Liberal Media Attempting to Understand Conservatives

[Al68]

What's interesting is that the same people who claim this are the same ones who refer to Republicans' constituents as ignorant hillbillies when it suits them.

That's a southern stereotype, not a rich/poor stereotype

Oh, I see. They're only talking about all those rich ignorant hillbillies being Republican.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...in the two presidential election years of the 1990s, respondents in the highest quintile were more than twice as likely to identify as a Republican than were those in the lowest.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/PERG.mccarty.pdf

I would hope that no one needs to demonstrate the long history of racism found in the South, which swings heavily for the Republicans, and has, as he predicted, ever since LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation.

Some stereotypes have an enduring historical basis.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Oh, I see. They're only talking about all those rich ignorant hillbillies being Republican.

No, they're talking about all ignorant hillbillies. Ignorant hillbillyism is money-blind

 

[Al68]

I would hope that no one needs to demonstrate the long history of racism found in the South, which swings heavily for the Republicans, and has, as he predicted, ever since LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation.

Some stereotypes have an enduring historical basis.

Of course the reality is that the offending bigot politicians were primarily Democrats. The stereotyping of Republicans for historical southern racism is just fraudulent propaganda by Democrats to cover their own racist history.

The swing toward Republican support in the south represented a trend away from the racist past of Democrats. But don't let reality get in the way of rewriting history.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Of course the reality is that the offending bigot politicians were primarily Democrats. The stereotyping of Republicans for historical southern racism is just fraudulent propaganda by Democrats to cover their own racist history.

The swing toward Republican support in the south represented a trend away from the racist past of Democrats. But don't let reality get in the way of rewriting history.

I hate it when people use the fact that the Democrats were the racist party in the 1800's/early 1900's to make it look like the south had some sort of cultural revolution when it switched parties in the 60's.

 

[mheslep]

Missed this before...
Since according to the exit polls, McCain had 45.4% of the total (exit) vote, he actually did a little better with the rich.

Trying to look at this from a couple angles, but I don't follow you there. In what sense did McCain do better with the rich, the 'rich' being defined for the moment by that CNN >$200k bracket?

That is not a list of the "20 richest zip codes" (nor does it claim to be). The richest zip-codes are listed here: http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_income_zip_codes-10000.html

Well we're both, let's say, imprecise here. My list was zip codes by highest political contribution. Your list is by annual income as reported by tax returns. Income need not accurately reflect wealth, or more precisely net worth, as reported income misses the wealth of the idle rich. Income won't capture the value of a $30M mansion housing an heiress, or the accounts of a retired philanthropist taking large charitable write downs, or otherwise controlling the wealth of some business or trust by proxy (e.g. Andrew Carnegie). So if I wanted to go knocking on the doors of those able to write the largest checks, regardless of the cause, I expect my list is more likely than your income list to produce the best results.

In any case, winning a greater share of campaign contributions from a district is not a particularly water-tight argument that X wins a greater share of the votes from there. Recall that about midway through the election season, we had numbers showing that Obama was out-earning McCain 5-fold in terms of campaign contributions from members of the military.

Point taken, but I can not think of a better way to assess the connection between political party and wealth aside from direct interrogation of voters and their wealth (again net worth, not just income). Even an actual break down of the vote by candidate/party in those same zip codes means less to me than the financial contributions list I referenced, as we don't know the wealth of the actual voters, unless the statistical variance in wealth can be shown to be extremely low for one of those zip codes.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Some stereotypes have an enduring historical basis.

Without current evidence, the basis of a stereotype is ignorance.

 

[mheslep]

Your point seems to be that if Obama raised twice as much money as McCain in a wealthy zip code, then that zip code was overwhelmingly Democratic

No, not at all.

If you have more recent research that indicates said patterns have changed since then please cite it.

I did in post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" with 2008 data, just prior to your statement:

Research indicates that rich people tend to vote Republican

which is unsupported by even the old link.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, not at all.

Then what was the point of the zip code thing?

I did in post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" with 2008 data, just prior to your statement:

In which you pointed out that the wealthy voted for McCain at a slightly higher rate than the rest of the country. Ok, that convinced me

 

[Al68]

I hate it when people use the fact that the Democrats were the racist party in the 1800's/early 1900's to make it look like the south had some sort of cultural revolution when it switched parties in the 60's.

My point was that suggesting that the racist history of the south was attributable to Republicans is revisionist history, as you seem to recognize. I wasn't implying anything about current southern Democrats.

That being said, the south certainly did have a "cultural revolution" when it switched parties in the 60's. The only way not to consider it a revolution is to greatly underestimate just how bad things were. Racist Democrats had a stranglehold on southern state governments.

But the current stereotype (among some) of Republicans being racist is based solely on fraud and propaganda, not historical fact. Finger pointing is very effective misdirection for many.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Can you give an example of a "crackpot liberal position" that's taken as mainstream? Examples have already been provided of crackpot conservative positions being taken as mainstream by Fox.

