Poverty levels and elected Democrats

[Wotan31]

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

-- Abraham Lincoln



U. S. Top 10 Major Cities in Rate of Poverty

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007


What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.


Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'

Your thoughts?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Interesting,

But you're going to get raked over the coals for posting this in here. Just a warning!

I'm excited to see what people have to say about that.

SLC

[iGary]

My thoughts?

It has nothing to do with the party affiliation of the mayor.

Washington, D.C. is a good example, as is LA.

[xUKHCx]

What about the best?

I am personally not so sure that such a simplistic statement could be made out of such a infinitely complex situation. Of course there are/could be major contributing factors that have big impacts but to lay it all down to one is a too much of a stretch in my opinion.

[SLC Flyfishing]

My thoughts?

It has nothing to do with the party affiliation of the mayor.

Washington, D.C. is a good example, as is LA.

I see your 10 poverty stricken cities, and I'll counter you with two that have done fairly well.

Is that what you're saying?

Still, if you look at LA's past mayors it's been pretty much evenly split between Republican and Democrat for the past 107 years. And Washington DC's poverty rate is nearly 1 in 5, total percentage is 19.1% for the 3rd highest in the nation according to the So Others May Eat organization http://www.some.org/docs/factsheet_poverty.pdf


What about the best?

I am personally not so sure that such a simplistic statement could be made out of such a infinitely complex situation. Of course there are/could be major contributing factors that have big impacts but to lay it all down to one is a too much of a stretch in my opinion.

I tend to agree with this assesment, but it is interesting all the same!

SLC

[sushi]

It has nothing to do with the party affiliation of the mayor.
I would disagree with this.

Mayors push for allocation of funds based upon their political beliefs.

[leekohler]

I would disagree with this.

Mayors push for allocation of funds based upon their political beliefs.

Sorry- this is far too simplistic to be taken seriously.

[yg17]

What about all of the poor rural areas that consistently vote for republicans?

There's no correlation with wealth here. Big cities tend to be liberal. Small towns tend to be conservative. Even in the reddest states, the large cities will usually be blue.

[Rodimus Prime]

I might like to point out that El Paso is in Texas and per Texas law at the city level there is no official party affiliation.

So that city on the list is worthless for that example because no matter how far back you go there will never be a Republican Mayor nor a Democrat one.

Same goes for Houston, Austin, Dallas, ect.

[SLC Flyfishing]

What about all of the poor rural areas that consistently vote for republicans?

There's no correlation with wealth here. Big cities tend to be liberal. Small towns tend to be conservative. Even in the reddest states, the large cities will usually be blue.

Not where I live. And we have a low poverty rate here in Utah! Though Salt Lake City has the highest Poverty rate, and is the only town who would elect and has elected a Democratic Mayor. Salt Lake City is the largest in Utah by the smallest of margins with a population of 180,000 roughly. The rest of the valley (almost 1,000,000 population), is heavily republican, and the rest of the Wasatch Front (which is considered to be the Salt Lake City Metro area) is even more heavily republican and contains over 2 million people total). The parts outside of SLC proper are the places with much lower poverty rates overall, most of the small town folks in Utah do fairly well for themselves actually.

Still even then, the rest of the city council for SLC is Republican and our poverty rate in SLC is approaching the national average, not shooting way over it like some of these other cities.


SLC

[iGary]

I see your 10 poverty stricken cities, and I'll counter you with two that have done fairly well.

Is that what you're saying?

Good lord. Seattle? San Francisco?

So Others May Eat[/B] organization http://www.some.org/docs/factsheet_poverty.pdf

Same could be said for Dallas - most of their mayors have been Republican and they're in the top 20.

The point is, there is no point.

[sushi]

Sorry- this is far too simplistic to be taken seriously.
So you are saying that mayors don't push for things based upon their political beliefs?

[Shivetya]

LOL - don't use the truth on liberals, it never works. One cannot respond to something one never has on their side.

[leekohler]

LOL - don't use the truth on liberals, it never works. One cannot respond to something one never has on their side.

Because it's not the truth. You can't make the correlation that just because a city elects Democrats as mayors that that's the cause of their poverty. And hey- liberals aren't the ones who deny science and worship some imaginary being in the sky, speaking of people who ignore facts. And once agin, you prove that you have nothing of value to add to a conversation.

So you are saying that mayors don't push for things based upon their political beliefs?

Christ. Don't be thick. You know that I'm talking about this ridiculous topic.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Good lord. Seattle? San Francisco?



Same could be said for Dallas - most of their mayors have been Republican and they're in the top 20.

The point is, there is no point.

Seattle has a rate of 13.1%, not that great IMO.

San Fransisco is better but real estate prices prohibit anyone from living there realistically unless they are way above the federal poverty level. But if you look just across the Bay to Oakland and Richmond the rates are 17%, and Berkely, one of the most liberal places in the entire USA has a rate of 21%

Then you take Dallas, which by the way hasn't elected a republican mayor since 1987 I believe, and it's poverty rate is the same as Seattle's. So do you want to try again? Either Dallas isn't all that bad, or Seattle is. Take your pick!

Cherry pick your cities all you like, but I'm seeing a strong trend here.

SLC

[Blue Velvet]

LOL - don't use the truth on liberals, it never works.

Sorry, what truth is that? My question to the OP is: what comes first, the chicken or the egg? And using Detroit as an example, are you saying that the sole reason for its industrial decline is because of its various mayors over the years?

[themoonisdown09]

And using Detroit as an example, are you saying that the sole reason for its industrial decline is because of its various mayors over the years?

It has to be!!! It's definitely not because it's the motor capitol of the US and lots of car companies are having to fire workers and are going bankrupt.

[sushi]

Christ. Don't be thick. You know that I'm talking about this ridiculous topic.
Totally lost. Heading back to the corner where it's safe to watch. :)

[leekohler]

Seattle has a rate of 13.1%, not that great IMO.

San Fransisco is better but real estate prices prohibit anyone from living there realistically unless they are way above the federal poverty level. But if you look just across the Bay to Oakland and Richmond the rates are 17%, and Berkely, one of the most liberal places in the entire USA has a rate of 21%

Then you take Dallas, which by the way hasn't elected a republican mayor since 1987 I believe, and it's poverty rate is the same as Seattle's. So do you want to try again? Either Dallas isn't all that bad, or Seattle is. Take your pick!


Cherry pick your cities all you like, but I'm seeing a strong trend here.

SLC

Do you have good examples of rich Republican cities? How about rich Republican rural areas?



Totally lost. Heading back to the corner where it's safe to watch. :)

Don't know how you could be lost, but do what you want.

[Blue Velvet]

It has to be!!! It's definitely not because it's the motor capitol of the US and lots of car companies are having to fire workers and are going bankrupt.


There's a larger discussion to be had about global outsourcing, de-industrialisation, education, state and federal governments, the rise of the sun belt... as well as the stagnation of wages for the middle-class over the past 20 years. But instead, the OP's argument is extremely lazy and selective partisan thinking.

The causal relationship between politicians and the relative wealth of their constituencies isn't as straight-forward as the OP would like us to believe. The argument reminds me of my rock that I use to keep away tigers.

[leekohler]

There's a larger discussion to be had about global outsourcing, de-industrialisation, education, state and federal governments, the rise of the sun belt... as well as the stagnation of wages for the middle-class over the past 20 years. But instead, the OP's argument is extremely lazy and selective partisan thinking.

The causal relationship between politicians and the relative wealth of their constituencies isn't as straight-forward as the OP would like us to believe. The argument reminds me of my rock that I use to keep away tigers.

Exactly. Don't expect your post to be understood though. People don't like to think. They like to break everything down to the black and white. It's easier that way.

[iGary]

Seattle has a rate of 13.1%, not that great IMO.

In your opinion? It's #63 in the nation--53 places out of the top 10 the OP posted--according to the Census Bureau. You can say it's "not that great" all you want, but Seattle is far and away from the cities we're talking about.

Then you take Dallas, which by the way hasn't elected a republican mayor since 1987 I believe, and it's poverty rate is the same as Seattle's. So do you want to try again? Either Dallas isn't all that bad, or Seattle is. Take your pick!

Cherry pick your cities all you like, but I'm seeing a strong trend here.

SLC

Well since you decided to go by "Still, if you look at LA's past mayors it's been pretty much evenly split between Republican and Democrat for the past 107 years" I decided to keep it fair and look at the last 100 years, not the last 20.

The majority of Dallas' mayors over the last 100 years have been Republican and yet it's a filthy, dirty, poverty-stricken city, according to the Census.

Do you want to try again or keep changing around the basis of our discussion to suit your point of view instead?

[mactastic]

Are you suggesting that correlation and causation are the same thing? :confused:

And wow... the level of "maniacal hatred" of liberals in this thread is off the charts...

[SLC Flyfishing]

The majority of Dallas' mayors over the last 100 years have been Republican and yet it's a filthy, dirty, poverty-stricken city, according to the Census.

Do you want to try again or keep changing around the basis of our discussion to suit your point of view instead?

Dallas's poverty rates are equal to Seattle's, Seattle has a rate of 13.1% while Dallas has a rate of 13.3%. So which is it? Filthy dirty poverty stricken, or pretty nice and 50 some odd spots from the top 20?

SLC

[iGary]

Dallas's poverty rates are equal to Seattle's, Seattle has a rate of 13.1% while Dallas has a rate of 13.3%. So which is it? Filthy dirty poverty stricken, or pretty nice and 50 some odd spots from the top 20?

SLC

You tell me. (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/R01T160.htm)

[Gelfin]

A few responses:

First, your quote did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, but with a conservative German-born Presbyterian minister by the name of William Boetcker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._H._Boetcker) in 1916. He published it on a flyer with Lincoln's name at the top, but his own writing contained within.

Second, you are engaging in both cum hoc fallacy and cherry-picking of data. We know that most urban areas tend to skew more Democratic than their surrounding states. Therefore, finding cities that skew Democratic is not difficult. Your implication that Democratic mayors cause poverty ignores a likely alternative possibility, that since the urban poor tend to vote Democratic, poverty tends to cause Democratic mayors rather than the other way around. Further, you are ignoring not only large, Democratic cities that are not as poverty-stricken, but also large and highly conservative rural areas whose poverty rates are the equal of any large city. It is possibly an interesting correlation, but not evidence that voting Democrat causes poverty.

One thing that stands out to me about the phrasing you use for this list, which I assume you got from some uncited source -- I doubt this is original research -- is that it carefully says these cities "ha[ve]n't elected a Republican mayor since…" some year. It does not say what the actual political affiliations of the mayors of those cities were for those periods. Someone with an axe to grind is merely left to assume that the alternative must be liberal Democratic mayors, but the fact that this is unstated is a red flag for manipulation. I don't have the time to go research the entire mayoral history of El Paso, TX. I bet whoever compiled and fed you this information is guessing you don't either.

Finally, the implication seems to be that we should accept that Republican mayors possess the key to resolving urban poverty, but only by inductive exclusion. Evidence of urban poverty actually being resolved by specific Republican mayoral leadership is not cited. Nor, for that matter, are specific non-Republican failings blamed for it. What would a Republican mayoral policy for combatting urban poverty look like, and why would it succeed where rival efforts fail?

This is great snark fodder for someone who already sympathizes with the conclusion. As a genuinely useful finding, much less a persuasive tool, it simply isn't probative.

[mactastic]

...which I assume you got from some uncited source...
Looks like this is making the rounds of the conservative series of tubes (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2214203/posts)...

LOL... our conservative friend even helpfully included the Einstein quote from this post too.

My wife just dropped two kids from her Senior English class for this kind of thing.

[Desertrat]

Major metro areas have always been regarded as a better source of money than small towns or rural areas. In the U.S. for the last fifty years, larger cities have had more public-support programs in place. So, two factors at work: Jobs, and welfare of some sort.

By and large, as the Democratic Party has drifted leftwards, social programs have grown as part of municipal spending. Thus, "If you want more of something, subsidize it." At the same time, hostility toward business interests have led to jobs leaving many of the DP-run cities--which exacerbates the problem. Money-movement becomes imbalanced, with the ongoing overhead of social programs and a reduction in governmental income from taxes.

SFAIK, Detroit is the extreme example of urban decay which has derived from political policies. Such policies are not the only problem, of course; a one-industry area suffers greatly as that industry itself decays. However, those cities which have diversified by attracting other sectors of the business community have not faired as badly--and that derives from political decision-making by the community establishment.

At the state level, the most notable example is California. For the last four years, out-migration has exceeded in-migration. Those leaving are among the higher-paid--which is of great benefit to adjoining states. With so much of the state budget derived from personal income tax, the deficit is out of control. It will only get worse.

The over-arching "however" is that regardless of party, most city councils and mayors have faith in the abilities of government to solve social problems. These solutions all involve an unending increase in public spending. Since our present economic mess is due to too much spending by all concerned, public and private, I see no hope for any sort of improvement for a very long time. It will take a paradigm shift in attitudes about the role of goverment--and that's going the wrong direction for now.

