NY Times' Brooks falsely asserted "Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans"
In an October 30 column, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote: "[D]on't expect people to cast votes according to their income. Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans." However, as Media Matters for America has documented, Brooks' suggestion that "top earners" are as likely to vote Democratic as Republican is contradicted by CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, the 2004 presidential election, the 2004 congressional elections, and the 2000 presidential election, which show that voters with annual incomes of more than $100,000 are more likely to vote for Republican candidates, not Democratic candidates.
As Media Matters noted, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson recently made a claim similar to Brooks', asserting on the October 16 edition of his show Tucker: "[H]ere's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions -- Democrats win rich people." He continued: "Over 100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about." Carlson had previously claimed during the July 5 edition of his show: "I'll never forget that in 2000, exit polls showed that [former Vice President] Al Gore won the over-$100,000 income bracket. Rich people are liberal. Rich people vote Democratic." In fact, the CNN exit polls for the 2000 presidential election found that nationally, 54 percent of respondents with an income above $100,000 voted for George W. Bush, a Republican, compared with 43 percent who voted for Gore, a Democrat.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2006 congressional elections, 47 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House, while 52 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 45 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate, while 53 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 presidential election, 41 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more voted for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 58 percent of such voters cast their ballots for Bush. Additionally, 35 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more voted for Kerry, while 63 percent of such voters supported Bush.
- According to CNN exit polls from the 2004 congressional elections, 42 percent of voters with incomes of $100,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives, while 57 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate for the House. Additionally, 36 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more supported a Democratic candidate while 62 percent of such voters supported a Republican candidate.
According to CNN's website, "Due to problems at Voter News Service, exit polls were not available for the 2002 [congressional] election."
Brooksie is just trying to reassure the populace that Repubs are more than just heartless greedmongers who seem bent on social engineering. Who are you going to believe, the avuncular Brooksie or your lying eyes?
OK, so Brooks should have said "Democrats do nearly as well.........".
But the jist and the point of his opinion piece is that the upcoming election won't be, as he sees it, the usual gap between left and right, or rich or poor.....but rather how people view their own happiness vs. the security and happiness of their country.
But MMFA knows that, however promoting class warfare is essential to knee jerk Democratic politics.
"Additionally, 35 percent of voters with incomes of $200,000 or more voted for Kerry, while 63 percent of such voters supported Bush."
Yes, nearly as well. So close, and yet so far.
It doesn't matter that the Republican vote percentage gets higher as income gets higher, in sharp contrast to Brooks' comment, it simply must just be an excuse to engage in "class warfare". Because Tommy says so.
Because to highlight that out of Brooks' piece is exactly why.
Let's pretend you have a point there, and take the 2006 numbers then. Even with the great displeasure with Bush and war supporters in Congress, Republicans still won over more top earners. When Republicans get thumped, then the margin gets smaller, but still favors the right.
Brooks comment was absurd. Pointing it out as misinformation is fair.
Brooks' comment was inaccurate, to call it absurd is absurd.
I call it absurd because it's absurd. 58-41 or 57-42 or 63-25 or 52-47 (in 2006!) is not doing even "nearly" as well. It's wildly inaccurate, not some minor, reasonable error.
If his comment is inaccurate, then what is MMfA overlooking in order to promote class warfare? They took the inaccurate line and showed why it is so. What more is there to it?
Because Brooks is giving his opinion as to what he thinks will drive the voters in the election. And MMFA's insistence on driving home the fact that rich people vote Republican and poorer people vote Democrat is missing the point of the article.
So anytime someone puts something inaccurate in a post, even MMfA, then you're not allowed to point out that falsehood if it doesn't reflect directly on the crux of the post.
Is that what you're saying? Or does this only apply to people like David Brooks?
MMFA can point out whatever they want, you can agree or disgree, we all can comment and offer our opinions on the topic at hand. Hense the "comments" section.
Well, no. Not according to you. You're chastising MMfA for pointing out an inaccuracy because it's not relevant to "the entire piece".
So if MMfA put some wild inaccuracy in the middle of one of their posts, by your standards you would not be able to criticize them for it if it wasn't relevant to "the entire piece".
To do so would make you a hypocrite, don't you agree?
Your calling Brooks' statement a "wild inaccuracy" is ridiculous......MMFA is the watchdog here, I would sincerely hope that no "wild inaccuracy" occurs anywhere in their reporting.
But apparently you aren't convinced that is the case, then I suggest you take it up with the moderators here.
I didn't say that they ever would. I'm saying if they did, you wouldn't be able to say anything about it.
Surely you understood that.
If they never do, then you have nothing to worry about, do you?
It also applies to people's posts here. If Tex writes something with an inaccuracy in it, then you can't address it if it's not key to his main point.
That would make you a hypocrite. Do you understand?
Are you saying that Tex posts inaccuracies that you need to preemptively defend? Are you the new moderator here, or just sticking your nose in everybody's business.
I think you owe Tex an apology.
It's a theoretical situation. I'm not saying anyone would do that, but letting you know you won't be able to correct anyone under those circumstances.
