North:Democratic/South:Republican--Why?

[subgenius]

Well this one is sure to get you going.
I'll share my theory after I hear from you and review the data you submit.

[corplinx]

Southerners want low taxes, less government, and less gun control. The republican party pays lip service to those ideals (even though the execution is nonexistant)

[Luke T.]

Southern Democrats were famous for being very pro-defense. The Democratic Party has moved away from being big on Defense, at least relative to the Republican Party.

I'm sure there is a strong racial motive as well. The White Nationalists I have debated on Stormfront have resentments going back to the antebellum days. Since the Democrats are the party of affirmative action, civil rights, and so on, and the South is convinced they will rise again, well....

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Southerners want low taxes, less government, and less gun control. The republican party pays lip service to those ideals (even though the execution is nonexistant)
The question is why, under your theory are southerners different in that regard.
Second part of Luke's post gives a "why" response.
First part, I would again ask why are they different in that regard.

[Tony]

Southerners are more independent.

[aerocontrols]

North: Democratic/South: Republican--Why?

It's not even true except with regards to the presidency.

The South has long been a bastion of rightist Democrats, left over from the racist past of the Democratic party.

In 2002, Georgia elected its first Republican governor since the 1800s when the Republicans occupied the State. Similar trends hold for other states. Texas' legislature was held by the Democtrats from Reconstruction until 2002...

One could go on.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony
Southerners are more independent.
Again why and how are they more independent (assuming that they are), and how specifically would "independence" (whatever that is) lead to favoring the Republican party?

[Andonyx]

I have always gussed it was an issue of economy. Pre-industrial era, the economic powerhouses were rural southern agricultural institutions which relied mostly on intra-national trade and demand for revenue.

As industrial economies and large manufacturing concerns developed in the North-East and midwest thanks to mass transportations and railroad shipping lines, the economic barons of that era became the new major influence in political and economic matters. Their income came not just from domestic demand but also from huge opportunities presenting themselves in international trade.

As such a power struggle developed between the new money plutocrats that sought actually freer trade laws and less incumberance for the publicly owned and traded international enterprise, and the Old money southern aristocrats who favored protectionist policies to international trade, and more rights for the individually owned business to compete with corporate conglomerates.

It's odd to think how the positions have changed so much as for a time it was the Republican party that was extremely progressive and stood against the tide of large muti-nationals swallowing up small business...

Gradually the Democrats tapped into the Southern resentment of the new economic realities and proffered themselves as a "grass-roots" alternative for the agricultural and livestock families of the South, by promising to fight the vast political influence shipping and steel magnates held in the North.

That's my guess.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
North: Democratic/South: Republican--Why?

It's not even true except with regards to the presidency.

The South has long been a bastion of rightist Democrats, left over from the racist past of the Democratic party.

In 2002, Georgia elected its first Republican governor since the 1800s when the Republicans occupied the State. Similar trends hold for other states. Texas' legislature was held by the Democtrats from Reconstruction until 2002...

One could go on.
Not to quibble, but I am referring to presidential politics, and the apparent agreement that generally the proposition as stated is true.
Certainly both parties have accepted the general assumption.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

Not to quibble, but I am referring to presidential politics, and the apparent agreement that generally the proposition as stated is true.
Certainly both parties have accepted the general assumption.

Just trying to point out that the issue is more complicated than the question indicates.

[subgenius]

Andonyx:"Gradually the Democrats tapped into the Southern resentment of the new economic realities and proffered themselves as a "grass-roots" alternative for the agricultural and livestock families of the South, by promising to fight the vast political influence shipping and steel magnates held in the North."

I should add that we are talking about current political affiliations.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Just trying to point out that the issue is more complicated than the question indicates.
As you are wont to do. You are absolutely correct, I am speaking in the broad terms as assumed by all of the electoral analysts, including those of both parties.

[whitefork]

I would ask as well, when did the party of Lincoln become the (presidential) party of preference the south? Something to do with the Dixiecrat movement, certainly, but there are other reasons.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I would ask as well, when did the party of Lincoln become the (presidential) party of preference the south? Something to do with the Dixiecrat movement, certainly, but there are other reasons.
Please, please, we're already having a hard time staying on topic.

[Luke T.]

The North is more urbanized. Urban environments contain a large proportion of minorities because that is where people who don't own property end up. Minorities don't own a lot of property. Minorities vote Democrat.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The North is more urbanized. Urban environments contain a large proportion of minorities because that is where people who don't own property end up. Minorities don't own a lot of property. Minorities vote Democrat.

You think that the proportion of minorities is smaller in the South than in the North?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


You think that the proportion of minorities is smaller in the South than in the North?