'Rat

[Sdashiki]

pwnd.

and all I did was watch! :cool:

[Blue Velvet]

Looks like this is making the rounds of the conservative series of tubes (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2214203/posts)...


Freepers! :D

The dead-enders, not known for their political acumen nor for their intelligence. The gene pool is shrinking.

[Ugg]

The over-arching "however" is that regardless of party, most city councils and mayors have faith in the abilities of government to solve social problems. These solutions all involve an unending increase in public spending. Since our present economic mess is due to too much spending by all concerned, public and private, I see no hope for any sort of improvement for a very long time. It will take a paradigm shift in attitudes about the role of goverment--and that's going the wrong direction for now.

'Rat

Such grandiose statements such as yours 'Rat, totally ignore the success that large European cities have had using the same policies.

If they can succeed, why can't we? Are we doomed to eternal failure, is the American mindset simply incapable of thinking in terms of compassion?

Here's a good article in the NYT about a guy living in the Netherlands. Utopia will never exist on this planet, but when it comes to social programs, Europe far outperforms the US.

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=1&em)

[mactastic]

At the state level, the most notable example is California. For the last four years, out-migration has exceeded in-migration. Those leaving are among the higher-paid--which is of great benefit to adjoining states. With so much of the state budget derived from personal income tax, the deficit is out of control. It will only get worse.
Wrong 'Rat. The people who have been leaving are the lower-paid who cannot afford to live here. The well-heeled are more than happy to stay put, despite all the tugging of John Galt...

I don't know where you get your information about California, but I would suggest that you become informed on the subject before you talk about it.

You appear to know nothing about the budgetary problems California faces -- or at least nothing beyond what the right-wing media tells you. Again, some facts would be of great assistance to you. I would suggest you read up on Prop 13 and Howard Jarvis for starters, and look into the abuse of the California ballot initiative process by well-heeled special interested as a follow-up.

Freepers! :D

The dead-enders, not known for their political acumen nor for their intelligence. The gene pool is shrinking.
From the Freeper's lips to Wotan's...

[Wotan31]

Because it's not the truth. You can't make the correlation that just because a city elects Democrats as mayors that that's the cause of their poverty.
You've missed the point entirely. That's not at all what the original post says.

Second, you are engaging in both cum hoc fallacy and cherry-picking of data. We know that most urban areas tend to skew more Democratic than their surrounding states. Therefore, finding cities that skew Democratic is not difficult. Your implication that Democratic mayors cause poverty ignores a likely alternative possibility, that since the urban poor tend to vote Democratic, poverty tends to cause Democratic mayors rather than the other way around.
What you call the "alternative possibility" was precisely the point. Is everyone else here really that dense? I like the rose colored glasses that most in this thread are wearing - going with the most preposterous possible interpretation of the data, then decrying it all as false and idiotic. Anything to suit your agenda, right? Now who's the one cherry picking?

For those who actually read the quote at the end about repetition with the expectation of different results - congratulations, that was the point. The data simply says that poorer areas consistently vote democratic - yet that apparently does nothing to improve their poverty status. That's all it says, no more, no less.

To the cherry pickers who gravitated to the most preposterous conclusion, only to support their efforts in shooting it down, well, I suppose that's par for the course.

pwnd.
pwnd indeed. :rolleyes:

[Wotan31]

Such grandiose statements such as yours 'Rat, totally ignore the success that large European cities have had using the same policies.

If they can succeed, why can't we? Are we doomed to eternal failure, is the American mindset simply incapable of thinking in terms of compassion?

Here's a good article in the NYT about a guy living in the Netherlands. Utopia will never exist on this planet, but when it comes to social programs, Europe far outperforms the US.

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=1&em)
LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care? Big socialized programs don't work. You think health insurance is expensive now? Just wait till it's free - it will then be more expensive than you can imagine.

[Sdashiki]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care? Big socialized programs don't work. You think health insurance is expensive now? Just wait till it's free - it will then be more expensive than you can imagine.

Because the USA and any EU country can be compared like that...on any level...especially social economics.

:cool:

[iGary]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care? Big socialized programs don't work. You think health insurance is expensive now? Just wait till it's free - it will then be more expensive than you can imagine.

How many is "many thousands" and where did you get your facts?

[sushi]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care?
Same for the Japanese who can afford it.

Better treatment in the states than in Japan.

[Wotan31]

How many is "many thousands" and where did you get your facts?
You're woefully uninformed if you're not familiar with the concept of "medical tourism". This is nothing new.

Here's a good article in the NYT about a guy living in the Netherlands. Utopia will never exist on this planet, but when it comes to social programs, Europe far outperforms the US.

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=1&em)
Where is your data that says Europe outperforms the US? Being taxed at 52% and then given small "allowances" for school or medical care is pretty darn far from "utopia". Opposite end of the spectrum if you ask me. An income tax of 52% verges on communism. In case you haven't heard, that's a bad thing.

I can manage my own money thank.you.very.much.

[leekohler]

You're woefully uninformed if you're not familiar with the concept of "medical tourism". This is nothing new.

iGary asked you for proof. Now s*** or get off the pot.

[Blue Velvet]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care?


I've used both private and public healthcare over here and in other countries, and have also looked into flying over to the US for some private surgery.... not because it wasn't available over here, it's just that in the US, the option to do some travelling afterwards was a small bonus.

Please don't even begin to try to tell those of us who have considerable experience of both public and private healthcare what 'proper' healthcare is, especially when the US falls pretty low on a number of public health measures and is paying a vastly larger amount for them... and still leaving millions completely uncovered. You simply have no clue what the NHS is like over here in the UK, let alone in France or the Netherlands.

'Thousands' of Europeans flying over to the US to get their tummies tucked and noses worked are not indicative of anything.

[Gelfin]

You've missed the point entirely. That's not at all what the original post says.


What you call the "alternative possibility" was precisely the point. Is everyone else here really that dense? I like the rose colored glasses that most in this thread are wearing - going with the most preposterous possible interpretation of the data, then decrying it all as false and idiotic. Anything to suit your agenda, right? Now who's the one cherry picking?

For those who actually read the quote at the end about repetition with the expectation of different results - congratulations, that was the point. The data simply says that poorer areas consistently vote democratic - yet their poverty status does not change. That's all it says, no more, no less.

To the cherry pickers who gravitated to the most preposterous conclusion, only to support their efforts in shooting it down, well, I suppose that's par for the course.


pwnd indeed. :rolleyes:

I have no "agenda" here. You were fed a shaky statistical correlation by people with a political axe to grind, and you regurgitated it here in the spirit of "that'll show them liberals," without having exercised the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize that it says nothing. The circumstances you describe make no significant point about the superiority of Republican leadership, however you try to reinterpret it.

This is what happens when you take what seems like a slam dunk from an isolated and uncritical echo chamber and bring it to a mixed audience. Freepers will laugh and congratulate the author for the original piece, and assume there can be no response because they are motivated not to think of one. People like you take them at their word and try to actually put it into practice by seeking out some liberals to shame. Then you act surprised when you meet people who actually think about what you're saying instead of trying to use it as an exercise in counting coup. And you blame "the liberals" for your own lack of intellectual rigor.

Also, from context it is pretty clear you have no idea what cherry-picking (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Cherry-Picking) means. I've merely criticized the self-serving conclusions you drew from the data you brought. I cannot therefore have cherry-picked anything.

EDIT: Incidentally, the unfortunate reality is that poverty is largely self-perpetuating no matter who is in charge.

[Eraserhead]

By and large, as the Democratic Party has drifted leftwards,

Even though its right wing compared to European politics.

Big socialized programs don't work. You think health insurance is expensive now? Just wait till it's free

Its funny then that we spend less on healthcare than you do.

[iGary]

You're woefully uninformed if you're not familiar with the concept of "medical tourism". This is nothing new.

I'm looking for something a little more credible, like a study with numbers, for example.

[mactastic]

You've missed the point entirely. That's not at all what the original post says.


What you call the "alternative possibility" was precisely the point. Is everyone else here really that dense? I like the rose colored glasses that most in this thread are wearing - going with the most preposterous possible interpretation of the data, then decrying it all as false and idiotic. Anything to suit your agenda, right? Now who's the one cherry picking?

For those who actually read the quote at the end about repetition with the expectation of different results - congratulations, that was the point. The data simply says that poorer areas consistently vote democratic - yet their poverty status does not change. That's all it says, no more, no less.

To the cherry pickers who gravitated to the most preposterous conclusion, only to support their efforts in shooting it down, well, I suppose that's par for the course.


pwnd indeed. :rolleyes:
Top 10 Poverty Levels by State and associated party governing, Senate Delegation, HoR Delegation, Electoral votes:
1. MS - (R) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (3D) (1R) HoR, (6R)
2. LA - (R) Gov, (D) (R) Sen, (1D) (4R) HoR, (9R)
3. NM - (D) Gov, (D) (D) Sen, (3D) (0R) HoR, (5D)
4. AR - (D) Gov, (D) (D) Sen, (3D) (1R) HoR, (6R)
5. KY - (D) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (2D) (4R) HoR, (8R)
6. AL - (R) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (3D) (4R) HoR, (9R)
7. WV - (D) Gov, (D) (D) Sen, (2D) (1R) HoR, (5R)
8. TN - (D) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (5D) (4R) HoR, (11R)
9. TX - (R) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (12D) (20R) HoR, (34R)
10. OK - (D) Gov, (R) (R) Sen, (1D) (4R) HoR, (7R)

So lets see where that leaves us:
Gov (6D) (4R)
Sen (7D) (13R)
HoR (35D) (43R)
EV (5D) (95R)

A decided Republican slant among the 10 states with the highest poverty ratings. Why, Oh Why do those poor people keep doing the same thing over again and again?

[Iscariot]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care? Big socialized programs don't work. You think health insurance is expensive now? Just wait till it's free - it will then be more expensive than you can imagine.

I raise you the 20,000 Americans [who] die each year because they can't get the healthcare they need [source:National Academy of Sciences]. And the 54 percent of chronically ill patients in the United States [who] avoided some form of medical attention in 2008 because of cost [source:Commonwealth Fund].

[Thomas Veil]

http://www.shipmentoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/security_camera_fail.jpg

As if happens, the Abraham Lincoln quote is not from Lincoln after all (http://jasonsnetwork.com/blog/view/id_4173/title_Abraham-Lincoln-attributed-quote-on-Class-warfare/):

This quote is often mis-attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but it isn't actually his. Mr Boetcke, who was a minister, published a pamphlet that included a quote from Abraham Lincoln and then included this quote from himself.

The rest of the topic is interesting, though...kind of an alternate-universe "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas) :rolleyes:

[LethalWolfe]

LOL Perhaps you're not aware of the many thousands of europeans who travel to the US annually for proper medical care?
Are you aware of how many millions of Americans travel overseas annually for proper medial care? That door swings both ways.
CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html)

Next year alone, an estimated 6 million Americans will travel abroad for surgery, according to a 2008 Deloitte study.


Lethal

[Wotan31]

I have no "agenda" here. You were fed a shaky statistical correlation by people with a political axe to grind, and you regurgitated it here in the spirit of "that'll show them liberals," without having exercised the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize that it says nothing. The circumstances you describe make no significant point about the superiority of Republican leadership, however you try to reinterpret it.
Good grief. What exactly is the correlation you're referring to? And how is it shaky? Once again for the stragglers here, the only point of this thread is to illustrate that Poverty stricken cities overwhelmingly vote for left-leaning candidates. This is a fact. Are you disputing that? :confused:

The data presented does not say that liberal candidates cause poverty. That's YOUR completely erroneous conclusion. Not mine. How can I make this any more clear? The public education system sure is lacking these days...

Secondly, you're absolutely right, I didn't make any comment on Republican leadership, nor did I say it was "superior" in any way. Your not showing any reading comprehension skills by continually trying to discredit a point that I never tried to make.

I agree with your statement verbatim " The circumstances you describe make no significant point about the superiority of Republican leadership, however you try to reinterpret it. " I'm not trying to make any point about Republican leadership. YOU are! Sheesh.

This is what happens when you take what seems like a slam dunk from an isolated and uncritical echo chamber and bring it to a mixed audience. Freepers will laugh and congratulate the author for the original piece, and assume there can be no response because they are motivated not to think of one. People like you take them at their word and try to actually put it into practice by seeking out some liberals to shame. Then you act surprised when you meet people who actually think about what you're saying instead of trying to use it as an exercise in counting coup. And you blame "the liberals" for your own lack of intellectual rigor.
That's a very colorful and creative theory, however misguided. Once again, the lack of intellectual capacity here is on the part of those trying to dispute their own conclusions. Now that's truly insane. Sounds like you're the one on the mission to shame a certain viewpoint. Also what is this "Freeper" word you keep using?