And what's more, if you see someone else correct them, you'll have to point out that they are missing the "crux" of the post.
It's just so you know. If you pursue this idiotic argument, you'll be held to the same idiotic standard. Your call.
"[I] won't be able to correct anyone..........??"
In case I missed the memo, you really aren't in any position to dictate such an order, but if it gives you some macho sense of yourself, go for it. :)
Well, you can criticize someone for such a thing, but it would make you a hypocrite. You can't legitimately do it.
And it took all that for you to finally admit that Brooks' misstatement here is not relevant to his article. Thank you, now that wasn't so hard, was it?
If it was irrelevant, I wonder why a professional writer mentioned it at all?
It doesn't matter, as I've said. Misinformation should be addressed, whether it's relevant to the main point or not. You seem to think otherwise.
tommy's being his usual disingenuous self by claiming brooks statement is not "relevant" to the column. most certainly it is precisely relevant. because the first sentence of brook's column is: "some elections are about the gap between the rich and the poor". saying that the top earners vote equally for democrats as republicans is untrue and therefore undercuts his argument.
Incidentally, I would think almost anyone would categorize the portrayal of a 28% voter gap as "doing as well" as wildly inaccurate.
I sense a petty wordsmith duel in the making.
Tommy: The numbers quoted in the article say that people who make over $200k per year went for Bush in 2004 63% to 35%. I don't know about you, but that does not seem "nearly as well" to me. By the way, if you go to the Drudge Report this morning, there is an article posted in which Warren Buffet says that his tax rate is actually much less than his employees, which he thinks is wrong. Do you think Warren Buffet might just know something about the subject, or is he just engaging in "class warfare" against himself?
Fine, then he should have said "Democrats DON'T DO as well.........." It isn't the crux of his article, but if you and MMFA want to cherry pick and focus on that, go for it.
Because for Democrats, who have long lived on pitting one class vs. another, to see it from another point of view as Brooks' does, is a no-no.
He can look at it from any point of view he wants. What he can't do is to misinform.
Disagree?
I disagree. He can misinform all he wants, and we can call him out.
I mean reasonably, of course. I know he can do it, just not with impunity.
I have admitted he is inaccurate, you have no argument from me. But to highlight that in his article is like highlighting some statistic that is not directly relevant to the entire piece itself.
Misinformation is misinformation. If it wasn't directly relevant to his point, why did he put it in there?
I find it hard to believe that MMfA is supposed to determine relevance to the crux of the argument when they spot something that is inaccurate. This is a bizarre new standard you're trying to introduce here.
So the context of articles is unimportant? Any misstep should be highlighted, no matter it's relevance?
Misinformation should be pointed out. The "context" doesn't make it any more accurate, obviously.
You're all over the map here?? So, I should or should not be pointing out Tex's inaccuracies....because in an earlier post you say I would be a hypocrite if I did unless it was relevant to the context - yet here you say the opposite?
Perhaps you'd better take a break.
You're comparing my standards to yours. Your standard (today) is to say that the inaccuracy shouldn't be pointed out because it's not relevant to "the entire piece". Therefore I'm saying you are held to your own standard that you're expressing here.
My standard is that misinformation should be noted either way.
It's really pretty simple.
Exactly, what are your standards? Because by the wild inconsistency of your flailing posts demanding this and that, I have no idea.
Breaktime.....
My standard is consistent. I'm talking about yours.
Please, do take a break, and try to show some intellectual honesty when you get back.
Misinformation is misinformation.
Already several times in this thread the word inaccurate has been used. I found it more than interesting that Carlson and Brooks spout the same claim within a short span of time. Possibly they are getting their "inaccurate" information (which is contrary to conventional wisdom) from the same source.... Misinformation? Yup.
Given historic, bloody legacy of warfare and violence between races and religions, I think class warfare would be a comparatively welcome departure.
Tommy: I do not think you are correct when you say that this missated statistic was not the crux of the article. While it was not the focus of the article, it was very important to the article. He wrote:
Don't expect people to vote according to their income. Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans. People are more interested in repairing the nation's health than in boosting their personal bottom line.
If this premise is false, and people at the top are, in large part, voting based on their own personal bottom line, then the whole conclusion of the article, that this election will not be decided by issues regarding the gap between rich and poor or liberal and conservative, falls apart. The premise of the article is undercut entirely by the inaccuracy of the misquoted statistic, which he just threw as a "fact" with no citation to anything. This kind of misinformation is exactly what should be pointed out at this site because the error is both stating an erroneous statistic as fact, and in the conclusions that he drew based upon the erroneous statistic.
It's getting tougher to keep track of all the conspiracy theories.
Indentured servitude to Hillary's campaign.
Repeal of the First Amendment.
An obsessive quest to bring down Bill O'Reilly.
A tool in George Soros' evil plot to take over the world.
And now...
Willful encouragement of the growth and acceptance of class warfare.
And what do you call the widening rift between the middle class and the rich, hard werk?
Tommy wants to portray those who speak for the downtrodden as the ones who are at fault for class warfare.