They are not as concentrated as in the North. There are more minorities in the South.

In the South, they are spread out in rural areas. In the North, they are centralized in urban power blocks. You don't see Dean or Hillary smooz blacks in the South, but you see them doing it up North. In the South, Dean whips out his oversized Bible and gets all evangelical, which is another Republican bastion, by the way.

[Tmy]

South is full of racist, xenophobic, religious zealots so they jive wh the Repub views

North has more Hippee, commie, heathens so they go with the Demos.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
South is full of racist, xenophobic, religious zealots so they jive wh the Repub views


I never knew you had such a racist view of black people.

[Tmy]

What do you want to hear Tony. That the south is the bastion of racial harmony?

Im just answering a generalized question (South is Republican) with a generalized answer.

YOur not saying that I should be more........PC??!?? GASP!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

YOur not saying that I should be more........PC??!?? GASP!

Actually no, I'm saying you shouldn't be so ignorant.

[Tmy]

How am I being ignorant? Was my description not accurate?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
How am I being ignorant? Was my description not accurate?


I dont know, but what would you think if I said "the south is full of *******"? Which is basically what you said.

What evidence do you have that people in the are xenophobic? Do you even know what you're talking about? The south is just as much, if not more multiracial and multicultural than the north.

FYI, the democrat party, currently and historically has more of a racist element than the republican party.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony



I dont know, but what would you think if I said "the south is full of *******"?


Luke T already said that. To be fair he said "more minorities in the south". Sorry Of Im not PC enough for you Tony. i thought you hated that stuff.

ya know I critiqued the North too. I dont see ya jumping all over me for calling them "commies".

So tell me Tony why is Nth Democratic and the South Republican. Is it just a coinsidence?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Tony
FYI, the democrat party, currently and historically has more of a racist element than the republican party.

Currently? Explain. Unless you're going to whine about "reverse discrimination", then please, spare me.

As for historically, yes...but that's because once upon a time the Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrats were the conservatives. Perhaps you should do a bit of research on realigning elections if you still think there's any valid comparison between the parties of today and the parties of, say, pre-FDR.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy


Luke T already said that. To be fair he said "more minorities in the south". Sorry Of Im not PC enough for you Tony. i thought you hated that stuff.


Its not about political correctness, its about correctness period. If I (when sober) insisted the sky was hot pink and green poka dotted, would it be PC for you to tell me I was wrong?

ya know I critiqued the North too. I dont see ya jumping all over me for calling them "commies".

Because I didn't care. And I realized you're probably being sarcastic and irreverent, but I’m at work and I don’t have anything better to do.

So tell me Tony why is Nth Democratic and the South Republican. Is it just a coinsidence?

I really dont know, my line about southerners being more indepentant was mostly tounge-n-cheek. But I will say that I think religion has a role to play, even thought there are many religious northern and southern democrats.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Currently? Explain. Unless you're going to whine about "reverse discrimination", then please, spare me.



I don’t know what "reverse discrimination" is. But the mainstream racist groups all reside on the democrat side today. Democrats are more likely to advocate affirmative action. Can you show me any racist group that enjoys mainstream support on the Republican side to the same degree the NAACP and the black congressional caucus are supported on the democrat side?

As for historically, yes...but that's because once upon a time the Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrats were the conservatives.

Hmm..I would venture to say that there is a lack of a liberal party (besides the libertarians) in America today. Both parties are equally devoted to their own brand of authoritarianism and tyranny.

[subgenius]

C'mon class, if you say for example "the South tends toward the Republican party because the people there are (x), you have to show a) that they are in fact (x), and b) why being (x) would tend to make them Republican.

[Lurker]

Here is the True Answer (TM)

North = More highly/better educated = Democrat
South = Less educated = Republican

I can't make it any plainer than that!

:p

Lurker

[Tmy]

Originally posted by subgenius
C'mon class, if you say for example "the South tends toward the Republican party because the people there are (x), you have to show a) that they are in fact (x), and b) why being (x) would tend to make them Republican.

Fine,

the South is known for the bible belt. Theyre really into being christians ans Xtian values. Stuff like abortion bad, jesus should be in schools, gays are sinners, and so on. Repubs platform sorta follows those thoughts. Chicken or egg I dont know which came first.

The Nth doesnt have all that many hard core xians and less godly people. Maybe alot a Catholics, but they differ from xians. They are ok into bending the bible rules. Being souless they dont mind gays, abortion, living in sin. do what ya like! Thats the Dem platform.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker
Here is the True Answer (TM)

North = More highly/better educated = Democrat
South = Less educated = Republican

I can't make it any plainer than that!