Also, from context it is pretty clear you have no idea what cherry-picking (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Cherry-Picking) means. I've merely criticized the self-serving conclusions you drew from the data you brought. I cannot therefore have cherry-picked anything.
And please repeat for the class what these "self serving" conclusions are? You've indeed cherry picked your response. Read your own link again please. I drew no conclusions in the original post - YOU did. And the wrong conclusions at that. You then assumed that my purpose was to draw the same ridiculous conclusions.

EDIT: Incidentally, the unfortunate reality is that poverty is largely self-perpetuating no matter who is in charge.
Finally! A statement that's not completely circular and confused!! Congrats! :D You and I are in agreement on this so why do you continue to project your other preposterous conclusions onto me?

I'll speak slowy and use small words, so everyone understands: The only point of the original post is to illustrate that the Poor overwhelmingly vote liberal, yet, as you yourself have stated, their poverty is self-perpetuating - it doesn't matter who is in office. The poor will remain poor. The question for the class, is WHY do the poor vote so overwhelmingly democratic when it apparently has no bearing on their financial situation?

[Wotan31]

You simply have no clue what the NHS is like over here in the UK, let alone in France or the Netherlands.
O RLY? I love how quickly you folks jump to conclusions without any knowledge of the subject matter or the participants. :D

[cjm3113]

O RLY? I love how quickly you folks jump to conclusions without any knowledge of the subject matter or the participants. :D

You really don't. You claimed that health care over there was actually more expensive which is absolute ridiculous.

You ignored the 'interesting' statistic that shows Republican states are often much more violent/poverty stricken than Democratic.

You posted a quote which did not belong to the author who you stated it did.

You made a worthless thread.

Big cities are almost always more liberal. Big cities almost always have more poverty stricken areas.
Small towns are almost always more conservative. Small towns almost have more racist people.

See how easy that is.

[NT1440]

O RLY? I love how quickly you folks jump to conclusions without any knowledge of the subject matter or the participants. :D

Well, have you used any healthcare systems in other countries or not? If so, how was it?

[Wotan31]

You really don't. You claimed that health care over there was actually more expensive which is absolute ridiculous.

You ignored the 'interesting' statistic that shows Republican states are often much more violent/poverty stricken than Democratic.

You posted a quote which did not belong to the author who you stated it did.

You made a worthless thread.

Big cities are almost always more liberal. Big cities almost always have more poverty stricken areas.
Small towns are almost always more conservative. Small towns almost have more racist people.

See how easy that is.

1. Did you forget about this 52% tax rate in the Netherlands? That health care cost has to come from somewhere you know. "Free healthcare" is such a ridiculous phrase.

2. I didn't ignore it. It's a useless statistic because there is much variation within each state. Voting records at the City level are much more accurate. If a state votes 51% red and 49% blue, calling that a "red state" is asinine - and that's exactly what you've done.

3. Really? In a discussion about fiscal and political trends that's the best you've got? If the author is indeed wrong, then it's wrong. So what. That has no bearing on the data presented or the conclusions drawn from it. Congratulations on your catch!

4. LOL childish name calling. Par for the course when you people have run out of steam in an otherwise valid discussion. I love how these stereotypes always seem to play themselves out!! :D

5. I beg to differ on the racism comment. Plenty of neighborhoods in a city where you'd be shot dead for being white in the wrong part of town. The rest sounds about right.

6. It is easy. What took you so long? ;)

[cjm3113]

1. Did you forget about this 52% tax rate in the Netherlands? That health care cost has to come from somewhere you know. "Free healthcare" is such a ridiculous phrase.

2. I didn't ignore it. It's a useless statistic because there is much variation within each state. Voting records at the City level are much more accurate. If a state votes 51% red and 49% blue, calling that a "red state" is asinine - and that's exactly what you've done.

3. Really? In a discussion about fiscal and political trends that's the best you've got? If the author is indeed wrong, then it's wrong. So what. That has no bearing on the data presented or the conclusions drawn from it. Congratulations on your catch!

4. LOL childish name calling. Par for the course when you people have run out of steam in an otherwise valid discussion. I love how these stereotypes always seem to play themselves out!! :D

1. Have you ever spoken to some one who receives nationalized health care? I spent two semesters in Italy - they love their health care system.

2.. And the same can be said about cities. Are the only people in those large cities liberals? Are all of the people in those cities poverty stricken? Are only the poverty stricken liberals? Just as ridiculous.

3. Best I've got? No, but proves your lack of any critical thinking or research before posting something you got in a chain email.

4. I was not calling you a name. I was talking about the lack of substance in this thread - nothing more.

5. I was simply looking at an interesting statistic - just as you were. I did not call any one a name.

6. What took me so long? Huh? Says the guy who edited his post 10 minutes after posting.

And you speak poorly of others reading comprehension

[Eraserhead]

1. Did you forget about this 52% tax rate in the Netherlands? That health care cost has to come from somewhere you know. "Free healthcare" is such a ridiculous phrase.

I doubt everyone pays tax at 52% in the Netherlands.

[NT1440]

Gonna answer this time?

Well, have you used any healthcare systems in other countries or not? If so, how was it?

[Wotan31]

1. Have you ever spoken to some one who receives nationalized health care? I spent two semesters in Italy - they love their health care system.

2.. And the same can be said about cities. Are the only people in those large cities liberals? Are all of the people in those cities poverty stricken? Are only the poverty stricken liberals? Just as ridiculous.

3. Best I've got? No, but proves your lack of any critical thinking or research before posting something you got in a chain email.

4. Childish name calling? Who did I call a name? I was simply looking at an interesting statistic - just as you were. I did not call any one a name.

And you speak poorly of others reading comprehension

1. Yes, me. I spend between 3 and 5 months each year abroad, for work. But I suppose because you took a few classes with the comfort of mom and dad footing the bill, that somehow makes you more qualified than I on the subject of international health care. FWIW I actually just returned from the Netherlands. *Yesterday*. I'll scan my boarding pass if you want me to. And my occupation is health care consultant. What was it you were saying again about me not knowing anything? :rolleyes:

2. Grasping at straws, eh? Didn't like the data as it was presented? Find your own.

3. Lack of critical thinking because I asked simply for others to comment? Once again, twisting reality to suit your own needs. No I didn't do any research on the original post; I merely posted the data as-is and asked for opinions and thoughts. YOU people draw the erroneous conclusions (which we both agree are erroneous), and then you question my research and critical thinking. Now that's funny!!

4. Sure you did. "Worthless thread". That adds no value to the discussion. You didn't like what you saw, and that automatically makes everything worthless. I love it! :D There is indeed a lack of substance in this thread, but not from the original post...

[Wotan31]

Gonna answer this time?

Well, have you used any healthcare systems in other countries or not? If so, how was it?
At 17:14 someone asks a question and at 17:15 you start demanding answers? LOL you need to loosen your shoes, or maybe eat more fiber in your diet.

[NT1440]

At 17:14 someone asks a question and at 17:15 you start demanding answers? LOL you need to loosen your shoes, or maybe eat more fiber in your diet.

I was merely commenting on that you skipped over my question.

As you just did.....again, instead of answering.

[mactastic]

I'll speak slowy and use small words, so everyone understands: The only point of the original post is to illustrate that the Poor overwhelmingly vote liberal, yet, as you yourself have stated, their poverty is self-perpetuating - it doesn't matter who is in office. The poor will remain poor. The question for the class, is WHY do the poor vote so overwhelmingly democratic when it apparently has no bearing on their financial situation?
Forget about focusing only on the 10 largest cities if you are truly interested in discussing "the poor". If you want to discuss "the poor" we need to talk about state-level poverty statistics, which include *all* the poor, not just the ones in big cities. Let's compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Looking at state-level data, we see that the states with the largest numbers of people living in poverty elect Republicans far more often than Democrats.

So the question is, WHY do the poor vote so overwhelmingly republican when it is so obviously antithetical to their financial situation?

I didn't ignore it. It's a useless statistic because there is much variation within each state. Voting records at the City level are much more accurate. If a state votes 51% red and 49% blue, calling that a "red state" is asinine - and that's exactly what you've done.
I would assume that you can provide the voting results for your city-level elections? I mean, it would hardly be fair to call it a democratic city if the city votes 51% blue and 49% red, right? So let's see your data...

[Ugg]

At 17:14 someone asks a question and at 17:15 you start demanding answers? LOL you need to loosen your shoes, or maybe eat more fiber in your diet.

Dude, or dudette as the case may be. You're playing with fire. If you have a point, make it. If it requires a link, provide it. I'd also suggest that you tone down the snarkiness.

[Eraserhead]

1. Yes, me. I spend between 3 and 5 months each year abroad, for work. But I suppose because you took a few classes with the comfort of mom and dad footing the bill, that somehow makes you more qualified than I on the subject of international health care. FWIW I actually just returned from the Netherlands. *Yesterday*. I'll scan my boarding pass if you want me to. And my occupation is health care consultant. What was it you were saying again about me not knowing anything?

Great, so what do you, and the Dutch, think about their healthcare system?

[cjm3113]

1. Yes, me. I spend between 3 and 5 months each year abroad, for work. But I suppose because you took a few classes with the comfort of mom and dad footing the bill, that somehow makes you more qualified than I on the subject of international health care. FWIW I actually just returned from the Netherlands. *Yesterday*. I'll scan my boarding pass if you want me to. And my occupation is health care consultant. What was it you were saying again about me not knowing anything? :rolleyes:

2. Grasping at straws, eh? Didn't like the data as it was presented? Find your own.

3. Lack of critical thinking because I asked simply for others to comment? Once again, twisting reality to suit your own needs. No I didn't do any research on the original post; I merely posted the data as-is and asked for opinions and thoughts. YOU people draw the erroneous conclusions (which we both agree are erroneous), and then you question my research and critical thinking. Now that's funny!!

4. Sure you did. "Worthless thread". That adds no value to the discussion. You didn't like what you saw, and that automatically makes everything worthless. I love it! :D There is indeed a lack of substance in this thread, but not from the original post...

1. Ha, you complain about others making assumptions but now you know that my parents are footing the bill? Hypocrite. What did they think of the health care over there?

2. Grasping at straws? That is exactly what your original post presents!

3. You posted data that was put together to be intentionally slanted and think nothing of it - you are good for a chuckle.

4. Calling this thread worthless is not an insult. Again, you ignored every refute, like the state numbers, and simply incest that every one else is crazy. You have made no point in this thread, you haven't even made much sense. You presented some garbage, got called out on it and now are back pedaling extremely hard.

[Wotan31]

Forget about focusing only on the 10 largest cities if you are truly interested in discussing "the poor". If you want to discuss "the poor" we need to talk about state-level poverty statistics, which include *all* the poor, not just the ones in big cities. Let's compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

You're wandering off course here. The original question was specifically about cities. Urban environments. Sure there are other discussions to be had about rural poor, but that is not what the question was.

I would assume that you can provide the voting results for your city-level elections? I mean, it would hardly be fair to call it a democratic city if the city votes 51% blue and 49% red, right? So let's see your data...

I live in Washington, DC. Trying to leave work here soon (5:30 pm now) but DC is an overwhelmingly liberal-voting city. It also is overwhelmingly poor (by physical land area). IIRC and FWIW, white people are a significant minority, at roughly 15% of the population in DC, while blacks are around 75% of the dc population. (since someone mentioned race in an earlier post). And no, I don't have the exact numbers handy but I can look them up at census.gov if that would make you happy. :)

[Wotan31]

Great, so what do you, and the Dutch, think about their healthcare system?
A (very) interesting topic (for me at least) but OT for this thread. If you want to start another thread, I'll be glad to give you my thoughts. :)

[Wotan31]

Dude, or dudette as the case may be. You're playing with fire. If you have a point, make it. If it requires a link, provide it. I'd also suggest that you tone down the snarkiness.
Playing with fire? :confused: I've already made my point. Did you miss it?

Tone down the snarkiness? Hardly. I'm just trying to keep my head above the water with all these other snarksters. :D

[cjm3113]

I live in Washington, DC. Trying to leave work here soon (5:30 pm now) but DC is an overwhelmingly liberal-voting city. It also is overwhelmingly poor (by physical land area). IIRC and FWIW, white people are a significant minority, at roughly 15% of the population in DC, while blacks are around 75% of the dc population. (since someone mentioned race in an earlier post). And no, I don't have the exact numbers handy but I can look them up at census.gov if that would make you happy. :)

White: 36%
Black: 55%

/facepalm

A (very) interesting topic (for me at least) but OT for this thread. If you want to start another thread, I'll be glad to give you my thoughts. :)

No, it is extremely relevant.

[mactastic]

You're wandering off course here. The original question was specifically about cities. Urban environments. Sure there are other discussions to be had about rural poor, but that is not what the question was.
You'll have to pardon my confusion, since the title of the thread was "poverty levels and elected Democrats". No mention of a cities-only discussion.