Is it the downtrodden who are exporting the jobs?
Is it the fault of the downtrodden that 6 out of every 10 shipping containers that leaves the U.S. is EMPTY?
Is it the downtrodden who are working to break unions at every opportunity?
Is it the downtrodden who lobby against raising the minimum wage?
Is it the downtrodden who are happy with the status quo on our wonderful free-market of healthcare insurance?
It's not class warfare when the haves do all they can ot make sure that the government keeps the laws on their side, it's only class warfare when the have nots say "Wait a minute, something isn't right here" and start pushing back.
I'm so happy to live in a world where the Right has proclaimed itself the ultimate arbiter of what words mean.
BROOKS: "Democrats do as well among top earners as Republicans."
Sloppy statement... However, what is significant, and what Brooks could have said with accuracy and imapct, is that Democrats don't do as badly with higer income voters as conventional wisdom might suggest. I think it's remarakable, and indeed encouraging, that well over 40% of voters earning over $100,00 vote Democratic. (But, $100,000 ain't what it used to be.) It is predicatble that, as the exit polls show, that percentage declines with voters earning over $200,000 annually.
good stuff.
and....how do people vote UNDER the 100,000 mark and why is that mark so important?
Because poor people get the shaft no matter who wins?
Why define who rich people vote for? Why not define who the less advantaged money wise, vote for. There certainly are more of US than there are of the rich.
But that would revive all the arguments about why the poor are discriminated against at the one place they might (otherwise) find justice: the polls themselves, where to be poor is to have no right to vote, beyond whatever margin of victory the rich have piled up on their fraudulent voting machines.
Put another way: the primary interest in finding for whom the poor vote, would be to prove that they cannot be allowed to vote.
Brooks and MMfA are both promoting statistcal and logical fallacies in their assumptions.
Brooks does not prove that the % gap between Dems and Repubs in voting habits of earners over $100k is insignificant to the point that "Dems do just as well". MMfA does not prove that the gap is significant enough for Brooks to be making a false statement by saying "just as well."
And, both Brooks and MMfA are taking one set of statistics on an arbitrary salary boundary and making the assumption, when neither's correlation has been statistically proven: that the income level of the voter was the primary or even a significant reason for them to vote Dem or Repub.
I know CNN, Tucker etc came up with the $100k figure, but it's so arbitrary that MMfA should do better than to use it; I would think that a family of 4 living in NYC on one worker's $100k salary feels differently about life than a single person living in Utah and making $100k.
Dexterita:
"And, both Brooks and MMfA are taking one set of statistics on an arbitrary salary boundary and making the assumption, when neither's correlation has been statistically proven: that the income level of the voter was the primary or even a significant reason for them to vote Dem or Repub."
I disagree. Not only does MMfA choose stats from several elections, but it also looks at two salary "boundaries." Not only does the data show that Republicans get more of the wealthy votes than Democrats, butt it also shows that the differential grows larger with greater income. I see that as a QED moment.
I know Tommy lives by the idea that Democrats engage in class warfare but when you've got rich people like Warren Buffett telling folks he's only paying 17.7% in income taxes (and not even taking any special deductions, either!) while his secretary pays 30% on her $60,000 salary I'd say there is a case to be made that the real class warfare is being waged at the expense of the middle class, not by it. That being the case, one has to ask oneself which party constantly fights for the rich?
It's all based on capital gains. While Warren pays only 15% on his capital gains, which accounts for many millions if not billions. His earned income, which also might be in the millions and taxed at the 30%+, is reduced percentage wise to the extra 2.5% of his total tax, because the enormity of his capital gains.
What I think is lost in all this is that Buffet pays out in actual dollars millions more than his office worker even though his percentage of income is much lower.
Of course, picking the country's second/third richest man who makes his money investing, skews the results.
ps. I'm all in favor of a simple flat tax (or couple of brackets,) them on all income.
Well, you could be right, he only makes $100,000 a year as CEO. But irregardless, he obviously thinks it unfair that his secretaries get to keep less of their earnings than he does regardless of the fact that he is still paying in millions. He appears to be an advocate of fairness.
"ps. I'm all in favor of a simple flat tax (or couple of brackets,) them on all income."---Anotheramerican
I'm curious, if you had your druthers---not limited to what's politically possible---what form of taxation would you like there to be in America, and why? Which form would be best as far as fairness, disinhibiting economic growth, personally to AnotherAmerican, ease of collection, marginalization of the underground economy, limiting (or conversely increasing) the size of government for wars and social programs and infrastructure etcetera, or any of the other many aspects of society affected by taxation which you think important.
For example, using a sales tax and eliminating income taxes or reducing them. Or a head tax where everyone basically pays the same amount (not just percentage wise). Elimination of taxation on capital gains. Inheritance taxes. User fees. Or some other method or combination of methods.
Or is the method not so important? Is the total amount collected, within the parameters you think fair, the big thing? And how that’s achieved not really that important?
And what about the role of local taxation versus federal? What do you see as the optimal arrangement, or constitutionally correct system if you prefer?
