evasion on the part of the wealthy, military adventurism, science know-nothingism is effective and fair governance in the 21st century. There will always be something said for indivual responsability; however, for some of us, we find it an evasion of governmental responsability to assert the private, public. The bait and switch of a sawbuck for you, Fort Knox for the upper class has been exposed; the Emperor is stark raving naked, and the nation is about to throw the rascals out. So to Jay and the rest stewing in their own juices on the right, come back when you’ve gotten that eye examination and new glasses to adjust for your myopia; until then, see ya; I wouldn’t want to be ya.
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Asher writes:
Except that this really isn’t true. In this thread, as an example, we’re talking about Vermont, which is nearly 100% white wage earners, many of whom are married, and yet it’s one of the most left-leaning states in the US. Nationwide, many millions of married white wage-earners will be voting for Obama in this election.
Back to Asher:
That may be true in your imaginary universe, but reality begs to differ. Yes, it’s true that most nonwhites and non-marrieds and most young people vote Democratic, but so do majorities or near-majorities of lots of white demographics.
I’m a gainfully-employed churchgoing middle-class non-immigrant white anglo saxon protestant straight male parent … by your assertions I ought to be the reddest of Republicans. Unfortunately for you, I (and most of my similarly white-bread neighbors) are voting Democratic.
Have a nice day.
November 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Look at the graphs here under income. I think Nordlinger may be right, because people who made over 200, 000 voted slightly in favor of Obama. People in the bracets just below voted McCain.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:12 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 7th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Thanks ur visit to my blog. nice web design.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:03 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 15th, 2009 at 4:50 am
I follow your blog for quite a long time and must tell you that your articles are always valuable to readers.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Hi all. I am doomed to an eternity of compulsive work. No set goal achieved satisfies. Success only breeds a new goal. The golden apple devoured has seeds. It is endless.
I am from Kyrgyzstan and learning to write in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Go airlines cheap maui flight to kahului island of hawaii.”
With love
, Zalman.