:p

Lurker

Well you need to. You are giving an unsupported opinion. What proof do you have that people in the south/north/east/or west are anymore or less educated??

I've been blessed by being part of a family that has extensive genelogical records. In some old letters from my great great grandmother, she recalled the entry into town (Piggott, Arkansas) of Dr. Edwin W. Thornton...(my great grandad)...he was a northerner, but no one wanted to call him a Yankee because that was considered bad manners. Instead they called him: "The Republican". :D

Times change Lurker, times change...but folks remain the same.

-z

[Scott]

I don't think it's a north/south issue. I think its more (not all, just more) related to population density, and that makes it look like the north is more d-rat. If you look at the nationwide by county blue/red map (http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/BushCountyMapMandate.htm) from the 2000 election, you'll see that the blue (d-rats) counties won are areas like NY City (don't know the name of the county), Harris (Houston) County TX, LA County, whatever county Seattle is in and so forth, areas with large, dense poulations.

Interestingly, that map is a good argument against a mob rule (aka popular vote) election.

An interesting map site: http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html

[Dragonrock]

I will be speaking of Texas in particular, though I suspect that some of this translates to other southern states.

After the civil war, Texas "elected" E.J. Davis as governor. I use elected in quotes because he was basically forced on the state by northern republicans. Davis' policies were considered punative against Texas because Texans fought for the south.

Even after Davis was removed from office many of his policies continued as his appointies were of the same mind. So, a new state constitution was written and ratified making almost all state offices elected. The fear of another E.J. Davis made Texans nervous about appointed officials.

Now, because Davis was a republican it was almost impossible to be elected in Texas if you were republican. So everyone ran as democrats, even if their policies were more in line with the republican national party.

Once the dawn of national television news brought national politics closer to home, republicans began to gain a foothold. People changed their party affiliation to match their ideals.

Which brings us to why the change? What I learned was that the switch began when Nixon concentrated the republican party on "white" issues. He did not repress the minorities so much as ignore them. He also pressed state power rather than federal power. This appealed to the southerners who had heard all of their lives that the north was still trying to push them around. The democrats saw an opening and started trying to appeal to minorities.

The open racists of the south saw this pandering to the minorities as dangerous to their power so they refused to support the democrats like they used to. Closet racists of the north vote democrat because they think it makes the fact that they don't acctually associate with blacks seem less like discrimination, after all, they support the UNCF.

Basically it wasn't one thing that divided the country, it was caused by actions of the parties to strengthen what they saw as their base of support.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Lurker
Here is the True Answer (TM)

North = More highly/better educated = Democrat
South = Less educated = Republican

I can't make it any plainer than that!

:p

Lurker I read of a study a few months ago that was the exact opposite of your theory.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Scott
I read of a study a few months ago that was the exact opposite of your theory.

The research must have been compiled by someone from the south.

Err, my answer was a bit tongue in cheek. But Rik, if you ask for some evidence of education of South versus North I note that states like Wisconsin, Minnesota and other northern states continually get the best marks for their high school test scores and so on. Why is that?

Lurker

[Lurker]

I checked this site out:

nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98018/

Then check out some of the stats. Specifically, I checked out Table 1 and Table 15. The trend is southern states are less educated. Sure there are outliers but the trend is undeniable.

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by Lurker
I checked this site out:

nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98018/

Then check out some of the stats. Specifically, I checked out Table 1 and Table 15. The trend is southern states are less educated. Sure there are outliers but the trend is undeniable.

Lurker


I guess that's the price you pay for having more minorities.

[epepke]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well this one is sure to get you going.
I'll share my theory after I hear from you and review the data you submit.

The South used to be almost uniformly and vociferously Democrat. "Boll Weevil Democrats," as they used to say.

But then again, the Democratic party used to be the racist party.

Quiz for the day: When the New Women's Party introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in 1921, one of the two major parties quickly adopted it and kept it as a plank in their platform until 1973. Which one?

[Hutch]

Dragonrock is pretty close to the heart, but let me have a go at it while trying to keep it shorter than dissertation-length, i.e, Joe Piscopo-style.

Civil War. 1861-1865. South lost. Big-Time. Occupied by Northern Troops 1865-1876. Most Southerners were denied right to vote during this period, governments imposed by Northern-dominated Congress and President. Party in power 1860-1876--Republicans. Party in power when "Reconstruction" of the South ended--Democrats.

Party (white) Southerners voted for 1876-1940's (I exclude black southerners because for most of this period they did not have a free exercise of the vote in most of the South): Democrats--didn't matter the policy, there was no way a Republican was going to win significant votes in the "Solid South".

