GOP continues in its efforts of vote restriction.

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Fake News! Air Conditioning causes Republicanism.
LOL, oh wait

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/07/how-air-conditioning-transformed-the-u-s-economy/?utm_term=.50a353128e07

"Everything changed after the discovery in 1928 of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used as coolants in air-conditioning (and, we later learned, chewed a hole in the ozone layer). Retail stores could now operate year-round. Americans could flock to otherwise inhospitable regions in the South and Southwest. Cox has even argued that AC was a major factor in the resurgence of the Sunbelt-based Republican Party."
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
It is a fact that voting patterns in the south changed prior to the civil rights movement, and kept changing for 30 years after the civil rights movement. Read the article. There are multiple reasons for it, but the reason that absolutely does not make sense and doesn't line up with the timeline is that LBJ passed the civil rights amendment, and angry white racists fled the party.
I will read it later, thank you.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Cities are the wealthiest places in the country, but also have the most income inequality and poverty.

And you'll notice the blue areas have higher poverty than the red areas.
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/01/05/poverty-map/index.html
https://www.myajc.com/atlanta-neighborhood-2016-presidential-election-results-map/

Obviously there are rich liberals in many parts of the country.
Why don't they vote R as they got richer? You are missing a variable.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
LOL, oh wait

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/07/how-air-conditioning-transformed-the-u-s-economy/?utm_term=.50a353128e07

"Everything changed after the discovery in 1928 of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used as coolants in air-conditioning (and, we later learned, chewed a hole in the ozone layer). Retail stores could now operate year-round. Americans could flock to otherwise inhospitable regions in the South and Southwest. Cox has even argued that AC was a major factor in the resurgence of the Sunbelt-based Republican Party."
I knew it!
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,455
Reaction score
173
Points
63
Stupid question. Those states have the largest populations, high cost of livings, highest number of wealthy, highest number of the poor, highest taxes, highest property values, among other things, but most importantly, they are centers of commerce, wealth, and investment. A lot of people live in those states, but that doesn’t mean that the majority of them are wealthy.
There isn't a stupid question in this entire post, KFC.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Why don't they vote R as they got richer? You are missing a variable.
Poor - vote dem
middle class - vote R
upper middle class - vote R
Wealthy - Vote dem

Why do many of the very wealthy vote Dem? Protection from a societal view that they are greedy and bad? Look at how differently the Koch's are viewed vs Buffett. Some inherited their wealth and there are obvious reasons why they might vote Dem (Rockefellers and such).
Then you have intellectuals, PHDs and the like, obvious reason why they would vote Dem.
Lawyers, obvious reasons.
I could go on and on.
There could be any number of reason why any individual might vote a certain way. But when you look at it in the macro some things jump out.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Poor - vote dem
middle class - vote R
upper middle class - vote R
Wealthy - Vote dem

Why do many of the very wealthy vote Dem? Protection from a societal view that they are greedy and bad? Look at how differently the Koch's are viewed vs Buffett. Some inherited their wealth and there are obvious reasons why they might vote Dem (Rockefellers and such).
Then you have intellectuals, PHDs and the like, obvious reason why they would vote Dem.
Lawyers, obvious reasons.
I could go on and on.
There could be any number of reason why any individual might vote a certain way. But when you look at it in the macro some things jump out.
I'm not trying to fight you, but your own analysis shows that wealth alone is a poor indicator.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Poor - vote dem
middle class - vote R
upper middle class - vote R
Wealthy - Vote dem