I live in Washington, DC. Trying to leave work here soon (5:30 pm now) but DC is an overwhelmingly liberal-voting city. It also is overwhelmingly poor (by physical land area). IIRC and FWIW, white people are a significant minority, at roughly 15% of the population in DC, while blacks are around 75% of the dc population. (since someone mentioned race in an earlier post). And no, I don't have the exact numbers handy but I can look them up at census.gov if that would make you happy. :)
Well, surely you would agree that your statistics are worthless without knowing the vote margins, correct? If they are worthless without those numbers, I would imagine it would be incumbent upon you to provide them.

[Wotan31]

1. Ha, you complain about others making assumptions but now you know that my parents are footing the bill? Hypocrite. What did they think of the health care over there?

2. Grasping at straws? That is exactly what your original post presents!

3. You posted data that was put together to be intentionally slanted and think nothing of it - you are good for a chuckle.

4. Calling this thread worthless is not an insult. Again, you ignored every refute, like the state numbers, and simply incest that every one else is crazy. You have made no point in this thread, you haven't even made much sense. You presented some garbage, got called out on it and now are back pedaling extremely hard.

1. So tell us... who paid for your education? :D

2. Ok, here is your original question:

And the same can be said about cities. Are the only people in those large cities liberals? Are all of the people in those cities poverty stricken? Are only the poverty stricken liberals? Just as ridiculous.

Yes, cities are mostly liberal voting. All of the people in a city are not poverty stricken. No, liberals are not all poverty stricken. You know these answers already, what is the point in asking them? The original post did not imply otherwise, and I never stated otherwise. The original post was specific to urban poverty.

3. For the umpteenth time, what is the slant? The original post makes a single point. One point. That poverty level people living in cities tend to vote overwhelmingly liberal. That is the point. The only point. Are you disputing this point?

4. A funny but wholly inaccurate translation of this thread. What's even funnier is that I'm the one who's calling all of you out on your preposterous conclusions. YOU folks looked at the original data and read it backwards i.e. that the poverty was caused by the liberal politicians. If ever there was nonsensical garbage, that's it right there. I asked for comment on a single question: Why do urban poor people vote democratic when it has no bearing on their financial standing. And several pages into this, I have yet to see a single attempt at a response to that original question.

[cjm3113]

Found some interesting numbers, might as well judge not by city, or state, but by the entire country.

Ranking by Human Poverty Index

Sweden
Norway
Netherlands
Finland
Denmark
Germany
Switzerland
Canada
Luxembourg
France
Japan
Belgium
Spain
Australia
UK
United States


It appears that quite a few liberal countries are doing quite a bit better than us.

1. So tell us... who paid for your education? :D

I did - I still am. I will be for quite a few more years. I actually had to transfer because I could no longer afford to attend the university I started at.

Why do urban poor people vote democratic when it has no bearing on their financial standing. And several pages into this, I have yet to see a single attempt at a response to that original question.

That's all you wanted? Obviously for the same reason that any person votes for any one. They believe that politician will offer them the greatest quality of life.

Edit: I would just like feedback. Why do liberal/borderline socialist countries have so much less poverty than the United States?

[imac/cheese]

Why do urban poor people vote democratic when it has no bearing on their financial standing. And several pages into this, I have yet to see a single attempt at a response to that original question.

Because they do not see voting republican to be a better option.

[Wotan31]

You'll have to pardon my confusion, since the title of the thread was "poverty levels and elected Democrats". No mention of a cities-only discussion.
:rolleyes: Did you even read the original post? It very clearly says (in bold, mind you) "U. S. Top 10 Major Cities in Rate of Poverty". Cities. As in not states.

Well, surely you would agree that your statistics are worthless without knowing the vote margins, correct? If they are worthless without those numbers, I would imagine it would be incumbent upon you to provide them.
Yes the voting margins would paint a more accurate picture, agreed. Thank you. <--- that's for proving meaningful feedback on the original data, something that's apparently been very difficult for everyone else to do. I disagree that the statistics are "worthless" however. Urban poor vote democratic. That's a fact that no one here has disputed. Numbers aside, the original question of "Why?" is still valid, even without the specific voting margins.

How is it incumbent on me to provide this data? I'm just seeking comments. Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, or argue a point.

[leekohler]

:rolleyes: Did you even read the original post? It very clearly says (in bold, mind you) "U. S. Top 10 Major Cities in Rate of Poverty". Cities. As in not states.


Yes the voting margins would paint a more accurate picture, agreed. Thank you. <--- that's for proving meaningful feedback on the original data, something that's apparently been very difficult for everyone else to do. I disagree that the statistics are "worthless" however. Urban poor vote democratic. That's a fact that no one here has disputed. Numbers aside, the original question of "Why?" is still valid, even without the specific voting margins.

How is it incumbent on me to provide this data? I'm just seeking comments. Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, or argue a point.

If you aren't trying to argue a point, then what are you doing?

Urban poor vote democrat and rural poor vote republican. Both are still poor. I don't understand what you're even trying to say anymore.

[mactastic]

The original post makes a single point. One point. That poverty level people living in cities tend to vote overwhelmingly liberal. That is the point. The only point. Are you disputing this point?
No, that isn't at all what the original post says. The original post says that *cities* with the highest poverty levels tend to elect Democrats. There is absolutely no data in that original post that discusses how the "poverty level people living in cities" tend to vote.

Considering that you just posted this information from another source, I highly doubt that you have *any* insight into data showing how the poor in these cities actually voted. At this point, I think we need to assume that you are just extrapolating from the overall data to a subset of the population. IOW, your *point* that you keep yammering on about has simply been pulled out of you-know-where, with absolutely no cooroboration from the original data. And, of course, you provided no link to show *where* you got this information so that the rest of us could evaluate it properly. You simply ask us to trust you and your secret source.

You keep asking why large cities with high rates of poverty tend to vote democratic. Why? Because *they are large cities and large cities tend to vote Democratic*. It's that simple. The rate of poverty has little to nothing to do with it.

[Wotan31]

I did - I still am. I will be for quite a few more years. I actually had to transfer because I could no longer afford to attend the university I started at.
Good for you. (honestly, no sarcasm intended). That's commendable.

That's all you wanted?
As stated in each of the last 10 posts of mine, YES. ;)

Obviously for the same reason that any person votes for any one. They believe that politician will offer them the greatest quality of life.
Because they do not see voting republican to be a better option.
This is like if I asked "Why is the sky blue?" And you respond "Because it's not orange". Well... duh. What I'm trying to understand is WHY. Why do urban poor vote democrat (and overwhelmingly so) when history has shown that doesn't help them one bit? What is it they thing they're going to get? Is it peer pressure i.e. they vote democrat because their friends and family members do also? Is it purely lack of education i.e. they just don't understand that a democratic leader doesn't make rainbows and unicorns?

There's a youtube video of a poor black woman praising Obama prior to the election, she goes on to say that if Obama wins the election, she won't have to worry about making her mortgage payments any more, and she won't have to worry about taking care of her kids any more. I think we all agree that that's nonsense - but WHY does (did?) she believe this?

Middle class suburban america is fairly evenly split, 50/50 when it comes to voting in our two-party system. Why is the voting trend of this one population segment (urban poor) so skewed in comparison?

[Wotan31]

If you aren't trying to argue a point, then what are you doing?

Urban poor vote democrat and rural poor vote republican. Both are still poor. I don't understand what you're even trying to say anymore.
Three pages into this and you still don't understand what's going on. Why am I not surprised?

[Blue Velvet]

Numbers aside, the original question of "Why?" is still valid, even without the specific voting margins.


If you genuinely don't know, then maybe reading up some history on the Southern Strategy might help, as well as the history of both parties and their coalitions over the last century.

I think your emphasis on poverty is askew; the history of labour vs. capital in terms of political allegiance and class is more to the point... but on a simpler level, maybe things like this (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Palin/ObamaShoeshine.jpg?t=1241474708), enjoyed by many conservatives, have an effect on people, you know?

[Peterkro]

Urban poor vote democrat and rural poor vote republican.

It's probably worth keeping in mind that large numbers of both the urban and rural "poor" don't vote at all.

[mactastic]

:rolleyes: Did you even read the original post? It very clearly says (in bold, mind you) "U. S. Top 10 Major Cities in Rate of Poverty". Cities. As in not states.
Yes I read the original post. I attempted to put that into context in terms of the overall picture of the poor, but you apparently aren't willing to discuss anything outside those 10 cities. If the only way you'll discuss my statistics, I will be happy to start a new thread with them, but it seemed like a waste considering it was so closely related to the topic of this thread.

Yes the voting margins would paint a more accurate picture, agreed. Thank you. <--- that's for proving meaningful feedback on the original data, something that's apparently been very difficult for everyone else to do. I disagree that the statistics are "worthless" however. Urban poor vote democratic. That's a fact that no one here has disputed. Numbers aside, the original question of "Why?" is still valid, even without the specific voting margins.
Well, in that case, you'd think the question of "Why" rural poor vote overwhelming republican would still be valid, yet before you decided to reject my post on "off-topic" grounds, you had this to say:
I didn't ignore it. It's a useless statistic because there is much variation within each state. Voting records at the City level are much more accurate. If a state votes 51% red and 49% blue, calling that a "red state" is asinine - and that's exactly what you've done.
So if it's "asinine" to call a red state a red state without state-level voting statistics, wouldn't it also be "asinine" to call a city Democratic without providing city-level voting statistics?

Or are you just trying to dodge the question?

How is it incumbent on me to provide this data? I'm just seeking comments. Not trying to sway anyone's opinion, or argue a point.
Well, it's "asinine" to present the data you did without the voting records to back it up. Since you posted the original data, and it's worthless without the requisite back-up, it would seem like it's your job to provide it since you made the assertion.

[Wotan31]

No, that isn't at all what the original post says. The original post says that *cities* with the highest poverty levels tend to elect Democrats. There is absolutely no data in that original post that discusses how the "poverty level people living in cities" tend to vote.
Are we playing word games now? This is ridiculous. If that's how you read it, why don't you have any response? Did you come here just to heckle me or do you have any real thoughts on the subject?

Considering that you just posted this information from another source, I highly doubt that you have *any* insight into data showing how the poor in these cities actually voted. At this point, I think we need to assume that you are just extrapolating from the overall data to a subset of the population. IOW, your *point* that you keep yammering on about has simply been pulled out of you-know-where, with absolutely no cooroboration from the original data. And, of course, you provided no link to show *where* you got this information so that the rest of us could evaluate it properly. You simply ask us to trust you and your secret source.
It's not a secret source, it came from "teh interwebs" if you doubt the numbers, that's fine. What's the purpose of your participation in this thread if you don't have any interest in question? The point that urban poor vote democratic is now crap all of a sudden? The original data most certainly backs this point. The confusion on your part is just astounding.

You keep asking why large cities with high rates of poverty tend to vote democratic. Why? Because *they are large cities and large cities tend to vote Democratic*. It's that simple. The rate of poverty has little to nothing to do with it.
The rate of poverty most certainly does have something to do with it. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but then why are you here? :confused:

[Gelfin]

(A hell of a lot of nothing.)

Either you are running away from your original premise so quickly you cannot even see it anymore, or you reposted something you received from someone else without even yourself understanding the fallacious argument it was making. The more I hear from you, the more I suspect it was the latter.

Either way, I don't have any reason to chase you in circles. You're not trying to have a discussion. You're just trying to "win."

[MacHipster]

LOL - don't use the truth on liberals, it never works. One cannot respond to something one never has on their side.

The truth? It's logical fallacy. If overly simplistic explanations is all you need, then God help you.

[Iscariot]

You've missed the point entirely.

Is everyone else here really that dense?

I like the rose colored glasses that most in this thread are wearing

idiotic.

Anything to suit your agenda, right?

For those who actually read the quote at the end about repetition with the expectation of different results - congratulations,

well, I suppose that's par for the course.

:rolleyes:
LOL
You're woefully uninformed

In case you haven't heard, that's a bad thing.
Good grief.

Once again for the stragglers here

How can I make this any more clear?

The public education system sure is lacking these days...

Your [sic] not showing any reading comprehension skills

Once again, the lack of intellectual capacity here is on the part of those trying to dispute their own conclusions.

Now that's truly insane.

Finally! A statement that's not completely circular and confused!! Congrats! :D

I'll speak slowy and use small words, so everyone understands
O RLY? I love how quickly you folks jump to conclusions without any knowledge of the subject matter or the participants. :D
4. LOL childish name calling. [ha]

Par for the course when you people have run out of steam in an otherwise valid discussion.

I love how these stereotypes always seem to play themselves out!! :D

:rolleyes:

Once again, twisting reality to suit your own needs.

Now that's funny!!

There is indeed a lack of substance in this thread, but not from the original post...
LOL you need to loosen your shoes, or maybe eat more fiber in your diet.
You're wandering off course here.
:rolleyes:
Three pages into this and you still don't understand what's going on. Why am I not surprised?