Come the 1940's and the first stirrings of racial integration and voting rights--Jackie Robinson, Joe Louis, the Integration of the Armed Forces--and the movement of the Northern Wing of the Democratic Party toward ending such practices as Jim Crow and denying blacks votes. Led to the Dixiecrat rebellion from the Democrats in the 1948 Presidential election and while things were patched up, the break in the party was obvious. It continued into the 1960's-1970's with Wallace of Alabama running for President and siphoning off votes that before this had gone Democratic, mostly because there was no Republican infrastructure.

It was under Nixon that the Republicans began a concerted effort to turn white Southerners that were in general anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-integration and anti-big Northern business into Republicans (of course this is ridiciously simplified, but I'm trying to get this into just a few paragraphs so you don't go to sleep on me). Took some time to build the message and the political infrastructure, but the Democrats running George McGovern in 1972 greatly helped the process along. I think Carter in 1976 was the last Democratic Presidential candidate who carried any significant part of the South for the Democrats. I don't see any of the Candidates for 2004 doing much there.

So..given the Southern history of being defeated and treated as a conquered country, combined over most of that time with a segregationalist policy that politicians held fast too, if they wanted to keep their jobs, the block of old Confederate States was ripe for a New Republican party they could identify with more than a Democratic Party that had become, in their opinion, to liberal and Northern/Western/Eastern oriented.

Again, much to short and huge hunks missing, but the best I could do off the top of my head.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Scott
I don't think it's a north/south issue. I think its more (not all, just more) related to population density, and that makes it look like the north is more d-rat. If you look at the nationwide by county blue/red map (http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/BushCountyMapMandate.htm) from the 2000 election, you'll see that the blue (d-rats) counties won are areas like NY City (don't know the name of the county), Harris (Houston) County TX, LA County, whatever county Seattle is in and so forth, areas with large, dense poulations.

Interestingly, that map is a good argument against a mob rule (aka popular vote) election.

An interesting map site: http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html
So explain why population density would favor one party or the other.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well this one is sure to get you going.
I'll share my theory after I hear from you and review the data you submit.

Waiting on your response now.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Lurker
Here is the True Answer (TM)

North = More highly/better educated = Democrat
South = Less educated = Republican

I can't make it any plainer than that!

:p

Lurker
You're not following instructions: now explain why those factors would favor one party or the other.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


Waiting on your response now.
I'm still grading papers and collecting data.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Thinking is the hardest work of all that's why so few of us engage in it.
There has been some but precious little substantive response to the question. I might have to keep you all after class.
Mass indefinite detention.

[The idea]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well this one is sure to get you going.
I'll share my theory after I hear from you and review the data you submit.
It's cold in the North so people cuddle up and unwanted pregnancies result. Thus, Northerners favor the pro-choice policies of the Democratic party, such as laws permitting minors to obtain abortions without parental consent.

The Northern states are more densely populated, so people are more likely to feel that they are being stared at by weird strangers. The thought that the weird strangers might have firearms is disturbing, so Northerners are more likely to support some form of gun control legislation.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

I'm still grading papers and collecting data.
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Thinking is the hardest work of all that's why so few of us engage in it.
There has been some but precious little substantive response to the question. I might have to keep you all after class.
Mass indefinite detention.

so the dog ate your homework? :p

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The idea

It's cold in the North so people cuddle up and unwanted pregnancies result. Thus, Northerners favor the pro-choice policies of the Democratic party, such as laws permitting minors to obtain abortions without parental consent.

The Northern states are more densely populated, so people are more likely to feel that they are being stared at by weird strangers. The thought that the weird strangers might have firearms is disturbing, so Northerners are more likely to support some form of gun control legislation.
Well at least you followed the instructions. Can't pass the test without doing at least that.

[BTox]

I question the whole notion of north democrat, south republican. Draw a line across the Mason-Dixon completely across the U.S. - you get 25 states below, 25 states above. North includes NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, IA, NE, WY, ID, OR and all states above.

Governors: North 14 R, 11 D - South 14 R, 11 D
State Senate: North 14 R, 11 D - South 12 R, 13 D
State House: North 14 R, 11 D - South 10 R, 14 D

North looks more Republican to me. South is more Democrat only in state houses. In fact, it looks like the dems are in a bit of trouble...

[subgenius]

We're talking Presidential politics. Please consult with the RNC regarding their strategy.

[BTox]

Originally posted by subgenius
We're talking Presidential politics. Please consult with the RNC regarding their strategy.