Why do many of the very wealthy vote Dem? Protection from a societal view that they are greedy and bad? Look at how differently the Koch's are viewed vs Buffett. Some inherited their wealth and there are obvious reasons why they might vote Dem (Rockefellers and such).
Then you have intellectuals, PHDs and the like, obvious reason why they would vote Dem.
Lawyers, obvious reasons.
I could go on and on.
There could be any number of reason why any individual might vote a certain way. But when you look at it in the macro some things jump out.
Or maybe they just aren't greedy bad people like rich people who vote R?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
maybe you should read the article I linked and then you can speak intelligently on the subject. It's not that being wealthy makes someone a republican, obviously. It's that as people move from poverty, where they supported the new deal, and then become middle class, where they don't, their voting changes.
Even in the South, the large cities where most wealthier people live vote Dem. Your premise is ridiculous and I don't care if you can find a RW blogger who agrees with you. Does the 1% vote R? Sure. The 2%. Sure.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Stupid question. Those states have the largest populations, high cost of livings, highest number of wealthy, highest number of the poor, highest taxes, highest property values, among other things, but most importantly, they are centers of commerce, wealth, and investment. A lot of people live in those states, but that doesn’t mean that the majority of them are wealthy.
That list is the median income. 2 claims that as people got wealthier they switched parties. But the states with the highest median income all vote blue, showing that that premise is ridiculous. So he's pretzeling and playing the "You don't understand my point" card.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
It’s a fact that as the south got wealthier it voted R. Your narrative is not trumped by facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's clear you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation; and we've long established that your analysis skills are horrendous. Just stop while you're far behind already.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
BS. The South went R starting in the 60's with the Civil Rights act. You've had this explained to you multiple times but you play dense.

Here are the wealthiest states by median income. 13 of them are blue. TWO of them are red. Neither of them is in the South.

1 Maryland $75,847 $73,971 $72,483 $71,122 $70,000
District of Columbia† $75,628 $71,648 $67,572 $66,583 $63,124
2 Hawaii $73,486 $69,592 $68,020 $66,259 $61,821
3 Alaska $73,355 $71,583 $72,237 $67,712 $67,825
4 New Jersey $72,222 $71,919 $70,165 $69,667 $67,458
5 Connecticut $71,346 $70,048 $67,098 $67,276 $65,753
6 Massachusetts $70,628 $69,160 $66,768 $65,339 $62,859
7 New Hampshire $70,303 $66,532 $64,230 $63,280 $62,647
8 Virginia $66,262 $64,902 $62,666 $61,741 $61,882
9 California $64,500 $61,933 $60,190 $58,328 $57,287s
10 Washington $64,129 $61,366 $58,405 $57,573 $56,835
11 Colorado $63,909 $61,303 $58,823 $56,765 $55,387
12 Minnesota $63,488 $61,481 $60,702 $58,906 $56,954
13 Utah $62,912 $60,922 $59,770 $57,049 $55,869
14 Delaware $61,255 $59,716 $57,846 $58,415 $58,814
15 New York $60,850 58,878 $57,369 $56,448 $55,246

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
but but but, Howie, you just don't understand Howie.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
It is a fact that voting patterns in the south changed prior to the civil rights movement, and kept changing for 30 years after the civil rights movement. Read the article. There are multiple reasons for it, but the reason that absolutely does not make sense and doesn't line up with the timeline is that LBJ passed the civil rights amendment, and angry white racists fled the party.
In 1956 and 1960, AL, MS, LA, AR, GA, SC and VA all voted Democrat in one or both of the Presidential Elections. In 1964, GA, SC and LA all went red. By 1968 all of them had gone red or voted for racist George Wallace. How does this jive with your "it started in the 1930's"?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
LOL, oh wait

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/07/how-air-conditioning-transformed-the-u-s-economy/?utm_term=.50a353128e07

"Everything changed after the discovery in 1928 of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used as coolants in air-conditioning (and, we later learned, chewed a hole in the ozone layer). Retail stores could now operate year-round. Americans could flock to otherwise inhospitable regions in the South and Southwest. Cox has even argued that AC was a major factor in the resurgence of the Sunbelt-based Republican Party."
Thanks for admitting I'm right for once.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
387
Points
83
As the Earth's temperature has warmed, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Look it up! Heat causes Republicanism. Note that Democratic strongholds are mostly in states where it is not consistenly hot and humid.
As the U.S. national debt increased, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Debt causes Republicanism! Republicanism causes debt!
As steroid use in the U.S. increased, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Steroid use causes Republicanism! Republicanism causes steroid use!
As methamphetamine use in the U.S. increased, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Meth use causes Republicanism! Republicanism causes meth use!
As the population of Australia increased, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Australian population density causes Republicanism! Republicanism causes Australian population increases!
As obesity of Americans increased, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Obesity causes Republicanism! Republicanism causes obesity!
As crime rates in blue states dropped, the number of Republicans in the South increased. Low crime rates drive away Republicans! Republicans oppose lower crime rates!

