So says the data according to Andrew Gelman. I think there is some serious issues with self-reports of whether someone is a conservative or liberal which don't occur with political parties. People know whether they are Republican or Democrat in a more concrete manner because they have often realized their preferences through voting.
More like this
Eliezer Yudkowsky is on bloggingheads.tv with one of my favorite producers of brain-candy, the statistician Andrew Gelman.
One of the argument from Andrew Gelman's Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State which has percolated into the punditocracy is that the
Earlier this week Andrew Gelman suggested that it looks like Barack Obama's election had less to do with "realignment" then an overall tilt in the electorate, which just managed to "tip" a few borderline states.
In response to the debate between David Frum and
I'd guess that it's due to people voting their pocket books rather than their ideology. At high enough incomes to get in the heavy tax brackets, that means voting Republican and if you're poor enough to qualify for public assistance, it means voting Democratic.
At the extremes, I suspect the pocket books determine the ideology. Social ideology is really a luxury neither the rich nor poor can afford.
Caledonian, according to Gelman social policy is the preserve of the rich.
It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claiming respect for "traditional values," independence, hard work, and disguised appeals to racism and xenophobia.
We can see it in the health care debate.
In the long past, conservatives were concerned with conserving something (beyond inherited privilege).
It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claimin
the lower the income of a white person the more likely they're to vote democrat. so the premise is false.
Yeah, TGGP, but rich people who institute social policies incompatible with their remaining rich stop controlling social policy.
Even if they might prefer policies that don't involve their retaining a stranglehold on power, they must institute them or be replaced and dominated.
It's all a giant game of "King of the Mountain".
"It is just the genius of the Republican party to get people who are actually hurt by their economic and other policies to vote for them by (often falsely) claiming respect for "traditional values," independence, hard work, and disguised appeals to racism and xenophobia. We can see it in the health care debate. In the long past, conservatives were concerned with conserving something (beyond inherited privilege)."
The Western world is running out of its carrying capacity for people like this.