So says the data according to Andrew Gelman. I think there is some serious issues with self-reports of whether someone is a conservative or liberal which don't occur with political parties. People know whether they are Republican or Democrat in a more concrete manner because they have often realized their preferences through voting.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If there is one "politics" book you should read this year, it is Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Now, this sort of acclamation does need to be tempered by the fact that I myself don't really read "political" books very often. But despite the…
One of the argument from Andrew Gelman's Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State which has percolated into the punditocracy is that the Culture Wars are to a large extent a feature of the upper socioeconomic brackets. Gelman presents data which strongly contradicts Thomas Frank's argument…
Andrew Gelman has a post up, Who are the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans?, which shows that conservative Republicans tend toward higher incomes, while conservative Democrats tend toward lower incomes. I decided to see if something similar was discernible in the General Social…
Today is a big day for American Presidential politics, the so-called Super Tuesday when citizens in 24 states vote or caucus with their fellows to help select the candidates of the two main political parties. I live in one of those 24 states and Mrs. R. and I vote regular as clockwork. We never…
I'd guess that it's due to people voting their pocket books rather than their ideology. At high enough incomes to get in the heavy tax brackets, that means voting Republican and if you're poor enough to qualify for public assistance, it means voting Democratic.
At the extremes, I suspect the pocket books determine the ideology. Social ideology is really a luxury neither the rich nor poor can afford.
Caledonian, according to Gelman social policy is the preserve of the rich.
It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claiming respect for "traditional values," independence, hard work, and disguised appeals to racism and xenophobia.
We can see it in the health care debate.
In the long past, conservatives were concerned with conserving something (beyond inherited privilege).
It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claimin
the lower the income of a white person the more likely they're to vote democrat. so the premise is false.
Yeah, TGGP, but rich people who institute social policies incompatible with their remaining rich stop controlling social policy.
Even if they might prefer policies that don't involve their retaining a stranglehold on power, they must institute them or be replaced and dominated.
It's all a giant game of "King of the Mountain".
"It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claiming respect for "traditional values," independence, hard work, and disguised appeals to racism and xenophobia. We can see it in the health care debate. In the long past, conservatives were concerned with conserving something (beyond inherited privilege)."
The Western world is running out of its carrying capacity for people like this.