How is the blatantly obvious and intellectually bankrupt trolling Wotan31 is perpetrating going unnoticed?

Don't feed the trolls, kids.

[Wotan31]

Yes I read the original post. I attempted to put that into context in terms of the overall picture of the poor, but you apparently aren't willing to discuss anything outside those 10 cities. If the only way you'll discuss my statistics, I will be happy to start a new thread with them, but it seemed like a waste considering it was so closely related to the topic of this thread.
Who says I'm married to these 10 cities? If you have additional voting trend data, on a *city* level, by all means plese share.

Well, in that case, you'd think the question of "Why" rural poor vote overwhelming republican would still be valid,
The question is specific to urban poor. Sure, there's plenty of discussions to be had about how rural poor vote, how asians vote, how immigrants vote, how Hindu's vote, etc. But that's not really what I had hoped to explore here.

yet before you decided to reject my post on "off-topic" grounds, you had this to say:

So if it's "asinine" to call a red state a red state without state-level voting statistics, wouldn't it also be "asinine" to call a city Democratic without providing city-level voting statistics?
Or are you just trying to dodge the question?

Not dodging the question at all. When you look at a sample size of 1 (state) and declare it red or blue based on such a close voting margin, that is indeed silly. I think we agree on that. But when we look at a sample size of 10, and they are ALL blue, that clearly illustrates a trend. Yes it would be more meaningful if we had the specific margins, but again, the sample size of 10 lends more credibility to this trend even without them.

Either you are running away from your original premise so quickly you cannot even see it anymore, or you reposted something you received from someone else without even yourself understanding the fallacious argument it was making. The more I hear from you, the more I suspect it was the latter.

Either way, I don't have any reason to chase you in circles. You're not trying to have a discussion. You're just trying to "win."
An honest question: What is the original premise that you claim I'm running away from? And what exactly am I trying to win? Seriously. You are correct - it IS the latter, as I've already stated. Which is exactly why I posted it with the request for comment. Look at the context - I didn't post is as evidence of something, or in support of a position or an argument.

You're echoing the same accusations of others, yet provide no substance to back up these claims. Help me understand where you are coming from here.

[mactastic]

Middle class suburban america is fairly evenly split, 50/50 when it comes to voting in our two-party system. Why is the voting trend of this one population segment (urban poor) so skewed in comparison?
Good grief... this is rapidly approaching the realm of the completely ridiculous.

Are you actually positing that the only demographic that skews away from the 50/50 split is urban poor?

What about White Evangelicals? Rural voters? Soccer Moms? NASCAR Dads? Gun Owners? Southern Whites? Women? College-educated people? Latinos? Jews?

All these voter demographics are "so skewed" in comparison. Yet you are singularly focused on one group.

Does this answer why the urban poor vote Democratic for you? Urban voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic. It would be extremely surprising if poor urban voters voted dramatically different from the rest of the urban population.

Not dodging the question at all. When you look at a sample size of 1 (state) and declare it red or blue based on such a close voting margin, that is indeed silly. I think we agree on that. But when we look at a sample size of 10, and they are ALL blue, that clearly illustrates a trend. Yes it would be more meaningful if we had the specific margins, but again, the sample size of 10 lends more credibility to this trend even without them.
I provided a sample size of 10 states, not one. They were overwhelmingly "red". That, by your logic, makes it a credible trend.

[JBazz]

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that Democrats do not bring poverty, but that poverty brings Democrats. Poor people, especially poor people of color, vote Democrat. They feel disenfranchized by the elitist right.

PS Fred Harvey, founder of Circle K, was a two term mayor of El Paso. So your list is bs.

[cjm3113]

I provided a sample size of 10 states, not one. They were overwhelmingly "red". That, by your logic, makes it a credible trend.

Come on man, this topic is only relevant for a city wide discussion. :confused:

[mactastic]

Are we playing word games now? This is ridiculous. If that's how you read it, why don't you have any response? Did you come here just to heckle me or do you have any real thoughts on the subject?
Do you have any real thoughts on the subject, or are you just here to troll and make snarky comments?

It's not a secret source, it came from "teh interwebs" if you doubt the numbers, that's fine. What's the purpose of your participation in this thread if you don't have any interest in question? The point that urban poor vote democratic is now crap all of a sudden? The original data most certainly backs this point. The confusion on your part is just astounding.
Then perhaps you would not mind revealing your source?


The rate of poverty most certainly does have something to do with it. Stick your head in the sand if you like, but then why are you here? :confused:
WHY does the rate of poverty have something to do with it? You keep making this assertion, but you provide no data -- nor even a thesis -- as to why you think this is so.

What is that point of you being here? Are you going to tell us why the rate of poverty has something to do with rates of Democratic votes in urban areas?

[mactastic]

My thoughts are that Democrats do not bring poverty, but that poverty brings Democrats. Poor people, especially poor people of color, vote Democrat. They feel disenfranchized by the elitist right.
This is obviously untrue. If it were true, rural impoverished areas would vote Democratic, yet they do not. Rural impoverished areas vote Republican.

It's a function of the urban/rural political divide, not an economic divide. That this fact escapes the OP speaks to his extreme political bias, and his uncritical attempt to pass this correlation off as some kind of causation.

[Wotan31]

Good grief... this is rapidly approaching the realm of the completely ridiculous.
I can certainly agree with you here!

Are you actually positing that the only demographic that skews away from the 50/50 split is urban poor?

What about White Evangelicals? Rural voters? Soccer Moms? NASCAR Dads? Gun Owners? Southern Whites? Women? College-educated people? Latinos? Jews?
No! Plenty of other demographics to discuss. But they are not the subject of this thread!

All these voter demographics are "so skewed" in comparison. Yet you are singularly focused on one group.
Yes, I am. That's what the question was. If you ask me how to change the hard drive in a 17" MBP, and I respond with how to charge your iPod, or how to install anti-virus software on your Dell, or how to change the hard drive in your Lenovo thinkpad, do you really care about these other things? Of course not. Why are you having such a hard time with the original question? Really, why? Sure these other voting segments have their own interesting trends, but that wasn't the question.

It would be extremely surprising if poor urban voters voted dramatically different from the rest of the urban population.
Another insightful comment (see folks, it's not that hard. Really.) I don't have any information on urban citizen income vs. voting trends, but it would be interesting to see how non-poor urban folks tend to vote in comparison with the poor.

WHY does the rate of poverty have something to do with it? You keep making this assertion, but you provide no data -- nor even a thesis -- as to why you think this is so.
It's commonly known (I thought it was at least), but OK here you go. Higher-income voters tend to vote republican while lower income people tend to vote democrat (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/10/some_cool_graph.html), but I don't know how urban vs. suburban vs. rural plays into the equation. But cities tend to be more polarized in terms of income i.e. lots of high-income people and lots of poor people, but not much middle class. This is an important distinction IMO when looking at voting data by city vs. by state.

[hulugu]

A quick thought:

If the 10 cities highest in poverty skew Democratic, which party does the 10 lowest cities skew towards? I'm having trouble finding such data, otherwise I would present it, but shouldn't we find a similar relationship at the other end of the spectrum?

....If you ask me how to change the hard drive in a 17" MBP, and I respond with how to charge your iPod, or how to install anti-virus software on your Dell, or how to change the hard drive in your Lenovo thinkpad, do you really care about these other things?...

Well, I might since you're not only providing instruction, but we're also talking about value judgement, so while discussing changing the HD in a 17" MBP and someone mentioned that it was a huge pain in the ass, we might also talk about the Lenovo and why it was so much easier or harder. This would be interesting as well. Furthermore, by understanding how many laptops have their hard-drives mounted, we can also understand why the Apple drive is done the way it is.

So, if we take your original data-set (and BTW, a link or chart would be helpful) we would also want to understand what other factors may play into this or view it through the lens of history to see if a city on the list is recently Democratic or historically so. For instance, knowing that LA has moved back and forth between Republican and Democratic parties is interesting.

[JBazz]

This is obviously untrue. If it were true, rural impoverished areas would vote Democratic, yet they do not. Rural impoverished areas vote Republican.

It's a function of the urban/rural political divide, not an economic divide. That this fact escapes the OP speaks to his extreme political bias, and his uncritical attempt to pass this correlation off as some kind of causation.
The topic at hand was poor URBAN cities linked to democratic rule, but nice try. Nrxt time try to keep in context, as I did.

Oh and please do not try to tell me about how El Paso votes, I grew up there. Poor.

[leekohler]

I can certainly agree with you here!


No! Plenty of other demographics to discuss. But they are not the subject of this thread!


Yes, I am. That's what the question was. If you ask me how to change the hard drive in a 17" MBP, and I respond with how to charge your iPod, or how to install anti-virus software on your Dell, or how to change the hard drive in your Lenovo thinkpad, do you really care about these other things? Of course not. Why are you having such a hard time with the original question? Really, why? Sure these other voting segments have their own interesting trends, but that wasn't the question.


Another insightful comment (see folks, it's not that hard. Really.) I don't have any information on urban citizen income vs. voting trends, but it would be interesting to see how non-poor urban folks tend to vote in comparison with the poor.

It's commonly known, but OK here you go. Higher-income voters tend to vote republican while lower income people tend to vote democrat (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/10/some_cool_graph.html), but I don't know how urban vs. suburban vs. rural plays into the equation. But cities tend to be more polarized in terms of income i.e. lots of high-income people and lots of poor people, but not much middle class. This is an important distinction IMO when looking at voting data by city vs. by state.

It seems to me that your intention the entire time has been to infer that Democrats make people poor. Am I wrong?

Other people discussed other demographics to show you that your correlation is weak at best. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Wotan31]

A quick thought:

If the 10 cities highest in poverty skew Democratic, which party does the 10 lowest cities skew towards? I'm having trouble finding such data, otherwise I would present it, but shouldn't we find a similar relationship at the other end of the spectrum?
Yes, that would be interesting indeed. There's so many statistics on this stuff, it's tough to find exactly the one you're look for. But yeah the 10 lowest cities would be most relevant.

[Wotan31]

It seems to me that your intention the entire time has been to infer that Democrats make people poor. Am I wrong?

Other people discussed other demographics to show you that your correlation is weak at best. Why is that so hard to understand?
I get it now. You're just messing with me. Well very funny, I'm not taking your bait any more.

Democrats to not make people poor. I never said they did, nor is my intention to infer this. Correlation does not equal causation. The fact that you continue to read it this way, and then attack me for it, is really on the verge of trolling.

[yg17]

I've glanced over this thread and still can't figure out what point the OP is trying to prove.

Urban poor vote Democratic. Rural poor vote Republican. It's simple as that. If you're trying to imply that Democrats make people poor, you can make the exact same claim about Republicans. It's a BS argument and makes no sense.

In fact, urban middle class also tend to vote Democratic and rural middle class tend to vote Republican so it doesn't even seem to me that the issue is rich or poor, it's urban or rural.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

[cjm3113]

I've glanced over this thread and still can't figure out what point the OP is trying to prove.

Urban poor vote Democratic. Rural poor vote Republican. It's simple as that. If you're trying to imply that Democrats make people poor, you can make the exact same claim about Republicans. It's a BS argument and makes no sense.

In fact, urban middle class also tend to vote Democratic and rural middle class tend to vote Republican so it doesn't even seem to me that the issue is rich or poor, it's urban or rural.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

Exactly, there are multiple variables and the OP is not accepting that. Instead he just says "that is not the topic at hand."

[leekohler]

I get it now. You're just messing with me. Well very funny mister, I'm not taking the bait any more.

Democrats to not make people poor. I never said they did, nor is my intention to infer this. Correlation does not equal causation. So why do you insist on reading it that way?

Then what the hell are you talking about? What is your point?

How could I not get this from the quote that starts your OP? It's clearly a slam on liberals and Democrats.

[mactastic]

No! Plenty of other demographics to discuss. But they are not the subject of this thread!
The inability to discuss related subjects in a sign of a weak argument.

Yes, I am. That's what the question was. If you ask me how to change the hard drive in a 17" MBP, and I respond with how to charge your iPod, or how to install anti-virus software on your Dell, or how to change the hard drive in your Lenovo thinkpad, do you really care about these other things? Of course not. Why are you having such a hard time with the original question? Really, why? Sure these other voting segments have their own interesting trends, but that wasn't the question.
I've provided a response to the original question several times.

To go with your analogy, this is like you asking how to change the hard drive in a 17" MPB because of slow drive respons, and I respond with "well here's how you do it, but perhaps you should look into upgrading the RAM if you're looking for a performance boost".

Another insightful comment (see folks, it's not that hard. Really.) I don't have any information on urban citizen income vs. voting trends, but it would be interesting to see how non-poor urban folks tend to vote in comparison with the poor.
But see, here's the problem -- you don't know how *either* of those groups vote. You're just extrapolating from your data that says "X city has a high rate of poverty and X city has elected Democratic mayors". Nothing in that data tells you how any particular subgroup votes. Perhaps the urban poor vote more Democratic than their richer counterparts. Perhaps they vote less Democratic. But you don't know, yet you're here telling us that the urban poor vote overwhelming Democratic. But YOU DON'T KNOW!