We could do this all day. The dude must be another one of those meth-caused Republicans.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
In 1956 and 1960, AL, MS, LA, AR, GA, SC and VA all voted Democrat in one or both of the Presidential Elections. In 1964, GA, SC and LA all went red. By 1968 all of them had gone red or voted for racist George Wallace. How does this jive with your "it started in the 1930's"?
Or voted for Democrat George Wallace?

Read the article. He lays it all out. I know you won’t because it will limit your ability to cherry pick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
It's clear you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation; and we've long established that your analysis skills are horrendous. Just stop while you're far behind already.
I do understand. I’m not randomly picking correlations. The narrative that the civil rights act caused the south to switch parties does not hold up to the facts. I can understand why Dems are desperately protecting this narrative, but you’ll have to deal with the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Even in the South, the large cities where most wealthier people live vote Dem. Your premise is ridiculous and I don't care if you can find a RW blogger who agrees with you. Does the 1% vote R? Sure. The 2%. Sure.
The wealthy people in cities don’t vote Dem. and I’m not talking 1%. I even posted a map that shows the breakdown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Or maybe they just aren't greedy bad people like rich people who vote R?
It’s interesting to note the charitable giving of people from both parties. It tells a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
I'm not trying to fight you, but your own analysis shows that wealth alone is a poor indicator.
It’s a poor indicator for an individual. People become much more likely to vote republican as they escape poverty into the middle and upper class. That’s not debatable. That explains the timing of political changes in the south to a much greater degree than does the civil rights act. The article spells it all out in great detail. It’s hard to cast away deeply held opinions so I don’t expect anyone’s mind to change which is not open to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Or maybe they just aren't greedy bad people like rich people who vote R?
This thinking proves my point. And this is the culture of the country and what is taught in schools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
That list is the median income. 2 claims that as people got wealthier they switched parties. But the states with the highest median income all vote blue, showing that that premise is ridiculous. So he's pretzeling and playing the "You don't understand my point" card.
It is a fact that people in higher income brackets vote R in greater numbers.
They vote R over D by small margins, while poorer voters choose D by high margins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Poor - vote dem
middle class - vote R
upper middle class - vote R
Wealthy - Vote dem

Why do many of the very wealthy vote Dem? Protection from a societal view that they are greedy and bad? Look at how differently the Koch's are viewed vs Buffett. Some inherited their wealth and there are obvious reasons why they might vote Dem (Rockefellers and such).
Then you have intellectuals, PHDs and the like, obvious reason why they would vote Dem.
Lawyers, obvious reasons.
I could go on and on.
There could be any number of reason why any individual might vote a certain way. But when you look at it in the macro some things jump out.
And yet 90% plus of all black folk vote across all socioeconomic scales vote Dem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
It's clear you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation; and we've long established that your analysis skills are horrendous. Just stop while you're far behind already.
[emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1547][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531][emoji1531] Nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
If we can't understand the brilliance of private roads, what chance do we have on this issue?
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
12,686
Reaction score
4
Points
36
Well, feel free to educate yourself.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/

A few excerpts, but you'll really just need to read the article.

Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century.

The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s

The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.

The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
Feel to educate yourself....correctly.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1038&context=ojur

I will also add this:

“Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist who studies voter patterns at the University of Michigan, says the first major shift in black party affiliation away from the Republican Party happened during the Depression. Franklin Roosevelt's second administration — led by the New Deal — made the Democrats a beacon for black Americans deeply affected by the crushing poverty that was plaguing the country.

But many black voters stuck with the party of Lincoln.

"The data suggests that even as late as 1960, only about two-thirds of African-Americans were identified with the Democratic Party," he says. "Now, two-thirds is a pretty big number. But when you compare it to today, that number hovers at about 90 percent."

Ninety percent. So what happened?

Well, according to Hutchings and to Tufts University historian Peniel Joseph, Barry Goldwater happened.

"Barry Goldwater, for Republicans, becomes a metaphor for the Republican response for this revolution that's happening in the United States," Joseph says.

The "revolution" was Freedom Summer, the period 50 years ago when hundreds of college students, most of them white, had journeyed to Mississippi to help black Mississippians become registered voters. The state's response to that integrated movement had been swift — and violent. Less than a month before the GOP met for its national convention in San Francisco, organizers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney (who was African-American and Mississippi-born) and Michael Schwerner had been kidnapped on a dark back road in Neshoba County. The only hint that they'd existed was Schwerner's charred Ford station wagon.

The media attention that followed the men's disappearance roiled the entire South. (Their bodies would be found in early August, buried in the shallow earthen works of a dam.)

Then, two weeks after the men's disappearance and mere days before the GOP convention opened, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, making discrimination in public venues illegal.

Peniel Joseph says the events outside the GOP's convention hall affected what went on under its roof. Supporters of the presumed front-runner, liberal New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, were blindsided by the party's well-organized conservative wing, which nominated Arizona's Sen. Barry Goldwater. His nickname was "Mr. Conservative."

Goldwater can be seen as the godfather (or maybe the midwife) of the current Tea Party. He wanted the federal government out of the states' business. He believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional — although he said that once it had been enacted into law, it would be obeyed. But states, he said, should implement the law in their own time. Many white southerners, especially segregationists, felt reassured by Goldwater's words. Black Americans, says Vince Hutchings, felt anything but:

"African-Americans heard the message that was intended to be heard. Which was that Goldwater and the Goldwater wing of the Republican party were opposed not only to the Civil Rights Act, but to the civil rights movement, in large part, as well."

An Abrupt Exit From The GOP

When Goldwater, in his acceptance speech, famously told the ecstatic convention "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," he was speaking of "a very specific notion of liberty," says Peniel Joseph: "Small government, a government that doesn't give out handouts to black people. A government that doesn't have laws that interfere with states' rights. A government that is not conducting a war on poverty."

It was a signal both sides heard loud and clear. Goldwater attracted the white Southern votes his advisers thought were essential, paving the way for the "Southern Strategy" that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would use successfully in later years. And the third of black Republican voters remaining speedily exited the party.

"It was an abrupt shift," says Hutchings. "For [the] relatively few — but still not trivial — fraction of blacks, they moved aggressively, and almost unanimously, into the Democratic Party."

And black voters have stayed there, in increasing numbers, ever since. Not that all of them want to be.

Back at the farmer's market, Jasmine Patton-Grant, in a flower-patterned sundress, sells lavender soap and lotions to passers-by. She says she grew up in a family of Democrats, going into the voting booth with her father when she was a toddler and voting in elections — national and local — since she was legally able to vote. She considers voting a privilege and her civic obligation. And she says she's sick of the choices she sees before her.

"I'm a Democrat only because I've inherited that from my family," she explains. "It's not as if I'd ever be a Republican, but I'm completely dissatisfied with both parties."

Which suggests if an alternative comes along that Patton-Gant and others find attractive, the black voter party affiliation percentages might change yet again.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/07/14/331298996/why-did-black-voters-flee-the-republican-party-in-the-1960s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,090
Reaction score
205
Points
63
So true.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
361
Reaction score
0
Points
16
So true.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
High rates of black voter turnout, Kamala Harris may want to check her facts. Black voter turnout was down massively in 2016 compared to 2012.

Liberals like to say Trump getting elected was about race, and they're right to an extent; tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of black voters who turned out to vote for Obama but were too lazy or indifferent to vote for Hillary.

No bueno!
 
Top Bottom