Well, what about speculations that a certain Times Square would-be-bomber became so out of desperation that he couldn't pay his mortgage?

This looks to me more like an example of:

"Liberal Media Attempting to Understand (Religious Fundamentalist) Conservatism"

as in the title of this thread.

1) Muslim fundamentalist vigorously oppose anything like a liberal lifestyle.
2) A life under fundamentalist religious law would scare the hell out of liberal people.

Can you explain why you are nevertheless linking these two totally different groups?Regards, Hans

 

[ibnsos]

My point was that suggesting that the racist history of the south was attributable to Republicans is revisionist history, as you seem to recognize.

Finger pointing is very effective misdirection for many.

Ever notice that if someone is pre-occupied with homosexuality everyone claims its because they are in denial about their own homosexuality; however, if someone is pre-occupied with race, everyone else is racist? Things like this are why I can't stand social sciences, too subjective.

 

[arildno]

This looks to me more like an example of:

"Liberal Media Attempting to Understand (Religious Fundamentalist) Conservatism"

as in the title of this thread.

1) Muslim fundamentalist vigorously oppose anything like a liberal lifestyle.
2) A life under fundamentalist religious law would scare the hell out of liberal people.

Can you explain why you are nevertheless linking these two totally different groups?


Regards, Hans

By its systematic factual occurence.

That is not my fault, but the fault of liberals.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That is not my fault, but the fault of liberals.

That's far too broad.

 

[arildno]

That's far too broad.

That's not my fault, but the fault of some liberals.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's not my fault, but the fault of some liberals.

Your fault.

Now can there be an actual conversation again?

 

[arildno]

Your fault.

Now can there be an actual conversation again?

Nope.
It's not my fault that some liberals have made reference to "liberals" be a universal term, and hence, fallaciously, that saying something is the fault of liberals means the fault of ALL liberals.
You are the one at fault here, not me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This looks to me more like an example of:

"Liberal Media Attempting to Understand (Religious Fundamentalist) Conservatism"

as in the title of this thread.

1) Muslim fundamentalist vigorously oppose anything like a liberal lifestyle.
2) A life under fundamentalist religious law would scare the hell out of liberal people.

Can you explain why you are nevertheless linking these two totally different groups?

Hans, would you explain your point? For some reason I'm having trouble following it, and as a result its responses are also unclear to me.

 

[Leptos]

In my opinion, Fox News is the only trustworthy news source

 

[Char. Limit]

In my opinion, Fox News is the only trustworthy news source

I don't think that there is a trustworthy news source. You must admit that all news organizations have bias, by virtue of organizations being made up of people, and people having biases. Thus, you really can't trust a single news organization for fair and unbiased news.

That said, I do enjoy Spiegel for my news of America.

 

[Al68]

I don't think that there is a trustworthy news source. You must admit that all news organizations have bias, by virtue of organizations being made up of people, and people having biases. Thus, you really can't trust a single news organization for fair and unbiased news.

That's absolutely true, but having many more biased sources than in the past makes a difference. 20 years ago, a majority of people got all their news from the big three and AP. They spent their entire lives hearing the Democrats' point of view, and the Democrats' twisted version of the Republican point of view, and never even recognized any bias because they had no idea the Republican point of view was being so grossly misrepresented. It's very difficult to recognize bias from a source, if the information one could use to determine bias is coming from the same source.

Even today, many people I know, including family, simply have no idea what the Republican point of view is, or why so many people vote for the "party of the rich". They have no interest in researching both sides of the issues, when ignorance is much easier.

 

[mheslep]

...In which you pointed out that the wealthy voted for McCain at a slightly higher rate than the rest of the country. Ok, that convinced me

No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's absolutely true, but having many more biased sources than in the past makes a difference. 20 years ago, a majority of people got all their news from the big three and AP. They spent their entire lives hearing the Democrats' point of view, and the Democrats' twisted version of the Republican point of view, and never even recognized any bias because they had no idea the Republican point of view was being so grossly misrepresented. It's very difficult to recognize bias from a source, if the information one could use to determine bias is coming from the same source.

Even today, many people I know, including family, simply have no idea what the Republican point of view is, or why so many people vote for the "party of the rich". They have no interest in researching both sides of the issues, when ignorance is much easier.

I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.

 

[j93]

No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.

There is a problem with using one election year to make a point about a party. Its like making doing analysis on a single data point.
There are billionaires on both sides see Rubert Murdoch (Media Overlord), Waltons, Bloomberg.

 

[Al68]

I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

That's easy to resolve for at least three reasons. First, many, like me, did recognize the bias. Second, many (not like me) voted Republican because of a specific social or religious issue.