We are? Wasn't specified anywhere. Nonetheless, still don't buy it. Carter took much of the south, Clinton got his share as well. It's as much related to the candidate as party.

[peptoabysmal]

It is also interesting that all Democrat presidents that came along after JFK were from the southern states.

I sure hope this isn't some lame attempt to draw a line like: Republican = Southern = Racist. The full story of demographics is much more complicated than that.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Lurker
The research must have been compiled by someone from the south.Actually it was CNN.

2000 vote by education:

No HS degree - 5% of all voters - 59% Gore - 39% Bush - Nader and Buch 1% each

HS Grad - 21% of all voters - 48% Gore - 49% Bush - Nader and Buch 1% each

Some Col. - 32% of all voters - 45% Gore - 51% Bush - 3% Nader

Col. Graduate - 24% of all voters - 45% Gore - 51% Bush - 3% Nader

Post Grad. Deg - 18% of all voters - 52% Gore - 44% Bush - 3% Nader

58% of all voters had a college education, 49% of them voted for Bush, 47% voted for Gore, 1% for Buch and 2% for Nader (A college degree and they still voted for Nader...)

No college was split 48% each for Bush and Gore, Nader got 3%, Buch 0%

I don't believe there is a north=d-rat, south=republican slant. Look at the map again, the evidence does not show it. The only states completely won (all counties) by Gore are NJ, CT, MA, and RI. The initial premise of this topic, much like your tongue-in-cheek example, is based on appearance and spin rather than fact.

And yet, you make this claim when the world witnessed people too stupid to vote claim they voted for Gore...

Originally posted by subgenious
So explain why population density would favor one party or the other.To be quite honest, I'm not sure I can. I think the population density and d-rat vote can be attributed to the following (though this list is certainly not all of the reasons).

+ "group think"
+ education systems
+ unions
+ people want their government to do more for them in these areas
+ voter tradition
+ peer pressure
+ fear/reluctance of/to change
+ minority vote/minority cause

Can you deny that they're not related?

Along with the population density, you have areas that are in deep despair voting for d-rats (e.g. the Rio Grande valley area). In spite of the fact when d-rats were in total control ('92 to '94), and able to do something for these people (and everyone that didn't have health insurance, and all of us with low paying jobs, and the poor education system and, and, and), they didn't. Lip service was all they got, and all they'll get. When a problem get's solved, a d-rat loses his/her "cause."

[Dorian Gray]

The North contains Vermont. Vermont allows gay unions. No state in the South would ever allow gay unions.

Gay unions are basically a liberal position. Other liberal positions are similarly held by the North. Right now, liberal = Democrat.

In other words, the North contains more liberals in greater concentrations, while the South contains more conservatives.

Now, what about the West?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by BTox


We are? Wasn't specified anywhere. Nonetheless, still don't buy it. Carter took much of the south, Clinton got his share as well. It's as much related to the candidate as party.
Yes it was specified. Both parties disagree with your opinion.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
The North contains Vermont. Vermont allows gay unions. No state in the South would ever allow gay unions.

Gay unions are basically a liberal position. Other liberal positions are similarly held by the North. Right now, liberal = Democrat.

In other words, the North contains more liberals in greater concentrations, while the South contains more conservatives.

Now, what about the West?
The question is why not what.

[subgenius]

"people too stupid to vote claim they voted for Gore"

Where in the Constitution is there an intelligence requirement for voting? And how would you administer it if there was one? And why don't you acknowledge, as is evidenced by the fact that the ballot, and even the voting process throughout the entire nation has been changed, that it was confusing to some of the people that even you might let be allowed to vote?

Better spend your time on a Constitutional amendment to disallow people that you believe are below your perceived high IQ to vote.
I wonder what you would express if it had gone the other way. I suspect you have immutable principles.

[subgenius]

"58% of all voters had a college education, 49% of them voted for Bush, 47% voted for Gore, 1% for Buch and 2% for Nader (A college degree and they still voted for Nader...)"
who the f is "Buch" ?

You get an "F".
You may submit a corrected paper for consideration.

[Scott]

Where in the Constitution is there an intelligence requirement for voting?

Go back and find where I said there should be an intellegence requirement. Oh, you can't.

Lurker said d-rats were smarter than rep's, yet d-rats weren't smart enough to vote right. You never heard "I meant to vote for Bush, but I voted for X by mistake, waaaaaaaaaaaaa."

And why don't you acknowledge, as is evidenced by the fact that the ballot, and even the voting process throughout the entire nation has been changed, that it was confusing to some of the people that even you might let be allowed to vote?

And the d-rats were stupid enough to believe that plain old everyday Americans would be on their side once "the ballot" was shown. And we weren't.