You can say anything you like here. You’re anonymous and I, for one, would not disparage you if you were to say, for example, that the only really fair tax is a head tax and that alone. Because you’re not bringing it up, I’m asking you. You seem to give a lot of thought to economic matters and I appreciate that.
Eddy,
This a day late but I'll answer in case you come back to it.
I am open to several options. I like the idea of a flat tax, no deductions. I would like to see it for every level of government. Primarily I am in favor of simplifying the tax code and eliminating deductions. Will it ever pass? I don't know. I'm not opposed to making it progressive, based on income up to a point, say 30%. However I'd keep it simple with no more than say 10 brackets.
I am not opposed to a consumption tax in lieu of an income tax although I think it might be hard to enforce.
You mention some other options. Maybe your idea of a head tax would also work. I'd like to learn more.
I think having a flat tax would eliminate a lot of the games played by our elected representatives and give the people of our country a simple measurement so politicians can't simply spend, spend, spend.
snoopy, we should all know that Mr. Buffet's secretary does not pay $18,000 in federal income taxes. His/her marginal rate on a few of the AGI $ may be taxed at 30%, but with personal exemptions, itemized deductions, etc, the 30% figure may not even be valid in this case. Buffet makes a point and is using hyperbole to drive the point home. Shame on him for that and I don't think the Treasury would turn down any extra $ he would like to contribute.
This is ridiculous. What is wrong with these people??? Overwhelmingly, rich people vote republican, unless they (1) are so rich that the money no longer matters and (2) they made their fortunes somewhere other than in business/industry. (Actors, entertainers, etc... and maybe Union Bosses & some, admittedly liberal, lawyers & lobbtyists.)
Most of the rebublicans I know couldn't give a $#!+ about social values, abortion, anti-gay-whatever, pro-christain-whatever, as long as they don't pay a single cent more in taxes, or have to accomodate even the most miniscule regulation of industry. (Or they'll say they do, but in fact are total hypocrites about it.)
The rest of the "base" are gullible christian-zombies who vote against their own economic interests because the Republican's have somehow convinced them that they're who Jesus would vote for. (And they'd rather harrass homosexual's and fight harmless thigns like pornography and marijuana than live in a free-country with real and equal opportunity for everyone.
NiceGuy, you are talking about the Tag-Along Republans who are in the working class but are made to believe that the enemies..gays, pro-abortionists,liberals...are destroying America. The republan party is nothing without voters who earn under 100,000 a year. Therefore, the hate vote is what carries the R's...for the wealthy-wealthy, their main concern is to buffer themselves from the lowly masses and do so by having the lower classes fight amongst one another. Why do you think that Welfare will NEVER be eliminated? And the Tag-Alongs wanted it eliminated. Amazing.
The greedy, controlling the stupid. Boy, that for makes one helluva majority!
Why do you assign negative motives for groups of people whom you do not know? I realize it is an easy thing to do and you are not alone but it lacks any meaningful insight. Saying some Republican voters are hateful and greedy while others are dumb and tag-a-longs is really only an expression of ignorance on your part.
Obviously you have no clue what motivates the other side. Reducing it to hate, gullibility, and fear only shows your lack of understanding as to what motivates many voters.
To rely on these negative stereotypes is not only false, but also does not do your side any good in trying to convince people of your ideas because of it's condescending nature.
On the other hand, AA, if the casting is correct, there remains no possibility of persuading those folks, anyway: the greedy will always favor their avarice over any other consideration, and the stupid are, well, stupid.
Con,
It goes without saying that there are greedy people and lower IQ people, but to argue they all belong to one party over is also not intellectually honest.
If I am wrong, please cite your statistics that prove otherwise.
i have no problem with anyone being republican. there are issues of the traditional gop agenda i agree with. but this is not that party. they're following a know-nothing do nothing lazy idiot over the cliff.
An interesting response, AA. But - you are incorrect in saying that "I don't know the group." I DO in fact know many Repbulican's - both rich ones and religious ones. They are many of both my friends and my family. So I'm not approaching this never having to spoken to one. I know them well, and was one myself at one point. (Truth be told, I can still be called a "Yankee Republican" in the mold of Alen Spector, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, etc...)
As for thier motivations... Well let's first look at GREED. They want to make more money. (Don't we all.) There's no other reason to want lower taxes (again, don't we all, but it also means fewer services), looser labor or environmental regulations, or indeed regulations of any kind. The only reasonable critism of ANY of these regulations is that they cost money. Now that's absolutely true, but what do you call the desire to get more money (at the expense of your workforce, the enviroment, the customer, etc...) OTHER than GREED? Call it what is it! It's GREED. No point denying it. (And there's greed on the left too but don't try to abs0lve your side of it, or I'm calling shenanigans!)
As for IGNORANCE? Well, if you don't benefit directly for the republican's fiscal policies, and you'd have to be pretty well-off in order to, then what's left is what the right (mistakenly) calls "social values." The problem is that they now paint every single social issue in terms of a radical, evangelical Christian religion that believes: 1) The earth is only 4000 yrs old. 2) That were were created out of nothing, rather that eveolved. 3) That the earth is going to be destroyed (rapture) in the next 50 years or so... (The list goes on and on and on...) And if we aren't willing to teach this crap in schools as if it were HISTORY or SCIENCE (in clear violation of he 1st amendment, not to mention COMMON SENSE) then they cry about a "war on God" or some such BS. If that's not IGNORANCE I don't know what is. (And while they've been pushing the religious agend for decades, it's gotten steadily worse over time, whether by Fallwell-Robertson-Dobson, or by Gingrich '94 and Bush '00.)
And just to be clear I don't need (or even want) to convince you that my IDEA is better than yours. You can have any position you want on any issue - that what america is all about. But you should not hold that position because of ridiculous (and demonstably false) fundametlist dogma. And if you hold the position becuase of GREED (wether (for example) Conservative (on taxes) or Liberal (labor unions) at least have the moral courage to ADMIT IT.
Eddie,
The greed you mentioned is universal. It is not unusual to want to keep what one has earned. Many feel different government programs are a waste of money and would rather they keep their own money rather than let politicians spend it foolishly on programs of dubious value. Some of those earmarks we read about certainly qualify.
I would be interested in knowing how many people actually believe in the fundamentalist and strict literal interpretation of the Bible. My guess is that it is very few. Some of the facts you cite are too specific and are new to me. (The 4,000 year old one is new as is the rapture in 50 years.) There is a whole range of beliefs, but by citing the most extreme examples, it looks to me like you are fixating on wildest. The vast, vast majority of Republicans do not hold those beliefs.
Your reliance on the extreme to make your case is similar to those who might saying Democrats believe the Oceans will rise by 20 feet unless we stop driving cars. Yes, some believe it, but not most.
All I'm saying is don't characterize Republicans as particular greedy or dumb. It isn't true and it makes you sound extremist.
Brooks is of course wrong. Was there really even a doubt that higher earners vote Republican? Why wouldn't they? That's voting your best interests. Kind of like homosexuals voting Democratic.
or another way to say is that some Republicans are a bunch of selfish bastards who won't give a few cents out of their riches that will last a lifetime to help someone less fortunate.
...won't give a few cents out of their riches. Lynn
If only that were the case. Its much more than that.
I'm all for charity and helping the less fortunate but having it mandated by law is just wealth redistribution. And all I get from the Democratic party is the promise that it will increase.
Exactly Dave,
When Americans, the most generous and giving people on the planet, have more money to give to charities through lower taxes, and help those less fortunate, undoubtedly more would do so......just look at the outpouring of money when we are hit with some disaster.
We don't need power hungry, greedy politicians to distribute it for us, thank you.
As usual, the charitable giving amounts to about 2% of the need. But, since they had government assistance in the theft from the public, of their wealth, of course the wealth are among the least giving in those times of crisis. Redistribution is the only equitable approach, and terminate wealth at the death of the creator thereof. Oh, and ban the concept of a Corporation as in any sense embued with rights. Then legislate the death of Corporations at age 50, with the treasury taking all the assets and the stock . . . Then, let the market rule, as it has never before been allowed to rule.
"Kind of like homosexuals voting Democratic"
Kind of, Dave...
Gay Democrats want legal rights, such as the right to marry each other...and other things, of course, such as not being beaten up just because they're gay.
On the other hand, gay Republicans are satisfied just to engage in illicit gay sex in secret. All they need for that is a closet to hide in...a closet with easily opening doors, however, just so they won't be late for roll call so they can vote against the rights that gay Democrats want.
Got it...?
The gay republicans have a closet. I believe it's a bathroom stall located in some airport...
"..a bathroom stall located in some airport..."
True...but the doors are especially well lubricated to allow easy exit to get to Congress in time to vote against gay rights. Republicans maintain a wide stance against such abominable ideas as gay rights. Gay Republicans see no reason to grant gays the same rights that straight people have because gay Republicans aren't really gay. Got it...?
Republicans maintain a wide stance
Larry Craig apparently has a wide stance when he's in the stall, so I've heard!
Larry Craig...wide stance?
I've heard that too. I've also heard Mr. Craig communicates well with his hands...
Also something about tap dancing, or toe tapping, I forget.
Toe-tapping Larry...?
Yep...I also heard that Larry Craig is light on his feet. The problem is that Larry seems to be ashamed of that... I dunno, seems sad that Larry can't bring himself to dance out in the open.
The Republican National Convention being held in Minneapolis-St Paul, 2008 and we are taking reservations for airport stalls, however stall #3 is reserved for Larry Craig. Just a single since his wife will not be present.
So, Pearlene, you mean stall number three will have a new roll of toilet paper? Along with candles, fresh flowers, a comb and a toothbrush...? ;>)
Hey Dave
I understand your support of the Republican Party it's coming from your self confessed unabashed selfishness, but how do you explain those that are way way less financially blessed than you are who vote for the Republicans? The majority of people in the south vote Republican and I am sure that the majority of people in AL, LA, MS, etc... don't make over 200,000 per year.I've often asked myself that question. I'm just guessing that maybe the folks in the south who vote R are maybe just a bit more proud and don't want the handouts the D's promise (and after listening to the debate, there's alot of them upcoming) them they will get knowing that its on somebody else's dime. Its only my guess though.
Nope...some of it (not all or everyone) has to do with racism. The unspoken subtext in the South is that the Democrats want to give everybody's hard earned money to the lazy minorities.
So, you are saying that people who want lower taxes and less government, but just happen to live in Birmingham, are most likely voting Republican due to racial motivations?
No, Tommy, that's not what I said. It is seemingly inexplicable to many why so many white working class people, who do not directly benefit economically from Republican economic policies are so staunchly Republican. What I said was that part of it, "not all or everyone", was racism.
I have no supporting studies and can only share anecdotally what I know to be true. There are many working class people here in the South (and not just stereotypical toothless rural types) who will gladly tell you that the problem with this country are the (insert "N" word) and that, in their opinion, Democrats "want to give everything to the (insert "N" word).
It's true, Tommy...it's a whole 'nuther world down here. Like civilization done passed it by. And these people of which I speak are aggressively devout Republicans.
Save your effort telling me Democrats have bad elements, too...I know that.
I understand there are some people who vote for either party for less than honorable reasons, but you automatically assume that white working class people couldn't possibly vote Republican because it's the party of the rich, and they don't care about them.......that they need Democratic policies in order to make it financially, which is absurd.
Many working people want low taxes and limited government, they don't want the "rich" soaked because they know they will be soaked as well - the promise of a tax hike for one class, affects all - and they know that.
Tommy, you're putting words in my mouth. I stand by what I said...as written. No more...no less.
but you automatically assume that white working class people couldn't possibly vote Republican because it's the party of the rich, and they don't care about them...
Growing up in frankfort michigan I can say for a fact a lot of the small business republicans (including my dad) started saying that during the reagan years. My dad went to the grave believing the republican party had abandoned thier principles and the middle class in favor of rich and theocratic rhetoric.
Kind of like homosexuals voting Democratic.
Have those Log Cabin guys switched to the Democratic party?
What I find interesting is MMFA's argument rests on EXIT Polls. We know how accurate they were in the 2000 election and 2004 election.
I am amazed that they are used at all except that the networks want something to talk about.
I know I only speak for myself, but I routinely turn down requests from pollsters. Even though they say they are accurate using statistical measurements, everything you get from a poll, especially on election day, is suspect. How do we know the respondents were actually in the income ranges they stated?
I'd like to see a poll of how many would like them outlawed. :-)
It's funny how the only time there is suspicion of voter fraud, somehow the exit polls are wrong.
I'm not sure why anyone would lie about that on an anonymous poll. If people voting both ways lied the same amount, then it doesn't make any difference. If the idea is that Democrats are lying, saying that they make more money than they really do, then the numbers are even more skewed than Brooks realizes, and his point is even less valid (if that's possible).
The only way this helps Brooks is if Republicans lied about their income in great numbers, skewing the results to make it look like top earners vote that way more. Is that your contention?
I'm saying I don't know. I personally do not put much faith in any polls. I know how many little things, can skew the results. If I remember correctly, some of these polls are based on samples of less than 2,000 people. Besides that, there is a built in error because the respondents are not randomly selected. On top of that, there is no way of verifying income, actual voting, or anything else. The pollsters simply record whatever the respondents decide to declare. The pollsters have a vested interest in claiming the accuracy of the exit polls. To suggest voter fraud as some have done when the actual results don't match the exit polls is in my mind intellectually lazy.
I have no data, only personal reflection, but it seems to me that there is no way to verify the income of the respondents, therefore I don't trust the numbers and the resulting conclusions.
How do you figure they aren't random? Are pollsters targeting specific types of people? The fact that you avoid pollsters doesn't mean that there isn't someone on the left who does the same thing. Why would that be a partisan matter?
And of course they're not verifiable, but unless you have some legitimate reason to believe one group is lying about something, then such doubts are utterly meaningless.
If exit polls aren't largely accurate, then we shouldn't be using them to determine fraud in foreign elections.
Brab,
These polls are not random, but biased. A random sample would theoretically approximate the whole group. Any deviation from a true random sample, introduces error into the sampling pool. Statistics have been developed to try to offset that sampling error. But it is all based on probability.
Exit polls are by their very nature biased. How biased? We don't know. First of all, the group is now reduced to people who will take the time to answer polls. The views of people like me, who won't waste their time on answering these questions, are not included. The motiviations of the respondents are not questioned, nor are their responses. You could have a few mischievous types skew the results by not answering truthfully. You also might have people who are very political, answer questions to make the other side look bad. We'll never know.
Sometimes the exit polls closely resembles the actual voting. Other times it does not.
You bring up a good question regarding poll watching in other countries. There are so many influences that can come into play, (intimidation and fear for example,) those exit polls may well indeed be useless.
You can introduce as many possibilities as you like. Maybe there are aliens answering questions. Again, unless there's some basis for believing one side is inaccurate and the other isn't, unless there's some rational reason to see a disparity there, then it's meaningless. So you don't take the time to answer it, what makes that a partisan factor? Why would there be people being mischeivous on one side, but not the other? Without some explanation, then it's irresponsible to charge "bias" either way.
Of course there will be minor deviations, but the idea isn't to get a dead-on prediction, it's to establish a range of understandable results.
Brab,
You are correct that many influences my influence the polling. (Ask Kucinich about the aliens.)
You make my point without realizing it. Any deviation away from a purely random sampling, skews the results. Simply picking those who decide to respond to the exit poll removes from the random sample, all those who for one reason or another don't respond.
I've heard it argued that activists respond to the polls in order to make their side look good. That might in part have been what happened to Gore in 2000. You don't need a lot of people to do it and it can influence later voting in Western States.
As far as demographics, we have no way of knowing whether one is telling the truth or not about income or political affiliation. I would assume most would not lie, but some might. As I said earlier there is no way of knowing how many. How can you say your results are accurate when you don't know if a small group of respondents could be purposefully skewing the results? Your only comeback seems to ask why would they? I've given you a number of scenarios that could be reasons. The point is we don't know.
Again, there has to be some reason to believe that the deviation isn't occurring on both sides. So activists are more likely to respond. Where on earth are there activists for one side and not the other?
It's not supposed to be pure gospel, sure there is a possibility that something could be skewed for one of your reasons. But it is a very strong indicator of what the results should be, and it's cause to look deeper into matters. The way it works is you look at the polls and they don't match the votes, and it happens to be where there's no paper trail. Or it happens to be where an extraordinary number of people, especially Jews, are voting for Pat Buchanan. That shows you something's wrong. What is silly is to dismiss it as an indicator completely because it's possible that there's some conspiracy to skew the polls.
Curiously, the Florida exit polling predicted exactly what the result turned out to be when all the Florida votes were recounted - and Gore had more votes in Florida than Bungle.
Oddly enough, the very same is true of an incomplete re-count in Ohio, 2004 - incomplete because the Repugnant local officials illegally destroyed the ballots before the recount could be completed: Kerry won Ohio by precisely the same margin he had carried in the exit polling, up until the exit poll numbers were frozen because the results were supposedly coming in.
If I were ever asked, I would void all the electronic counting, and use only the exit polls henceforth, until we get back to all-paper ballots, which can be recounted until an answer is fully verified.
I'd like to see a poll of how many would like them outlawed. :-)
Properly done scientific polls are the last defense of democracy. Without them our leaders can claim to be doing the will of the people, even if it's not true. Without polls we are defenseless against the claims of our elected leaders until we can kick them out at the next election.
Barring impeachment or recall we are defenseless anyway.
Do we want legislators and administrators basing their decisions on what they think is the right thing to do, or base it on the will of the majority at every step?
Wouldn't it be great if none of the politicians had any idea who was leading in the polls? I would suggest they would then argue their beliefs rather than what they think people want to hear. That would be better for all of us.
Our form of government is a representative democracy so our elected officials would not be subject to shifting whims of the majority, which we all know can be finicky. There is only one poll that counts and that is election day. The rest of the polls only mess things up.
AA, I was thinking that, being a "hiveminder" and all, but you expressed it much better than I would've. And as I recall, slavery never came up as a polling issue. Good thing too...it may have lost back then.
Dave,
Not sure what you mean by 'hiveminder'. I've seen Solon rely on it, but would like to hear from you what you mean by it.
I too was using Solon's analogy that Republican's are hiveminder's, He's used it as many times as he's used moron. I think it has something to do with his opinion that R's cannot think for themselves and have some sort of beehive mentality or that Rush does all the R's thinking. Anyway, your point was a correct one.
Strawman. The idea isn't that they have to conform to the polls, but it should be known whether they are representing the people or not. If they aren't, then there should be a good explanation of why. Dave's example of slavery is an excellent example of a case where there would be a good argument for going against the will of the people;human rights. On the other hand, if the overwhelming majority of people favor a health insurance program (hypothetically), then there should be an better explanation for opposing it than "duhhh...socialism!!". Determining who works for the people and who works for special interests is key to our Democracy.
I agree to a point, but many issues are far too complicated and their details and ramifications are just not easily polled for or against.
We elect leaders based on their integrity, intelligence, honesty and experience.....making tough decisions and not pandering to voter's whims of the moment is what I expect them to do. I don't always have to agree or even like it, but if they can demonstrate to me why they believe or vote a certain way, and be an effective leader with convictions and not just "finger to the wind" mentality, then I respect them and their decisions.
"...many issues are far too complicated and their details and ramifications are just not easily polled for or against."
Then that's a good example of where a politician can explain the details that the people don't understand, and why those details lead them to vote against the people's will. That would be perfectly understandable. I think we're in complete agreement here.
I would sincerely love to see politicians vote on principle rather than partisanship, but it's probably a pipedream considering their political lifeblood depends on their party's support and "straight down the line" discipline.
I don't take too kindly to politicians who do the poltiically expedient and savvy thing, ones that pander and tell me what I want to hear - I don't care what party they belong to. Polls be damned for me, tell me why you vote the way you do, stand by your decisions and defend them and basically tell me if I don't like it, vote against come next election.
As long as you're honest, it's all cool......
Brab,
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "they". I'll assume until you correct me, that you mean our elected officials.
The two sided sword of our system of representative democracy is that elected officials won't get elected if they don't reflect the will of the majority. However, by constant polling, they are tempted to flip-flopping on issues or taking stands on what the majority wants at that moment. Constant polling only increases the likelihood of pandering to the majority rather than simply governing by their beliefs.
We see that with lots of politicians on both sides.
I think you have to recognize the lesser of two evils here. If someone is purely without principle, and bases their vote entirely on polls, then the flip-flopping is an excellent reason to kick them out of office. You introduce a means of making a valid criticism.
On the other hand, without knowing what people want at all, politicians are free to dictate anything. "I've only gotten a couple of calls opposing the war, but hundreds supporting it". It makes it immensely more difficult to hold our representatives accountable.
AA: When you refer to the exit polls from the 2004 election scoff at their accuracy, because thhe polls did not match the "vote counts." But let's look at a few facts:
1) Exit polls, unlike preelection polls, do not ask someone who they will vote for, they ask someone who they just did vote for. There is no reason to believe that exit polls would be less reliable than preelection polls--if anything they should be more reliable.
2) The exit polls taken in Ohio suggested that Kerry was going to win Ohio, but those results did not match the counts.
3) It has been proven numerous times that the Diebold machines used in Ohio could be manipulated without a trace.
4) For the exit polls to be so wrong, a statistically significant number of people who just voted for Bush would have had to tell the pollsters that they voted for Kerry. Frankly, I do not know a single person who voted for Bush who would have told anyone that they voted for Kerry, so I find that hard to believe.
5) The only other possibility is that the polls were not wrong, but the counts were wrong. Hmmm, is that possible? Let's see, the Diebold machines can be manipulated, Diebold's CEO spoke at Republican fundraisers, and some Ohio election officials (Republican) were indicted after the 2004 election for various election frauds. So, the Republicans had the means to manipulate the voting results, the access to do it, and the morals to do it, and the counts did not match up with the exit polls. Is it possible, just possible, that maybe the exit polls were not so wrong after all?
Exactly. That's why they're such a good indicator of fraud. Let's say you have 30 districts and three of them have skewed results. Those happen to be the only three where there is no paper trail. What are the odds of that just being a coincidence? I believe it would be 1/10 times 2/29 times 1/28. I could be wrong, but I think that would mean the odds are one in 4060. This isn't my forte, but I'm sure the odds aren't very good.
Mark,
All precincts are not included in exit polling. The polls might be weighted in favor Democratic precincts or they may favor Republican precinct. We don't know. But that could influence the result on top of the people who chose to respond.
There is no way of knowing if one group offsets another group in exit polling.
Some of the polls were off. Some were not.
I live in Ohio and there was no voter machine fraud. Can you show me one instance where voting machine tampering was prosecuted? If my memory serves me correctly, the precincts with the most errors in Ohio were in the big cities, controlled locally by the Democrats. It is pure conspiracy theory to state the elections were stolen in Ohio.
The fact that the exit polls did not match the final results only proves my point about their accuracy.
AA: You flatly state that there was no voter machine fraud in Ohio. Because it has been proven that the votes on those machines can be manipulated without a trace, how do you KNOW there was no voter machine fraud in Ohio? That is the problem with using those machines. If your premise is that such fraud has not been proved, you are right. But you just make blanket assumptions--the exit polls were wrong and the counts were right. All I am asking is what if it was really the other way around? Your posts just ignore that possibility with no proof at all as to why that could not have happened. Those machines coupled with the exit polling should raise some doubt in your mind as to the accuracy of the machine counts. But you do not even acknowledge that as a possibility. Why not?
And these are the same exit polls that incorrectly projected the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections? We have no reason to believe they are any more accurate about this topic than they were about that.
What are the three things people lie most about? How big is their wallet. What are their politics? How often and with whom are they having sex?
These nosey pollsters are asking about two of these three things.
NL: As I asked, how do you know that the exit polls were not right and it was the counting of the votes that did not refelect reality, since those results were so eaily manipulated by the use of the Diebold machines? Your post just assumes that the exit polls were wrong and the vote counts were right. What if it was the other way around?
Evidence supports those exit polls, both in 2000 (Gore matched, in the overall recount, the result from the exit polls) and particularly in 2004 (Kerry led the exit polls by almost exactly the same margin that was yielded by the fragment of recount - about 22% - that was completed before the local Repugnant officials illegally destroyed the remained of the ballots).
the remainder of the ballots.
Let's see. If I read the lead in right, those earning over $100,00 are rich and those (from the SCHIP topics) earning less than $40,000 are poor, that must define the middle class as $40,000 to $99,999. How do we grow the middle class, because we know the poverty threshold will go up next year and the year after.
You know, I wouldn't mind the rich giving us money, just as long as they don't expect tax breaks.