It's commonly known (I thought it was at least), but OK here you go. Higher-income voters tend to vote republican while lower income people tend to vote democrat (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/10/some_cool_graph.html), but I don't know how urban vs. suburban vs. rural plays into the equation. But cities tend to be more polarized in terms of income i.e. lots of high-income people and lots of poor people, but not much middle class. This is an important distinction IMO when looking at voting data by city vs. by state.
I'm sorry, you can't use that data, as it is state-level based. The topic at hand is CITIES. Please try to stick to it. Why is that so hard to understand?

The topic at hand was poor URBAN cities linked to democratic rule, but nice try. Nrxt time try to keep in context, as I did.
Touché...

[Ugg]

I've glanced over this thread and still can't figure out what point the OP is trying to prove.

Methinks the OP had a bad Monday and has decided to take it out on MR.

He has no point.

[CalBoy]

What I'm trying to understand is WHY. Why do urban poor vote democrat (and overwhelmingly so) when history has shown that doesn't help them one bit?

Well actually, you don't know for a fact that it doesn't help them. It is a counterfactual that is completely unknowable since we can't go back in time and switch out Democratic mayors with Republican mayors.

In all likelihood Democratic mayors do in fact help the urban poor with their programs, but the urban poor could be so far below the poverty line that even such programs merely act as a bandage on a hemorrhage.

Moreover, it's important to remember that while the occasional voter will proclaim absurdities like not having to pay their mortgage with a Democrat in charge, most are aware that they won't be receiving immediate help. However, they also know that a Democrat won't increase their burden and will try in earnest to implement programs to help them. That sounds a hell of a lot better than tax cuts for the wealthy, which doesn't help the poor at all.


Middle class suburban america is fairly evenly split, 50/50 when it comes to voting in our two-party system. Why is the voting trend of this one population segment (urban poor) so skewed in comparison?

Keep in mind that the urban wealthy also tend to vote Democratic at a higher ratio than the wealthy in other settings. Cities have a liberalizing tendency because one is in contact with people from a greater variety of backgrounds and one learns to empathize with others better.

Those with advanced degrees (MA or higher) also tend to vote Democratic at higher rates (with the PHD ratio nearing 90%), as do racial minorities, sexual minorities, and women. Perhaps the question you should be asking is why the Republican Party can't attract a variety of voters instead of asking why certain groups vote Democratic.

[Wotan31]

Then what the hell are you talking about? What is your point?

How could I not get this from the quote that starts your OP? It's clearly a slam on liberals and Democrats.
OMG you seriously need an english tutor. And that's not an insult, honestly it's not. And that's coming from someone for whom english is a second language.

As I've already stated, I'm not trying to make a point. So what the heck are you trying so hard to argue against here? :confused:

The OP says that the poorest cities in the US vote democratic. How is that a "slam on liberals and democrats"

Turn the question around for a moment. If I say that the wealthiest cities in the US tend to vote republican, or if I said that the poorest rural counties tend to vote republican, would you also interpret that as "clearly a slam" on republicans and conservatives? It's a neutral and non partisan question.

Your assertion of "slamming liberals" is completely silly. I've already stated many many times that this is not my assertion or my intent. You're clearly reading it with some kind of perveted, extreme bias, and twisting something that is completely neutral into some kind of partisan argument. You have some kind of axe to grind, some kind of point to prove. I don't get it. You should be a politician. You really should. You'd fit right in.

[NT1440]

As I've already stated, I'm not trying to make a point.


Then you are admitting you are trolling.

[iGary]

OMG you seriously need an english tutor. And that's not an insult, honestly it's not. And that's coming from someone for whom english is a second language.

As I've already stated, I'm not trying to make a point. So what the heck are you trying so hard to argue against here? :confused:

The OP says that the poorest cities in the US vote democratic. How is that a "slam on liberals and democrats"

Turn the question around for a moment. If I say that the wealthiest cities in the US tend to vote republican, or if I said that the poorest rural counties tend to vote republican, would you also interpret that as "clearly a slam" on republicans and conservatives? It's a neutral and non partisan question.

Your assertion of "slamming liberals" is completely silly. I've already stated many many times that this is not my assertion or my intent. You're clearly reading it with some kind of perveted, extreme bias, and twisting something that is completely neutral into some kind of partisan argument. You have some kind of axe to grind, some kind of point to prove. I don't get it. You should be a politician. You really should. You'd fit right in.

If you don't have a point to make, then take yourself out of the conversation.

[yg17]

The OP says that the poorest cities in the US vote democratic.

So what were your motives for posting that? Certainly it wasn't a lively debate because anytime we try to debate, you slam liberals as being scared of facts and crap like that.

[Wotan31]

But see, here's the problem -- you don't know how *either* of those groups vote. You're just extrapolating from your data that says "X city has a high rate of poverty and X city has elected Democratic mayors". Nothing in that data tells you how any particular subgroup votes. Perhaps the urban poor vote more Democratic than their richer counterparts. Perhaps they vote less Democratic. But you don't know, yet you're here telling us that the urban poor vote overwhelming Democratic. But YOU DON'T KNOW!
I think you missed the link I posted on income vs. voting trends.

I'm sorry, you can't use that data, as it is state-level based. The topic at hand is CITIES. Please try to stick to it. Why is that so hard to understand?
Is this a joke? Really? Read it again, in context this time. That data was a response to voting trends vs. income. It had nothing to do with cities.

Try and apply some basic logic here, please. Why are you still trying to argue that poor urban people do not vote democratic? That's like if I kept on asserting that rural bible-belt people do NOT vote republican. Don't be so dense here!

[leekohler]

OMG you seriously need an english tutor. And that's not an insult, honestly it's not. And that's coming from someone for whom english is a second language.

As I've already stated, I'm not trying to make a point. So what the heck are you trying so hard to argue against here? :confused:

The OP says that the poorest cities in the US vote democratic. How is that a "slam on liberals and democrats"

Turn the question around for a moment. If I say that the wealthiest cities in the US tend to vote republican, or if I said that the poorest rural counties tend to vote republican, would you also interpret that as "clearly a slam" on republicans and conservatives? It's a neutral and non partisan question.

Your assertion of "slamming liberals" is completely silly. I've already stated many many times that this is not my assertion or my intent. You're clearly reading it with some kind of perveted, extreme bias, and twisting something that is completely neutral into some kind of partisan argument.

And so is everyone else! You posted something clearly biased. Most people here agree. If you didn't have a point, then why the hell did you post this thread?

[Wotan31]

Then you are admitting you are trolling.
Asking for thoughts and opinions from others is trolling? :rolleyes: Why so desperate?

[leekohler]

Asking for thoughts and opinions from others is trolling? :rolleyes: Why so desperate?

We gave you them, and you didn't like them.

[NT1440]

Asking for thoughts and opinions from others is trolling? :rolleyes: Why so desperate?

Desperate for what?

You start a thread that you say has no point, and when people try to use it for debate, you say we cannot go with the natural flow of a debate.

If you dont happen to like PRSI rules, then I suggest you kindly take your leave.

[iGary]

Asking for thoughts and opinions from others is trolling? :rolleyes: Why so desperate?

We gave them to you and then you don't answer when we ask you to defend your standpoint. Oh wait, you don't have one.

[Wotan31]

You posted something clearly biased. Most people here agree. If you didn't have a point, then why the hell did you post this thread?
A discussion on income levels vs. voting trends is "clearly biased" but your threads on Miss California, or on gay marriage are not? That's just good old fashioned hypocrisy.

[NT1440]

"Tolerance and diversity - unless you disagree with us". The motto of your people.

And what are we supposed to take from statements like this?:rolleyes:

We have tolerance, just not for those who think they have the RIGHT to discriminate based on their books.

[leekohler]

A discussion on income levels vs. voting trends is "clearly biased" but your threads on Miss California, or on gay marriage are not?

Good grief man. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? I should be thanking you for the good chuckle I get by reading such hypocrisy. :D

"Tolerance and diversity - unless you disagree with us". The motto of your people.

Excuse me- what? I have a point with those threads and I defend them. They are intentionally biased. Otherwise, why would I bother posting them? I don't sit there and say I have no point or opinion.

And you never started this as thread about income levels vs. voting trends. You started it with a clear bias trying to link urban poverty to Democrats. You refuse to discuss any other demographic or voting trend. And now you're trying to deny it. At least I stand by my opinions and back them up.

[mactastic]

I think you missed the link I posted on income vs. voting trends.
I saw it. It didn't break things down by cities, so I ignored it as you did with my state-level statistics. Remember, this is a thread about *cities*. Not states.

Is this a joke? Really? Read it again, in context this time. That data was a response to voting trends vs. income. It had nothing to do with cities.
Exactly. And if it has nothing to do with cities, it has no place in this thread, as you have repeatedly argued.

Try and apply some basic logic here, please. Why are you still trying to argue that poor urban people do not vote democratic? That's like if I kept on asserting that rural bible-belt people do NOT vote republican. Don't be so dense here!
I'm not trying to argue that the urban poor do not vote Democratic. Your reading comprehension needs some work. Please go through my posts and show me where I claim that the urban poor do not vote Democratic, or admit that you're full of **** here.

A discussion on income levels vs. voting trends is "clearly biased" but your threads on Miss California, or on gay marriage are not? That's just good old fashioned hypocrisy.
Wait, this is a discussion about income levels vs. voting trends? The original post was about the voting trends of the urban poor. Expanding the topic from the urban poor to all income levels would be akin to expanding the topic from urban areas to all areas. And we just can't have that.

[Wotan31]

Those with advanced degrees (MA or higher) also tend to vote Democratic at higher rates (with the PHD ratio nearing 90%), as do racial minorities, sexual minorities, and women. Perhaps the question you should be asking is why the Republican Party can't attract a variety of voters instead of asking why certain groups vote Democratic.
It's amazing how a grant or tenure will influence the opinion of someone entwined with very-liberal US higher education system, don't you think? I'll pull the standard MR response here and say that your assertions are worthless without a source to back them up. That's fair, right?

And so is everyone else! You posted something clearly biased. Most people here agree. If you didn't have a point, then why the hell did you post this thread?
Excuse me- what? I have a point with those threads and I defend them. They are intentionally biased. Otherwise, why would I bother posting them? I don't sit there and say I have no point or opinion.

And you never started this as thread about income levels vs. voting trends. You started it with a clear bias trying to link urban poverty to Democrats. You refuse to discuss any other demographic or voting trend. And now you're trying to deny it. At least I stand by my opinions and back them up.
I never said I don't have a point or opinion. I said I don't have a point to prove with this thread. There's a difference. The thread obviously has a purpose - to explore the voting trends of poor urban voters. Yes - I did indeed start this thread with the intention of linking urban poverty to democrats (is that what you're accusing me of?) - but that link (once again) is not that democrats cause urban poverty. Rather, it is that urban poverty votes democratic - that's a documented trend. A fact. Not an opinion or conjecture. Not politically slanted in any way, this is pure statistics. How you can contort that as you do is baffling. I stand by my opinions and back them up as well. If you do the same, well, give yourself a pat on the back.

Also, what am I trying to deny? I've already agreed that there are plenty of other voting segments that likely have interesting trends to them. You've been called out on your misinterpretation of the original post, and now you're backpedaling and throwing up straw-man arguments to confuse the subject. Nice.

[cjm3113]

Rather, it is that urban poverty votes democratic - that's a documented trend. A fact. Not an opinion or conjecture. Not politically slanted in any way, this is pure statistics. How you can contort that as you do is baffling.

We do not think your statistics are slanted, opinion or conjecture. We think that there is absolutely no reason to post this thread as anything besides conservative propaganda.

What would you say if I posted a thread - Poor rural uneducated people tend to vote Republican.

What is the point of that? To discuss something that every one knows? Or as a underlying message connecting something negative in the eye of most people to the Republican party?

Maybe you really did not have those attentions - but surely that is what it appears as whether you realize it or not.

[CalBoy]

It's amazing how a grant or tenure will influence the opinion of someone entwined with very-liberal US higher education system, don't you think? I'll pull the standard MR response here and say that your assertions are worthless without a source to back them up. That's fair, right?

Those who spend the time and money to earn a PHD tend to be liberal long before they earn tenure or receive a grant. Those who graduate with the intention of earning money usually have different priorities in life than those who spend a disproportionate amount of their lives in school. Those priorities shape one's outlook on politics.

And if you want a source for the distribution of votes in the 2008 election, take a look at basic exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). The GOP lost every religious denomination with the exception of Protestants. They also lost every racial minority, the LGTB vote by a very lopsided margin, the female vote by a 13-point margin, and most dramatically, the youth vote. Obama won the under-30 vote by a very unusual margin. In previous elections, voters under 30 tended to split their votes very closely between the two parties, with the Democrats having an edge in 1992, and the Republicans having an edge in 1980 and 1988. This time around, however, Obama won the youth vote by a 2-1 margin. The Democratic Party as a whole was able to register twice as many youth voters in the 2006-2008 election cycle compared to Republicans. If this trend continues for one more election cycle, then the GOP is going to face much more serious problems in 10 years when those occasional youth voters become regular voters.

I note you didn't bother to respond to the first part of my post; does that mean we can end this pointless attempt to engage in partisan bickering?

[Wotan31]

We do not think your statistics are slanted, opinion or conjecture. We think that there is absolutely no reason to post this thread as anything besides conservative propaganda.

What would you say if I posted a thread - Poor rural uneducated people tend to vote Republican.
I would indeed call it liberal propaganda. But if instead, you are asking WHY do poor rural people tend to vote Republican? I would see it as a perfectly valid question, to explore the decision making process of that segment of the population.
What is the point of that? To discuss something that every one knows? Or as a underlying message connecting something negative in the eye of most people to the Republican party?

Maybe you really did not have those attentions - but surely that is what it appears as whether you realize it or not.
What if I had asked "Why do gays vote democrat?" I'm willing to bet the discussion would have taken an entirely different route. The ultra-liberals only read two words in my original post "poor" and "democrat" and immediately jumped to the conclusion that surely I must be implying that democrats cause poverty. It's preposterous, and shows a large gap in the reading comprehension skills of MR readers. I've already denounced that incorrect interpretation yet I'm still criticized for it.

[Wotan31]

Those who spend the time and money to earn a PHD tend to be liberal long before they earn tenure or receive a grant. Those who graduate with the intention of earning money usually have different priorities in life than those who spend a disproportionate amount of their lives in school. Those priorities shape one's outlook on politics.
It's not the priorities, but rather the place they're standing when they form these opinions. College campuses are overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to the opinions of the students. Unsurprisingly, the professors teaching these students are also very liberal. Holders of bachelors degrees who are part of the workforce and are income earners are, well, not so much. In fact, tendency to vote republican increases with personal income. College students are viewing the world from within a glass bubble. If you are currently a college student, then please don't bother disputing this. ;) Oh, and see the attached figures. Without breaking it down into degree types, better educated people in general tend to vote republican. ;)


I note you didn't bother to respond to the first part of my post; does that mean we can end this pointless attempt to engage in partisan bickering?
No I didn't "bother" to respond to the first part of your post because I agree with what you've written. It's a valid point, and precisely the kind of thing I was hoping to solicit 4 pages ago...

[Macky-Mac]

no doubt the people in those poor cities keep voting for democrats because the republican candidates appear to be even worse than the candidates the democrats put up

[CalBoy]

It's not the priorities, but rather the place they're standing when they form these opinions. College campuses are overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to the opinions of the students.

Quantify what you mean by "liberal." In some sense, college students tend to be more economically liberal while in college, but that tends to fade after graduation. However, certain social issues (ie same-sex marriage) are usually caused more by generational differences that don't fade after graduation.


Unsurprisingly, the professors teaching these students are also very liberal. Holders of bachelors degrees who are part of the workforce and are income earners are, well, not so much. In fact, tendency to vote republican increases with personal income.

This is true until a certain point. For those whose income exceeds half a million, there is a trend of increasing Democratization. It's a very unusual trend, and it has become more pronounced in the last decade. The leading theory behind it is that when one has that much wealth, small increases in taxes are relatively minor (not to mention that one has very good accountants to ensure the impact will be minor) and as a voter you can concentrate on other issues. Increasingly, the wealthy have become socially liberal, which likely explains why they've begun to vote more heavily Democratic.

College students are viewing the world from within a glass bubble. If you are currently a college student, then please don't bother disputing this. ;)

I won't dispute it because I know it's veracity. College insulates one from the cost of living, and taxes don't seem so bad when there isn't a large chunk of income "missing."

However, as I've mentioned, not all Democratic voters vote on the basis of taxes. Social issues, pushed forward by the GOP primarily, are also an important factor.

Oh, and see the attached figures. Without breaking it down into degree types, better educated people in general tend to vote republican. ;)

Until a certain point, that is. Those with a BA tend to be Republican voters because they earn just enough to feel the pinch of the higher tax brackets. Those with more advanced degrees become less Republican as they climb the degree ladder.
[quote]
No I didn't "bother" to respond to the first part of your post because I agree with what you've written. It's a valid point, and precisely the kind of thing I was hoping to solicit 4 pages ago...

If you expected such a response (and had no counter point) why bother creating a thread? :confused:

[leekohler]

It's amazing how a grant or tenure will influence the opinion of someone entwined with very-liberal US higher education system, don't you think? I'll pull the standard MR response here and say that your assertions are worthless without a source to back them up. That's fair, right?



I never said I don't have a point or opinion. I said I don't have a point to prove with this thread. There's a difference. The thread obviously has a purpose - to explore the voting trends of poor urban voters. Yes - I did indeed start this thread with the intention of linking urban poverty to democrats (is that what you're accusing me of?) - but that link (once again) is not that democrats cause urban poverty. Rather, it is that urban poverty votes democratic - that's a documented trend. A fact. Not an opinion or conjecture. Not politically slanted in any way, this is pure statistics. How you can contort that as you do is baffling. I stand by my opinions and back them up as well. If you do the same, well, give yourself a pat on the back.

Also, what am I trying to deny? I've already agreed that there are plenty of other voting segments that likely have interesting trends to them. You've been called out on your misinterpretation of the original post, and now you're backpedaling and throwing up straw-man arguments to confuse the subject. Nice.

I misrepresented nothing. You however did, by trying to attribute this quote Lincoln, which has been pointed out as false. Lincoln never said any such thing.

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

-- Abraham Lincoln

[Wotan31]

If you expected such a response (and had no counter point) why bother creating a thread? :confused:
Who said I expected such a response? It was a good response that addressed the question, but not "expected". Is that a bad thing?

I misrepresented nothing. You however did, by trying to attribute this quote Lincoln, which has been pointed out as false. Lincoln never said any such thing.
Not misrepresented. I said misinterpreted. Which you indeed did do. I won't bother to quote all your previous posts, you can read them for yourself.

LOL, yes apparently the quote is not Lincoln's. Congratulations there Sherlock Holmes. But as was pointed out earlier, it came from a text with Lincoln's name at the top of it. I call "misrepresentation" on the original author of that document. :)

[leekohler]

Not misrepresented. I said misinterpreted. Which you indeed did do. I won't bother to quote all your previous posts, you can read them for yourself.

LOL, yes apparently the quote is not Lincoln's. Congratulations there Sherlock Holmes. But as was pointed out earlier, it came from a text with Lincoln's name at the top of it. I call "misrepresentation" on the original author of that document. :)

My god! You were the one who presented that as Lincoln's words! Rather than do your research, you chose to misrepresent Lincoln. But it's not your fault, right? You were duped. :rolleyes:

[Wotan31]

My god! You were the one who presented that as Lincoln's words! Rather than do your research, you chose to misrepresent Lincoln. But it's not your fault, right? You were duped. :rolleyes:
Are we really arguing about whose quote that is? I've already agreed the quote was incorrectly attributed. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but has no bearing on the discussion topic.

If I publish a document with "Leekohler" written at the top in bold letters, then populate the page with words that are not yours, I would certainly call that an attempt to dupe people.

[leekohler]

Are we really arguing about whose quote that is? I've already agreed the quote was incorrectly attributed. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but has no bearing on the discussion topic.

If I publish a document with "Leekohler" written at the top in bold letters, then populate the page with words that are not yours, I would certainly call that an attempt to dupe people.

Like I said, if you're going to post something that inflammatory, it's up to you to do the research. You posted it because you wanted to believe it. You were not interested in the truth, or you would have looked into it further. It supported your POV, so you jumped on it.

[Desertrat]

Looking back to Posts 31 and 32.

Ugg, it's not that government in Europe has been wrong in their deal so much as our versions take it to excess. I say "excess" because when you spend too much money it's hard to call it anything else. When business is regarded as a cash cow, business doesn't invest there.

mac, is the LA Times a right-wing rag? Or the US Census? Or various California sources of the numbers on your state budget? Numbers have no political party. They just sit there and stare at you. And I read where folks from California who have moved out have commented publicly as to the benefits of "cheap housing" at "only" $300K and $400K and so they have money for SUVs and bass boats, etc.--which tells me they ain't po' folks. Anyway, you can't rack up those deficit numbers except as you spend too much money. Simple as that. "Live within your means" applies to governments as well as individual people. Folks who can't figure that out oughta go to the Chaplain and get their TS card punched.

[hulugu]

....And I read where folks from California who have moved out have commented publicly as to the benefits of "cheap housing" at "only" $300K and $400K and so they have money for SUVs and bass boats, etc.--which tells me they ain't po' folks.....

Anecdotally, this appears to be true. My neighbors moved from the LA area citing the expenses of living there. They were able to sell their home, and buy one here in cash.

Anyway, you can't rack up those deficit numbers except as you spend too much money. Simple as that. "Live within your means" applies to governments as well as individual people. Folks who can't figure that out oughta go to the Chaplain and get their TS card punched.

Well, you could have projected a balanced budget and then had the economy implode underneath you from one year to the next.

[mactastic]

mac, is the LA Times a right-wing rag? Or the US Census? Or various California sources of the numbers on your state budget? Numbers have no political party. They just sit there and stare at you. And I read where folks from California who have moved out have commented publicly as to the benefits of "cheap housing" at "only" $300K and $400K and so they have money for SUVs and bass boats, etc.--which tells me they ain't po' folks.
Po' means something else entirely when the median house price is $400K. People that are complaining about not being able to afford a $300K or $400K house are what we call "middle class" here. The rich are the ones buying the $700K and up housing stock.

And yeah, a lot of middle-class folks are leaving California because of the cost of living here. They move to the cheaper areas of the state, or to the midwest, or Colorado or New Mexico because they can buy a house and still have money for their toys and vacations and what not, even with the reduced salary they'll likely make. It's a huge problem for California communities, who are getting left with the upper-middle class and up, and the lower class to service the upper class. Meanwhile, the families who support school enrollment numbers are leaving, so school funding drops. Hurts those who remain, so they get tempted to leave too. It's exacerbating the divide between rich and poor.

Meanwhile, the rich stay put. Why? Because they can afford to make their mortgage payment and still buy that bass boat and tow it behind their SUV.

Now, this may not be true in Terlingua, but that just means you need to understand the facts before you start running your mouth about things you only know about anecdotally. Believe me when I say, John Galt isn't influencing a statistically significant amount of people here.

Anyway, you can't rack up those deficit numbers except as you spend too much money. Simple as that. "Live within your means" applies to governments as well as individual people. Folks who can't figure that out oughta go to the Chaplain and get their TS card punched.
LOL... no, there are two ways to get into fiscal trouble. One is to spend too much money, the other is to take in too little money. "Live within your means" gets difficult when the state ballot initiative process can be manipulated by well-heeled special interests to simultaneously convince the people to vote themselves tax reductions AND spending increases to the point where some 60% of the state budget in non-discretionary.

Unless you are conversant in Prop. 13 at the very least, you have no place opining about California's budget woes. The best thing California could do for itself would be to pass an initiative stating that all previous initiatives are declared null and void, and the ballot initiate process is eliminated. Among other benefits, that would eliminate the 2/3 majority needed to pass a budget, a ridiculous threshold. It would force the legislature to make the tough decisions we elect them to make rather than allowing them to pass the buck on to the taxpayer. Right now, for instance, there are 6 ballot initiatives coming up for a vote this month. All six are issues that need to pass in order to make the budget numbers -- that were passed months late and under threat of shutting down the state -- work. If these initiatives don't pass, the legislature will have to sit down again and figure out how to balance the budget.

Imagine what would happen in Texas if you let the minority Democrats have veto power over the budget unless the majority party could gather up 2/3 support. Would you ever get anything done?

[Desertrat]

I'm aware of Prop 13. I have been, since it first passed. Your problem is that your legislature decided to try all manner of end runs around it. Those end runs merely exacerbated your problems.

"Imagine what would happen in Texas if you let the minority Democrats have veto power over the budget unless the majority party could gather up 2/3 support. Would you ever get anything done?"

Obviously we're smarter in Texas about that sort of thing. Not only that, we have more bi-partisan efforts at problem-solving instead of two hostile forces fighting each other. "Good of the state" is more important, here. We don't claim perfection, but we're a danged sight more rational than your folks in Sacramento. :)

[Desertrat]

Addendum: mac, what gives you the idea that because my home is Terlingua, I can't know anything substantive about California? I read newspapers--such as the LA Times, as I mentioned--as well as financial newsletters with commentaries about all manner of places. They speak of various state or national policies and budgetary matters which affect investments.