The ballot wasn't confusing at all, as evidenced by the multitude of Florida follow-up examples by elementary school children across the nation, and they voted successfully in the testing. Not to mention the years of successful use by the same people that now claim to have been confused this one time.

The ballot wasn't hard at all. It served them well for several elections where they got their way. The only time the ballot became a problem was when they lost using the ballot that always brought them a victory. The only logical conclusion is the the ballot must be flawed, because Palm Beach County et. al. always votes for the d-rat.

I wonder what you would express if it had gone the other way.

I'd say that reps were too stupid to vote too. Just like I said the reps that left the polls in the central time zone in Florida were stupid for leaving without voting based soley on BS exit polling.

Buch. is Buchanan. You remember him, he's guy all the "too stupid to vote" voters said they "accidentally" voted for...

I get and eff? I can livfe with that as long as you provide the other data to dispute what I presented.

Please show us.

Or will this be just another lesson where the teacher lets the class down?

Just the type of teacher tenure is designed for...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius

There has been some but precious little substantive response to the question.

Because the question is broad, general, and stereotypical. What else do you expect?

[subgenius]

"Go back and find where I said there should be an intellegence requirement. Oh, you can't.

Lurker said d-rats were smarter than rep's, yet d-rats weren't smart enough to vote right. You never heard "I meant to vote for Bush, but I voted for X by mistake, waaaaaaaaaaaaa.""

Maybe because the ballot didn't lead them to incorrectly vote for Bush?

But thanks for your contribution.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Because the question is broad, general, and stereotypical. What else do you expect?
I respectfully beg to differ. All of the electoral analysts, including those in both parties, start with this premise. The last election seemed to support it.
I am seriously trying to find out the why of it.
Broad, general, stereotypical? If there is such an obvious pattern shouldn't there be some explainable reason for it?
How is the question stereotypical?

[Snide]

Originally posted by Scott
Lurker said d-rats were smarter than rep's, yet d-rats weren't smart enough to vote right. You never heard "I meant to vote for Bush, but I voted for X by mistake, waaaaaaaaaaaaa." On the ballot you are referring to, reverse the names of Gore and Bush, leaving Buchanan where it was. Now, do you really believe Bush voters wouldn't have made the same mistake?
If so, you are not smart enough to vote.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Snide
On the ballot you are referring to, reverse the names of Gore and Bush, leaving Buchanan where it was. Now, do you really believe many Bush voters wouldn't have made the same mistake?
If so, you are not smart enough to vote.

edited for clarity and to add "many" lest someone think I meant "all" and try to attack that position

[subgenius]

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/elect2000/election11by17.pdf

Certainly not overwhelming, but something of a pattern.
Remember, its not what your answer is, but how well you support it.

[subgenius]

Election maps 1860-1996:
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/index.html

[Tricky]

If you look at the maps, the difference between North and South is not nearly so pronounced as the difference between coastal and middle. California, Oregon and Washington are pretty solidly Democrat, as are most of the New England states. Florida is split, being composed of a high percentage of retired Yankees. Even Virginia, in such close proximity with DC, has a very strong Democratic base. Central northern states like Montana and the Dakotas are very Republican

I suspect the reasons are mostly economic. Big cities tend to contain more people near minimum wage and thus find the Democratic position towards the poor more palatable.

The south used to be solidly Demorcratic (or Dixiecratic) until the Johnson-Goldwater election. Johnson's "Great Society", which was the first major effort to end racial inequality, was badly received in the South. It was enough to make them forget that the Republicans were the "oppressors" after the civil war. Though Tony may deny it, there is still a strong core of racism in the south, and the Republicans are able to tap it easily, simply by appearing less liberal than the Democrats.

[hammegk]

The main problem is that the question is irrelevant. The split is Urban = D, non-Urban = R. The by-county Red/Blue map showed the trends as I read it.

Some interesting maps:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
The main problem is that the question is irrelevant. The split is Urban = D, non-Urban = R. The by-county Red/Blue map showed the trends as I read it.

Some interesting maps:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html ... and suburbia is the battlefield. Reps making gains in suburbia, and most suburban population growth is in the sunbelt.

[Kodiak]

I tend to agree with hammegk and hgc...



http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cy00p1cb.gif

[subgenius]

Just talking in broad fuzzy terms over time.

[subgenius]

Average IQ by state and how they voted in 2000: notice a pattern here?

http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
Average IQ by state and how they voted in 2000: notice a pattern here?

http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm


I notice propaganda.

[subgenius]

So you're disputing that those numbers and results (they even gave Florida to Bush) are accurate?

