Gloom and Doom to the Left; Happy and Happier to the Right
Just a short, trouble-making blurb today... **insert impish grin**
Interesting post on Rich Kaarlgard’s blog today about whether or not folks on the political left tend to exhibit more of the ‘doom and gloom’ behavior of life versus us Republicans who, naturally, tend to cruise through life brimming with contentment and joy.
Chuckle. Chuckle.
Ok, maybe I’m over-paraphrasing but results from a recent Gallup Poll did suggest that liberal in America tend to be unhappier than their conservative counterparts. True? False? Shocking? Expected?
Some might try to suggest that liberals are unhappier because of the current political state of things (i.e., all liberals hate Bush; republican governments can shoot themselves that sort of thing); Some might even suggest it’s due to the economy, the mortgage crisis, the rise and fall of the Hershey conglomerate…
Personally, I think it’s because all liberal party leaders are essentially mindless populists who, in reality, have very little to offer but a lot of useless talk and banter. And deep (deep) inside, liberals know this but they're too proud to convert. When you have to publicly support people like Hillary, Barack, and Dean...why would party constituents have anything to look forward to? It makes sense doesn't it..?
Yea, here's what I say,
To all the un-happy, un-content, un-satisfied liberals in America (which I suspect is a large majority of you)....Come on over and join the happy side of life!Republican-bashers come hither....you know you want to ;=)
hAHAA!
Labels:
News and Politics
21 comments:
So you must be bored. This is dorky even for wingnut blogging: 96% of Republicans say they are happy, but only 93% of Democrats are happy. This is your topic today? Really?
OK, I'll play...
Here are a few explainations:
1) Rich people tend to be happier than middle-income and poor people (98% compared with 95% and 88% respectively), and the rich tend to vote Republican (despite what Karlgaard, David Brooks, Tucker Carlson, etc. so often state). Exit polls from the 2006 elections show that 52% of people earning over $100k voted Republican, while 55% of people earning less than $100k voted Democratic (CNN exit poll).
BTW, this tendency holds across all states, "red" and "blue" alike, although it is strongest in "red" states. Larry Bartels (Princeton) has an insightful analysis: "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas". Between 1976 and 2004 (roughly your lifetime), Democratic presidential candidates have received 51% of votes from people in the bottom third of income tiers but only 37% of votes from people in the top income tier.
2) Life can be a struggle, particularly when times are bad. Democrats tend to empathize, while Republicans are into Schadenfreude. Here's an interesting observation of Republicans watching a recent Republican debate (link here).
3) Republicans are happy that we're going to have a Democratic president in less than 13 months!!!
I told you it would be long-winded...
Nope, not bored! That's the beauty of having your own blog – you can post whatever you want(!), when you want(!) including the obviously not-so-serious and fun [for me anyway].
I personally don't have an opinion on this that leans one way or another but if we're going to involve income as a factor then I would say that which side of the aisle your argument stands really depends on which perspective you take: findings at the county/state vs. individual voter level.
A similar paper published in September 2007 [interestingly] titled "Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What's the matter with Connecticut?" indicates that since 1976, at the county/state levels the rich[er] have increasingly voted democrat (and more so than republican) particularly in non-southern states and in rich “blue” states (which would negate your conclusions that rich/poor voting tendencies hold true across all states). But the study also suggests that at the individual voter level - Krugman's findings (from the 2006 exit polls) also hold true.
So what does all that mean? Data can be measured either way to show republican or democrat favor from either income side. And as such - I'll defer to the original explanation on my post as to why liberals are such an unhappy lot - all 7% of 'em. :-D
Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What’s the matter with Connecticut:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/red_state_blue_state_revised.pdf
Oh, and as for Republicans being happy about getting a democratic president in 13 months...
a) not true
b) won't happen
c) personal recommendation: stop conversing with traitorous "reds"! (or sneaky "blues" in disguise). Either will pollute your mind with delusions of hope for the "blues" come 2009. ;=)
You’re rejecting #1 and #3, so obviously you agree with the empathy/Schradenfruede hypothesis! :-D
Just to be clear, we’ve been discussion individuals. So it is not apparent to me how the study you cite ("Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What’s the matter with Connecticut?") refutes my statement that rich people tend to vote Republican. In discussing their analysis, the authors state that "...within any given state, richer voters tend to support the Republicans" (pp 18, emphasis mine).
As Gelman, Shor, Bafumi, and Park note, "...commentators are misled by the patterns in red and blue states into thinking of typical Republican and Democratic voters as having the characteristics
of these states." pp 19-20
My choice is #3. Come-on, we’ve got the new Mod Squad (the stylish white guy, the black guy, and the blond [sort-of])! Do you really think that Republicans are more excited about their candidates:
-Mitt Romney? Because of his strongly held beliefs and convictions?
-Fred Thomson? For his... economy of effort? (I can be kind)
-Ron Paul? Seriously? Sure he’s great for comic relief, but that’s for me: an outsider!
-Mike Huckabee? For his command of the issues? His Club for Growth "endorsements"?
-Rudy Giulliani? Even his own kids don’t like him! Perhaps it is his past support for Gay rights or gun control. Or maybe it is the two (or three?) divorces or the philandering.
Incidentally, Rudy is trying to compete with Ron Paul for class clown: he’s trying to become the living embodiment of his own caricature (you can’t make up this stuff!).
John McCain? OK, I like McCain, but how is a man who believes torture to be wrong ever going to capture the hearts and minds of Republicans?
Honestly, I'm surprised you're not all on Prozac or Zoloft by now! Hey - maybe that explains the happiness thing! :-D FOTFLMAO
deanna, not all liberals are democrats.
dan, you dont like a topic with a 96 vs 93% variance but yet have no problem arguing 52 vs 48% (over >100k voting conservative vs >100k voting liberal). the numbers aren't significant either way to say the rich vote republican, the poor vote democrat. Most poor in southern states vote repub cause it's the bible-belt. the rich in blue states tend to vote democrat (note ca and ny). and there are enough out there who don't vote period to sway those percentages.
so who cares. the smart vote blue :)
deanna, how confident are you that the reapers will win in 08? really....
Crispy - I agree the smart do vote blue; and people with advanced degrees are much more likely to vote D (I think this is why Deanna is going back to school!).
The conventional wisdom that the poor in southern states vote R and the rich in "blue" state vote D is convenient and plays into the "values" idea thing, but the numbers do not support it.
Gelman says it best...
"If we had to pick a “typical Republican voter,” he or she would be an upper-income resident of a poor state, and the “typical Democratic voter” would conversely be a lower-income resident of a rich state. But these are more subtle concepts, not directly readable off the red-blue map—and, in any case, we would argue that given the diversity among supporters of either party, choosing typical members is misleading."
Crispy-
Yes I think the R's have a chance in 2008. There’s no question that we’ve had stronger candidates in previous elections but I think the top candidates for the Democrats, combined, are as strong as the top 3 republicans combined. That said, I think that Hillary and O'bama independently yield a more impassioned love/hate response than say Giuliani or Romney. And I think that it's this type of granularity that will drive the elections depending on which candidates win party nominations. The prospect of having a minority as President alone might drive non-voters to the polls on election day but I’ll note that this can also work against the Republican’s the for the very same reason.
Crispy/Dan-
** smart people vote blue **
I suspect the following assertion is more accurate:
"some smart people vote blue; most others grossly over-estimate their intelligence...and vote blue" ;-)
Dan-
Re: the income factor – the study also states clearly throughout the document that in some states income has very low correlation with individual voting preference.
As for Republican candidates..
I don’t know that we’re necessarily more excited about our candidates but I think a lot of Republicans simply prefer them over democratic candidates and I think some have more mainstream appeal.
Voters typically sit in 1 of 3 categories:
1) people that always vote with their party
2) people that are most likely to vote with their party in the absence of an exceptionally strong candidate elsewhere
Republicans in this category might be keeping their options open but I don’t think any of the democratic candidates have the staying power to sway voters in this group - not in significant numbers anyway. On the flip side, Huckabee and Giuliani both have a real chance of winning minority voters that historically have voted democrat, and Huckabee already has a good track record with both poor and minority voters.
3) people who associate themselves with a particular party but will vote either way.
In this last category, Republican candidates can win left-leaning voters if they market their campaign intelligently and avoid getting embroiled in issues like religion and abortion.
Mike Huckabee has done a good job of this. He doesn't come across as being evangelical and that makes him more accessible among migrating democrats that have religious affiliations but avoid candidates who inject religion into politics. He speaks well, his responses are clear and direct, and there’s a subtle Clinton-esque confidence in his demeanor that gives him more mainstream appeal.
Mitt Romney: Romney has a long legislative record to support his image as leader. But right now, I think religion and abortion are clouting his potential with left-leaning voters. He's also somewhat abrasive in his demeanor. If he lightens up a bit I think he has the potential to win the favor of undecided's.
Ron Paul is a dinkhead, Fred Thompson is one long snooze, and if John McCain wins the Republican nomination - we have no chance of winning the WH.
P.S. - I don’t get the Giuliani caricature bit….??
P.S.2 - Sorry for the excruciatingly long post...;-p
Deanna says: "if John McCain wins the Republican nomination - we have no chance of winning the WH."
I disagree. McCain's biggest challenge is not with the general election but with winning conservative voters during the primaries. Military leaders with political experience in the past have generally have held favor with liberals and when it comes time for the general elections, after Ron Paul McCain will be the toughest candidate for the democrats to beat.
Interesting conversation regarding income vs. voting tendencies. It's curious. Given the slightness in tally of the "rich voting republicans" versus the "wealth-less voting democrats", it's interesting that either party can be tagged with either association. Obviously no one wants to be called the party of the rich and given the loose stats (or Dan's 4% variance) I think we can blame liberal MSM for trying to stick it to the Republican party. Down with the liberals!
And, Ron Paul for President!
You're apologizing to me for a long-winded comment? Apparently you haven't read any of my comments!
:-D
The Giuliani caricature: Mr. noun-verb-9/11
I know he didn't really campaign in Iowa, but he's largely running on his reputation anyway. And after his pathetic showing in Iowa his money quote was "noun verb 9/11."
Oh c'mon that's not true (re: Giuliani running on his reputation). His connection with 9/11 gave his candidacy the jump-start it needed and yes, he ran with that initially to continue gaining momentum. Smart move. But now we're back to political basics and it's "show me what you've done".
I've been watching these debates and I think he's done a good job of stating his political record (9/11 notwithstanding) and I think he's got a solid record to back up his nomination. The fact that that experience comes from a gi-normous and econommically influential state as New York is a credit to him and his policies. I mean, New York was freaking train wreck before he came into office.
The only thing Giuliani's experience can't speak to is foreign policy but uh ahem, why nit-pick.... ;-p
btw: I just watched the Republican debates in New Hampshire. Did you happen to catch it?
Ronpaul-
re: your stance on McCain. I agree he'll have some difficulty withy conservative votes but I still don't think he is the candidate to win over both conservatives and liberals. But hey, Dan's a liberal puss and he likes McCain so...what do I know. ;=p
Hahaha..
As far as the Republicans go, I think McCain and Huckabee, and possibly Romney, have the best chance of winning the party's nomination. I think Giulliani is toast.
I agree with you on Romney: he was a pretty good Gov, he did a great job running the SLC Olympics, and he was a successful in business before all that. But he has been shamelessly pandering and will have difficulty convincing independents and Dems to vote for him without alienating the Republican base - particularly social conservatives who won't be enthusiastic for him in any case.
A Romney nomination may also face problems if the religious right decides to break and run a "third-party" candidate (such as Huckabee).
Huckabee has run a great campaign so far. Again, I agree that he is very personable and doesn't come across as "your father's religious conservative." (That was an Oldsmobile reference, it had nothing to do with your Dad.) He is, however, injecting religion in his campaign, albeit thru "dog-whistle" politics. Given the many days until the general election, this could be made clear and exploited by the Democratic nominee. A Huckabee run should bring out voters from the religious right.
That said, I don't see him bringing
many Dems or independents. Furthermore, I don't think Mike has much of an organization. This should hurt him in raising money and mobilizing voters in the upcoming primaries where he won't be able to personally meet most of the voters.
Huckabee also faces a problem similar to Romney: a third-party challenge. If Huckabee's wins the Republican nomination, there will be a lot of pressure on Bloomberg to make a run as an independent. This probably wouldn't be as damaging a problem as Romney would face, because Bloomberg should pull some votes from the Democratic nominee.
That leaves John McCain, a good and honorable man. But when I've seen him over the past few months, I often get the impression that his heart really isn't in this (I've come to think of him as the Vince Carter of the 2008 campaign - and that is not a compliment!). And given his commitment to staying in Iraq (100 years?), He will have tons of trouble drawing Dems and independents.
BTW - I like McCain as a person, but he couldn't change me from Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. And my issues with him go way beyond Iraq.
No, I didn't watch the debate tonight. I had a rare chance to spend some time with Kate today, so I took advantage. (She's watching Iron Chef America now, so I have a chance to jump online for a few minutes.
Post a Comment