I've spent a fair amount of time wandering about California. I've been to races at Willow Springs and Sears Point. Had sundowners at Cliff House, danced at Top Of The Mark. Ridden cable cars and enjoyed wandering about Chinatown. Had dinner at the Empress Gardens. Enjoyed Black Russians at Harry's Question Mark bar down in the Hashbury, and noshed on piroskes up the street. Meddled around Sausalito--ever seen the USCE's model of SF Bay? I learned why the Coalinga water system was unique, and how the town got its name. I know the environmental problem which reduced the flow in the Delta-Mendota canal. I've driven the length of Cal Hwy 1. Been in San Diego and went to the Steel Challenge in LA. Been the whole route of the California Water Project from Oroville Dam to LA. Driven from SF through Yosemite, camped on the east side of Mt. Whitney, and been through Death Valley. I figure that one of these years I'll get up into that part north of Oroville and up around Susanville.

Odds are that I know more about California than you know about Texas. :D

[mactastic]

Odds are that I know more about California than you know about Texas. :D
What, not gonna bray out your IQ again? Gonna put your work ethic up against random people's while you're at it?

You've displayed a stunning ignorance of California's issues. Just because you've been here (god only knows how long ago -- and yes I've seen the model of the bay) doesn't mean you know more about what goes on here than I do.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Just because you've been here (god only knows how long ago -- and yes I've seen the model of the bay) doesn't mean you know more about what goes on here than I do.

Why don't you two just whip em out and compare size, since that's what the last few posts boil down to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here since it's once again fitting to the conversation: MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!!!!

And for the record mactastic, Desertrat said he probably knows more about Cali than you do about Texas. Not that he probably knows more about Cali than you do.

[leekohler]

Why don't you two just whip em out and compare size, since that's what the last few posts boil down to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here since it's once again fitting to the conversation: MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!!!!

And for the record mactastic, Desertrat said he probably knows more about Cali than you do about Texas. Not that he probably knows more about Cali than you do.

Seriously. I get on 'rat too, but let's calm ourselves just a bit. ;)

[mactastic]

And for the record mactastic, Desertrat said he probably knows more about Cali than you do about Texas. Not that he probably knows more about Cali than you do.
And for the record SLC, I never claimed to know more about Texas than 'Rat. However, he is the one making specious claims about California's problems. When I attempted to correct his claim, he started talking about how well he knows California, as if he knows more about it that I do. That's where that statement came from.

[Counterfit]

It's not a secret source, it came from "teh interwebs"
So post the damn link to it so we can all see it. It's not our job to find sources for YOUR data.
It's not the priorities, but rather the place they're standing when they form these opinions. College campuses are overwhelmingly liberal when it comes to the opinions of the students. Unsurprisingly, the professors teaching these students are also very liberal.
The personal political beliefs of professors have very little to do (http://www.studlife.com/news/study-says-liberal-professors-do-not-create-liberal-students-1.909158) with the personal politics of students. Here's the actual study (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5293192&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1049096509090453) if you want to pay the $15 for it.
College students are viewing the world from within a glass bubble. If you are currently a college student, then please don't bother disputing this. ;)

I'll dispute it as much as I please. Don't talk down to me because I'm in college.

[solvs]

I don't post here much anymore, and part of the reason is because of how futile it is to try to argue with people like the OP.

I've glanced over this thread and still can't figure out what point the OP is trying to prove.
He wanted to post an e-mail forward he had received that was intended to infer poor people vote for Dems who apparently don't help them because they're still poor. He of course stayed with URBAN levels, since if he included rural and suburban, the poor tend toward voting for the GOP. When confronted with the fact that this was selective at best, he obfuscated as they seem to do, complaining that you were all changing the subject. Which was unclear if not to make the point that the poor were voting against their best interest in cities, and only made further unclear when any clarification came in the form of complaining that no one was understanding his "obvious" point, that wasn't actually what it seemed to be because you pointed that this was cherry picked data that doesn't prove anything, nor does it start a discussion of poverty levels in general, since going beyond the original setup proves that other poor people tend to vote (R) even though it doesn't seem to help them as they seem to stay poor.

Even ignoring the obvious that most of the time, the poor don't actually vote (already pointed out), maybe, just maybe, the very poor tend to gravitate towards cities where they have access to those evil liberal programs like homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and even more people walking around on the street with loose change and disposable income to give you if you ask for it. But see, that wouldn't fit the OP cherry picked data any more than that "off-topic" talk of the suburbs and the country side. So he backed away from his point when you didn't bite (or did maybe, if this was just as troll) and pointed out the fallacy of the oh so subtle point that urban poor may vote (D), if they even vote, ignoring that the poor elsewhere vote (R) and are still poor. Looking at the poverty rate as a whole, the country fares better under Dem rule than GOP, but of course, I know, this is off topic.

Well, at least you got the first part of your last line on your sig right. You are annoying liberals. And anyone else paying attention for that matter (and you wonder why the conservatives are down to about ~20% of the population, with people like you making their points for them). But you cherry picked your facts, and your logic is wanting. You don't get to make the point you did and not expect people to point out the rest of the story, and/or claim you weren't trying to show bias. You were. We got it. You were called out. Deal with it, or don't. But don't just back away slowly and blame us for not getting your point. Maybe you just didn't make it elegantly enough, or clear enough to be discussed the way you wanted.

Or you did and we called you on it, and you decided to obfuscate and try to whittle the conversation down to the cherry picking you provided, which we will have none of here.

Either way = FAIL!

[leekohler]

I don't post here much anymore, and part of the reason is because of how futile it is to try to argue with people like the OP.


He wanted to post an e-mail forward he had received that was intended to infer poor people vote for Dems who apparently don't help them because they're still poor. He of course stayed with URBAN levels, since if he included rural and suburban, the poor tend toward voting for the GOP. When confronted with the fact that this was selective at best, he obfuscated as they seem to do, complaining that you were all changing the subject. Which was unclear if not to make the point that the poor were voting against their best interest in cities, and only made further unclear when any clarification came in the form of complaining that no one was understanding his "obvious" point, that wasn't actually what it seemed to be because you pointed that this was cherry picked data that doesn't prove anything, nor does it start a discussion of poverty levels in general, since going beyond the original setup proves that other poor people tend to vote (R) even though it doesn't seem to help them as they seem to stay poor.

Even ignoring the obvious that most of the time, the poor don't actually vote (already pointed out), maybe, just maybe, the very poor tend to gravitate towards cities where they have access to those evil liberal programs like homeless shelters and soup kitchens, and even more people walking around on the street with loose change and disposable income to give you if you ask for it. But see, that wouldn't fit the OP cherry picked data any more than that "off-topic" talk of the suburbs and the country side. So he backed away from his point when you didn't bite (or did maybe, if this was just as troll) and pointed out the fallacy of the oh so subtle point that urban poor may vote (D), if they even vote, ignoring that the poor elsewhere vote (R) and are still poor. Looking at the poverty rate as a whole, the country fares better under Dem rule than GOP, but of course, I know, this is off topic.

Well, at least you got the first part of your last line on your sig right. You are annoying liberals. And anyone else paying attention for that matter (and you wonder why the conservatives are down to about ~20% of the population, with people like you making their points for them). But you cherry picked your facts, and your logic is wanting. You don't get to make the point you did and not expect people to point out the rest of the story, and/or claim you weren't trying to show bias. You were. We got it. You were called out. Deal with it, or don't. But don't just back away slowly and blame us for not getting your point. Maybe you just didn't make it elegantly enough, or clear enough to be discussed the way you wanted.

Or you did and we called you on it, and you decided to obfuscate and try to whittle the conversation down to the cherry picking you provided, which we will have none of here.

Either way = FAIL!

Thank you! this is why you need to post more often. Don't let those such as the OP scare you off.

[solvs]

Thank you! this is why you need to post more often. Don't let those such as the OP scare you off.
Thank you, but I grow weary doing so, as while other things take up valuable time in my life, arguing with people like this begins to incense my normally calm demeanor.


We had people like the OP for the last 8 years or so calling us all sorts of things, while we watched them ruin our country, and gradually grew into a majority against them. Now their sad little minority wants to pick at every little thing, throwing more pointless names and words they don't even know the meanings of at us. Acting like they are an equal number in our society, and worse, with equal arguments. Using cherry picked "facts" to try and prove the exact opposite of the reality of the situation, or even to equate things as simply equal when they clearly aren't. I'm not saying I'm happy with the other side (or what there is of it), because I'm not always. I seldom am actually, as was the case with Clinton, or Bush before he started really screwing up and I started (along with the other ~70% minority of us) seeing him and his screw things up. But I at least know WHY for pete's sake.

Based on this, and other posts like it, I have to keep telling myself this is only the tiny fringe of an ever shrinking base, but it's still way bigger (and more vocal) than should be in a civilized nation as we purport to be.



(I don't remember ever complaining because I didn't like the choice of Bush's condiments (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html))

[mactastic]

(I don't remember ever complaining because I didn't like the choice of Bush's condiments (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html))
I heard Hannity ranting about this today. ZOMFG the president uses a funny mustard!

Seriously, that's what these guys are reduced to -- complaining about Obama's choice of mustard. What a bunch of children.

[Gelfin]

I heard Hannity ranting about this today. ZOMFG the president uses a funny mustard!

Seriously, that's what these guys are reduced to -- complaining about Obama's choice of mustard. What a bunch of children.

Don't let the plebs know, but we elitists have a secret: brown mustard costs approximately the same as yellow!

Heavens, if they knew! The Help might violate their station by sampling it, decide they like it and start garnishing their "frank-furters" with our condiment! Infamy! How, then, would we distinguish ourselves from the vulgarians?

Now I must away. I have many more secrets of the elite to impart, but alas I appear to have strained my pinky trying to raise it to an uncommonly high angle whilst having tea with the Hardwickington-Smythes.

[solvs]

Seriously, that's what these guys are reduced to -- complaining about Obama's choice of mustard. What a bunch of children.
Ironically, there actually is plenty out there to criticize. See the sloughing off of the torture thing. But I guess, well, also ironically, there are things they can't criticize because they're actually the ones who did this, far worse than what Obama is doing and even if the Dems were complicit, and are now trying to defend it. Not that that stopped things like the teleprompter ridiculousness, but this is a tougher thing to be hypocritical of. "How dare he not form a special commission to nail us" doesn't exactly work, though again I note they weren't exactly worried about pissing people off when they went after Clinton before they even knew anything about his bj (which to think, I was actually angry about at the time), which was far less popular than some of what Obama wants to do, or in the case of torture seems not to want to do (as a majority do at least support some form of investigations).

After Bush, they don't have fiscal policy, try as they might to say tax cuts for the rich are a good thing, regulation is bad, and who needs healthcare after all? They can't exactly openly hope for an attack (at least not outright) so national security is out for the most part. Again, try as they might to make it an issue (not going over so well either, thanks Dick). People don't care about social issues as much as they used to, except for their faithful. Which I suppose are all they can talk to since they have nothing else. Socialism, communism, fascism, doughnutism. No one else cares. And none of those is as sexy as Spicy Dijon. But what else do they have? We still don't have a good response to that question, and people are asking. It's almost as ridiculous as my mistaken use of the term ironic above. Twice!

But I suppose if you have nothing good, you have to work with something... see the OP.

[leekohler]

Ironically, there actually is plenty out there to criticize. See the sloughing off of the torture thing. But I guess, well, also ironically, there are things they can't criticize because they're actually the ones who did this, far worse than what Obama is doing and even if the Dems were complicit, and are now trying to defend it. Not that that stopped things like the teleprompter ridiculousness, but this is a tougher thing to be hypocritical of. "How dare he not form a special commission to nail us" doesn't exactly work, though again I note they weren't exactly worried about pissing people off when they went after Clinton before they even knew anything about his bj (which to think, I was actually angry about at the time), which was far less popular than some of what Obama wants to do, or in the case of torture seems not to want to do (as a majority do at least support some form of investigations).

After Bush, they don't have fiscal policy, try as they might to say tax cuts for the rich are a good thing, regulation is bad, and who needs healthcare after all? They can't exactly openly hope for an attack (at least not outright) so national security is out for the most part. Again, try as they might to make it an issue (not going over so well either, thanks Dick). People don't care about social issues as much as they used to, except for their faithful. Which I suppose are all they can talk to since they have nothing else. Socialism, communism, fascism, doughnutism. No one else cares. And none of those is as sexy as Spicy Dijon. But what else do they have? We still don't have a good response to that question, and people are asking. It's almost as ridiculous as my mistaken use of the term ironic above. Twice!

But I suppose if you have nothing good, you have to work with something... see the OP.

I've had many criticisms of Obama as well. But damn, if the guy hasn't done some good things that I like. I don't like the bailouts. I don't like that DADT still exists. But the man has a lot to deal with. He'll figure it out. He got rid of some Bush policies that needed to go. The ban on stem cell research for one. Guantanamo and Iraq for a few more.