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius
So you're disputing that those numbers and results (they even gave Florida to Bush) are accurate?

Like I said, I notice propaganda. Not too different from republican propaganda really. What's next, a NewsMax article on how all democrats want to rape animals and force feed Drano to little kids? :rolleyes:

[gnome]

I gotta call you on this one too, sub...

The numbers may be accurate, but the intention by pointing out the numbers is clear...

Plus I'm not a believer that there is a linear measure of intelligence.

My own take on the issue is the image presented--I believe the republican image appeals to the rural constituency... as well, the problems that liberals wish to address may be less apparent outside an urban area. And why shouldn't it be? Life is simpler when there's fewer people around.

[subgenius]

Lets ignore the facts if its too embarassing.

Read the link, the study authors give the R's a big out.

The facts are the facts regardless of my intent. But there is a lot of revisionist science going around these days.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius
Average IQ by state and how they voted in 2000: notice a pattern here?

http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

This data is rather useless since it says nothing about the average IQ of the voter.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


This data is rather useless since it says nothing about the average IQ of the voter.

There you go. There's a good explanation away for everything.

So what you're saying is that the average IQ of voters is more likely than not higher than that of the state as a whole.
So Mississippi voters, for example, probably have a higher average IQ than Connecticut voters.

Hmmmm.

Sure, that's possible.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius


There you go. There's a good explanation away for everything.

So what you're saying is that the average IQ of voters is more likely than not higher than that of the state as a whole.
So Mississippi voters, for example, probably have a higher average IQ than Connecticut voters.

Hmmmm.

Sure, that's possible.

No and please do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that the data is useless and once can not draw any conclusion one way or the other based on this data.

[Tony]

I'd also like to see how the average IQ of any given state was determined.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


No and please do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that the data is useless and once can not draw any conclusion one way or the other based on this data.
Well sure you can.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tony
I'd also like to see how the average IQ of any given state was determined.
Wondered when you'd start quibbling with the data, that's why I invited you to do so in my first response.
First you attack the messenger then the message.
You can research it up the wazoo, but you won't, or you will quibble with all confirming data.
Why don't you just agree with Nixon?

Hey we've already had quibbling about the importance of IQ's, and I agree with that reservation. It certainly ain't everything.

And once again the link gives you more clues as to your defense. Reading is fun........................damental.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

Well sure you can.

Please explain how you correlate IQ per state to IQ per voter? Or perhaps you assume that only people with highest IQ vote?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Please explain how you correlate IQ per state to IQ per voter? Or perhaps you assume that only people with highest IQ vote?
Or you can assume the opposite. The numbers and pattern of the numbers have some probative value. Chalk it off if you want.

I remember people claiming that the old folks who couldn't figure out the confusing ballot in Fla. were just too stupid to be allowed to vote.

You are invited to do any further research on the study you like. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Did you read the link and what did you think about the other study they felt was more significant. Gotta be something wrong with that one too.

Hey just say nothing will change your mind and be done with it. I can respect that.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

Or you can assume the opposite. The numbers and pattern of the numbers have some probative value. Chalk it off if you want.

I remember people claiming that the old folks who couldn't figure out the confusing ballot in Fla. were just too stupid to be allowed to vote.

You are invited to do any further research on the study you like. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Did you read the link and what did you think about the other study they felt was more significant. Gotta be something wrong with that one too.

Hey just say nothing will change your mind and be done with it. I can respect that.

Yes, what was I thinking being skeptical of data from a biased site while posting on a skeptic’s forum. Why I am sure the site with quotes like "Connecticut, for example, probably has a significantly higher rating now that George Bush lives in Texas." and "Though the pattern is a bit striking, this chart was posted to be somewhat amusing." has clear and obvious data from which one can draw a precise conclusion.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes, what was I thinking being skeptical of data from a biased site while posting on a skeptic’s forum. Why I am sure the site with quotes like "Connecticut, for example, probably has a significantly higher rating now that George Bush lives in Texas." and "Though the pattern is a bit striking, this chart was posted to be somewhat amusing." has clear and obvious data from which one can draw a precise conclusion.


But whatever you do, don't do your own research.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius



But whatever you do, don't do your own research.

I don't know why you being like this with me. You make a claim, I question it and you go straight to an insult. All I did is question your conclusion of the data and asked how you arrived at that conclusion. What is so wrong with that?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't know why you being like this with me. You make a claim, I question it and you go straight to an insult. All I did is question your conclusion of the data and asked how you arrived at that conclusion. What is so wrong with that?

If that was an insult, you are over-sensitive, and trying to change the subject.

