Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Political Paradox

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2013 7:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of the great political paradoxes is that these two things are both true:

1.) State average income is negatively correlated with support for the Republican Party.

2.) Income for individuals is positively correlated with support for the Republican party.

In other words, rich states vote Democrat while rich individuals vote Republican.

Interesting paradox.

But, the explanation for this is fascinating.

Basically, in Red States, there is a very large positive correlation with income and likelihood to vote Republican. In other words, income is a very good predictor of political preferences in poorer, red states.

In Blue states, the correlation is much smaller.

To summarize, income is a good predictor of political preference in poorer, redder states. Income is a weak predictor of political preference in richer, bluer states.

There is a common view that the working class and some poor have shifted towards the Republican party. However, that is not true. Republicans are still much richer on average than Democrats.

The key thing here is that the difference in blue states and red states is not among the poor. The poor are pretty strongly Democratic everywhere. However, the difference is among the middle class and upper middle class.

In red states, the middle and upper middle class are very conservative to offset the poor. In blue states, the middle and upper middle class have similiar political views to the poor.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 2:57:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 5:06:39 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
if that were really true than democrats would win every election

How so?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2013 4:18:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2013 3:38:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
And Democrats states do better economically because they enact better policy.

trollface

Lol. Not really. Red states are growing faster because they tend to have better policy.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 7:01:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 7:25:42 PM, BigRat wrote:
One of the great political paradoxes is that these two things are both true:

1.) State average income is negatively correlated with support for the Republican Party.

2.) Income for individuals is positively correlated with support for the Republican party.

In other words, rich states vote Democrat while rich individuals vote Republican.

Interesting paradox.


It' not really a paradox, however it is quite interesting nevertheless. When you think about the underlying ideologies it makes sense. Democrats tend to think more in terms of the collective, and Republicans tend to think more in terms of he individual. So it makes sense that successful Individuals prefer Republicans, and successful states prefer Democrats.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 7:16:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/22/2013 7:25:42 PM, BigRat wrote:
One of the great political paradoxes is that these two things are both true:

1.) State average income is negatively correlated with support for the Republican Party.

2.) Income for individuals is positively correlated with support for the Republican party.

In other words, rich states vote Democrat while rich individuals vote Republican.

Interesting paradox.

Poor, uneducated white people and very wealthy white men generally vote for the Republican party. The educated overwhelmingly vote more for the Democratic party. Women of upper socioeconomic footing and women who have good educations very infrequently vote Republican unless they are married (or host a Fox News TV program -joke). Demographic studies are interesting, insomuch as how they reveal correlations of political and socioeconomic variables.

But, the explanation for this is fascinating.

Basically, in Red States, there is a very large positive correlation with income and likelihood to vote Republican. In other words, income is a very good predictor of political preferences in poorer, red states.

The even greater paradox is that those states which tend to vote for the GOP often have the highest levels of receipt of (especially federal) government benefits.

In Blue states, the correlation is much smaller.

lol

To summarize, income is a good predictor of political preference in poorer, redder states. Income is a weak predictor of political preference in richer, bluer states.

It's a bit more nuanced than that, but almost. Rather, people tend to vote for Democrats across more income levels, in heavily "blue" states.

There is a common view that the working class and some poor have shifted towards the Republican party. However, that is not true. Republicans are still much richer on average than Democrats.

Actually, that varies by zip code, precinct and education level.

The key thing here is that the difference in blue states and red states is not among the poor. The poor are pretty strongly Democratic everywhere.

Except below the Mason-Dixon line.

However, the difference is among the middle class and upper middle class.

Not necessarily the case, and this varies by region, ethnicity and education level.

In red states, the middle and upper middle class are very conservative to offset the poor. In blue states, the middle and upper middle class have similiar political views to the poor.

There is a lot of stuff about this on JSTOR, and the thing to take away from any study is to not ignore voter turnout, or make assumptions about it. The problem with most studies, is that they focus on exit polling (which is unverifiable), phone surveys (which precipitate a sample bias), and generally flawed sampling methods, etc. Its hard to account for those contingencies, and some do it well, others do it less well -and a whole lot of bullsh!t gets published that shouldn't be. Sloppy sampling is the death of any survey, and MANY times the numbers are skewed and/or conclusions just cannot be drawn from them for a multitude of reasons that don't often meet the eye.
Tsar of DDO