Third, the fact that media bias had great influence doesn't necessarily put the beneficiaries of the bias in a commanding position. An analogy might be a biased team of referees causing an inferior baseball team to win half the time against a superior team.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's easy to resolve for at least three reasons. First, many, like me, did recognize the bias. Second, many (not like me) voted Republican because of a specific social or religious issue.

Third, the fact that media bias had great influence doesn't necessarily put the beneficiaries of the bias in a commanding position. An analogy might be a biased team of referees causing an inferior baseball team to win half the time against a superior team.

Well reconciled. I have no further argument.

 

[Proton Soup]

I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.

well, personally, i think that republican and democrat have a tendency to represent the needs and values of city-states (democrat) on the one hand, and the less-populous rural and suburban areas on the other. city-states are highly co-dependent and liberal, whereas the rural/suburban areas are more rugged individualist and conservative. now, despite the media centers being situated in city-states (as well as the journalists) and having a strong liberal democrat bent, the people outside urbaneia still tend toward the individualist and conservative. and despite national news shows from the city-states, local news has always been a staple. not sure, but local news may have even filled some FCC requirement for serving the public interest.

but that is only part of it, because our government does not operate simply on representation by population. every state gets two senators, regardless of size. and at least one representative. and rural districts in primarily city-state states get their own representatives. presidential elections are winner-takes-all wrt to electoral votes. i think without these sort of checks and balances, you would see democrats elected more. and perhaps a more imperial view towards rural areas, accompanied by more of the same sort of financial discrepancy you see in imperial relationships.

 

[drankin]

I am having some difficulty in accepting this argument... if people only got their news from the Democratic newspapers, then why did Republicans get elected as often or more than Democrats?

If you can resolve this well, then I would be very highly inclined. I understand your argument, and am inclined to agree with it somewhat, but I can't reconcile it with the fact above.

EDIT: I meant in a presidential election.

Rush Limbaugh?

 

[Proton Soup]

Rush Limbaugh?

more like Jimmy Carter

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, the over $200k income block voted for Obama at a higher rate, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795048&postcount=89" Also, the highest dollar political contribution zip codes in the US overwhelmingly donated to Obama. In addition, we have zillionaire icons Gates, Buffett and Soros supporting the democrats with money, and billionaires like Kerry running on the Democratic ticket for the Presidency.

You said that people making over 200k voted for Obama more than they did McCain. Fine. But the rest of the country voted for Obama more than they did McCain at an even greater rate than the over 200k demographic did. So you have demonstrated nothing

 

[mheslep]

You said that people making over 200k voted for Obama more than they did McCain. Fine.

Well I referenced what CNN's poll said. End of story.

But the rest of the country voted for Obama more than they did McCain at an even greater rate than the over 200k demographic did.

Relevance? The fact remains that the highest income brackets, i.e. 'the rich' by Obama's definition, voted Democratic in 2008.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well I referenced what CNN's poll said. End of story.

I wasn't questioning the veracity of the statement

Relevance? The fact remains that the highest income brackets, i.e. 'the rich' by Obama's definition, voted Democratic in 2008.

You pick an election in which the Democrats win, and use that to show that the rich "live in the Democratic party" based on the fact that they voted for a single Democrat when he was popular. Do you agree with the following statement:

America, as a whole, lives in the Democratic party?

Because every piece of evidence you have given that the rich live in the Democratic party can be used to give even more convincing evidence that America as a whole lives in the Democratic party.

 

[mheslep]

There is a problem with using one election year to make a point about a party. Its like making doing analysis on a single data point.

Actually millions of data points taken at a point in time, with the entire country paying attention.

There are billionaires on both sides see Rubert Murdoch (Media Overlord), Waltons, Bloomberg.

Yes I know, though one rarely if ever hears Democratic politicians admit they have (many of) the uber rich on their side. They pretend something entirely different.

 

[mheslep]

I wasn't questioning the veracity of the statement



You pick an election in which the Democrats win, and use that to show that the rich "live in the Democratic party" based on the fact that they voted for a single Democrat when he was popular.

Not a single Democrat, but many Democratic politicians - US House/ Senate, and this trend has been increasing for some years. Also, not only did that high income block vote Democratic, but those with very large checkbooks overwhelmingly contributed to the Democrats.

Do you agree with the following statement:

America, as a whole, lives in the Democratic party?

Sure I agree for 2008 ( I doubt now), though broadening the statement makes it far less precise and more error prone than mine is about the rich.

Because every piece of evidence you have given that the rich live in the Democratic party can be used to give even more convincing evidence that America as a whole lives in the Democratic party.

No, less convincing because in so doing one widens the distance between part and whole, creeping towards ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition"

 

[j93]

Actually millions of data points taken at a point in time, with the entire country paying attention.

Its only a single point of public sentiment it cannot logically be used for anything other than making conclusions about the year it took place. Logically if you want to say you can use the 2008 election cycle to say that the democratic party is a party of the rich then you can use 2004/2000 election cycle (two election cycles) to say the republicans are a party of the rich and so on.