I made no conclusion about the data. I only posted a study and I only suggested you do your own research if you disagreed with it. Why is that an insult? Go for it. The internet is boundless. Knowledge is good.
Let us know what you come up with.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius


If that was an insult, you are over-sensitive, and trying to change the subject.

I made no conclusion about the data. I only posted a study and I only suggested you do your own research if you disagreed with it. Why is that an insult? Go for it. The internet is boundless. Knowledge is good.
Let us know what you come up with.

You did make a conclusion, you have a pattern of only posting information you agree with thus you agree with their conclusion.

Why do you not want to have an intelligent debate on the subject you brought up?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You did make a conclusion, you have a pattern of only posting information you agree with thus you agree with their conclusion.

Why do you not want to have an intelligent debate on the subject you brought up?
I do. As soon as you come up with something to debate about.
Clarence Darrow said, when asked to particiapate in a debate, "How much time do I have to prepare, because if I'm on the negative I can start right now."

Come up with some countervailing data. Then we'll talk OK?

Posting only information I agree with?
Then post some information that disputes that.
Do you dispute the information or are you just interested in a pissing contest?

Senseless argument is a poor substitute for debate.----Deborah Tannen

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by subgenius

I do. As soon as you come up with something to debate about.
Clarence Darrow said, when asked to particiapate in a debate, "How much time do I have to prepare, because if I'm on the negative I can start right now."

Come up with some countervailing data. Then we'll talk OK?

Posting only information I agree with?
Then post some information that disputes that.
Do you dispute the information or are you just interested in a pissing contest?

Senseless argument is a poor substitute for debate.----Deborah Tannen

Your data does not support your claim or the claim presented on the website it's as simple as that; because majority of people in USA and its states do not vote presenting the data on which state has bigger IQ does not tell us anything about the average IQ of the voter from that state. Since you do not show any data on the average IQ of voter it is not possible to establish if it in any way relates to the IQ of the average person in that state. In fact, the website itself points out that their claim is not mean to be taking seriously.

I have disputed your claim you have not presented any new data to support it. If you do not wish to defend it that's fine.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Your data does not support your claim or the claim presented on the website it's as simple as that; because majority of people in USA and its states do not vote presenting the data on which state has bigger IQ does not tell us anything about the average IQ of the voter from that state. Since you do not show any data on the average IQ of voter it is not possible to establish if it in any way relates to the IQ of the average person in that state. In fact, the website itself points out that their claim is not mean to be taking seriously.

I have disputed your claim you have not presented any new data to support it. If you do not wish to defend it that's fine.
You have disputed everything without doing any research or work.
Good job. Pretty easy, huh? Darrow would be proud.
You don't need to hang out here anymore do you? Bye.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony

I notice propaganda.

See my sig below...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't know why you being like this with me. You make a claim, I question it and you go straight to an insult. All I did is question your conclusion of the data and asked how you arrived at that conclusion. What is so wrong with that?

That's because you're not in lock-step with the one "true and righteous" cause: a systematic smear campaign against anything and everything related to the GOP and the current administration.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Southern Democrats were famous for being very pro-defense. The Democratic Party has moved away from being big on Defense, at least relative to the Republican Party.

I'm sure there is a strong racial motive as well. The White Nationalists I have debated on Stormfront have resentments going back to the antebellum days. Since the Democrats are the party of affirmative action, civil rights, and so on, and the South is convinced they will rise again, well....

I appreciated your jousts with those guys.

[subgenius]

Ouch that truth hurts.

Here's more "propaganda"

A new study has revealed that people who rely on television to get their news are more likely to be misinformed on the facts about Iraq, WMD's and Iraq's ties to 9/11 than those who get their news from other sources or even who don't follow the news at al.

The study polled over 3,000 people on their perceptions about international support for the Iraq War, ties of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, and the Discovery of WMD's in Iraq. What they found, incredibly, though not surprising, was that the more people got their news from TV, the higher the frequency of their misperceptions.

Out of all the news networks, of course, Fox News ranked highest among misinformed viewers. The lowest was PBS.

Another angle of the poll was to group by Bush supporters or Democratic candidate supporters. Naturally, the vast majority of the misinformed were Bush supporters. This included Democrats that supported Bush.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqReport4_22_04.pdf

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had WMD, 72% said they would vote for Bush and 23% said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq did not have WMD, 23% said they would vote for Bush and 74% for Kerry.

Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq had supported al Qaeda, 62% said they would vote for Bush and 36% said they would vote for Kerry. Among those who perceived experts as saying that Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, just 13% said they would vote for Bush and 85% for Kerry.

http://americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf