[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[luiz]

I agree, but it helps to disprove the even more ubiquitous notion of "blue moochers", which was the point.

Not really, poor people do vote Democrat, both in red and blue states.

I wouldn't call them moochers because of that, though.

 

[Murky]

Not really, poor people do vote Democrat, both in red and blue states.

I wouldn't call them moochers because of that, though.

I know lots of poor rednecks (being from Missouri) who vote based on conservative morality (i.e. Anti-Abortion, Anti-LBGT) and some even see Democrats as socialist. The majority of the poor in urban areas are minority groups that view the GOP as being racist (which lots of Republicans in the south are) so they obviously aren't going to vote them in large numbers.

 

[luiz]

I know lots of poor rednecks (being from Missouri) who vote based on conservative morality (i.e. Anti-Abortion, Anti-LBGT) and some even see Democrats as socialist. The majority of the poor in urban areas are minority groups that view the GOP as being racist (which lots of Republicans in the south are) so they obviously aren't going to vote them in large numbers.

See the link below:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/presentations/redbluetalkubc.pdf

Basically, it's a myth that the poor in red states are rednecks who vote Republican because of "God, guns and gays". That's your own observation bias.

Poor people vote in a remarkably similar pattern accross the US. The difference between red and blue states is not how their poor vote, but how their affluent vote.

 

[Murky]

See the link below:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/presentations/redbluetalkubc.pdf

Basically, it's a myth that the poor in red states are rednecks who vote Republican because of "God, guns and gays". That's your own observation bias.

Poor people vote in a remarkably similar pattern accross the US. The difference between red and blue states is not how their poor vote, but how their affluent vote.

Good points, but it's still up for debate. We should probably take it to another thread for that.

The 2004 results are a bit dubious to source data from because of the right-wing fraud that was taking place to make sure Bush got his 2nd term (which turned out to be a disaster).

 

[downtown]

See the link below:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/presentations/redbluetalkubc.pdf

Basically, it's a myth that the poor in red states are rednecks who vote Republican because of "God, guns and gays". That's your own observation bias.

Poor people vote in a remarkably similar pattern accross the US. The difference between red and blue states is not how their poor vote, but how their affluent vote.

I'm reading through all of this...but if the only variable was how rich people vote, why aren't poor states like Utah and Idaho Democratic? There are far more poorer people (incomes under 35K) than wealthy in those states...they aren't red by just the margin of the wealthy alone.

 

[Traitorfish]

Good points, but it's still up for debate. We should probably take it to another thread for that.

The 2004 results are a bit dubious to source data from because of the right-wing fraud that was taking place to make sure Bush got his 2nd term (which turned out to be a disaster).

Wait, wouldn't that imply that poor people were in reality even less likely to vote for Bush than the link suggests, but were somehow (let's not open that can of worms...) scrubbed from the records? Which seems to be the opposite of what you're claiming.

 

[Murky]

Wait, wouldn't that imply that poor people were in reality even less likely to vote for Bush than the link suggests, but were somehow (let's not open that can of worms...) scrubbed from the records?

They were mainly targeting minorities (making it more difficult for them to vote and their voting places were more prone to "error" in recording and tallying the votes).

 

[Traitorfish]

They were mainly targeting minorities (making it more difficult for them to vote and their voting places were more prone to "error" in recording and tallying the votes).

I don't see how that changes anything. It still implies an artificial skew towards the Republicans, which is contrary to the error you seem to be implying, that the report is somehow presenting lower-income people as more likely to vote Democrat than they really are. It simply doesn't follow.

 

[Murky]

I suppose that the argument that the affluent demographic decide elections is true in that they have more money to influence elections.

 

[Mise]

The thinking in the U.S. is that we need to expand fossil fuel production to meet growing demand. Clearly Europe has increased its Electricity capacity without relying too heavily on fossil fuels. The major difference is that there is little resistance to switching to renewable energy in places like Germany, whereas in the U.S. nearly every renewable energy project is getting push back from the fossil fuel lobby. We could've had so much more renewable energy if not for the resistance to switching by powerful fossil fuel special interests groups.

Oh, I see - yeah, that makes perfect sense then. I though you meant to replace existing requirements, not to meet new demand.

 

[Arwon]

Certainly right now pretty much all new capacity should be wind. Until you get to 20-25% of total actual generation, there's not really any difficulty except the grid guys learning how to inegrate it. Large amounts of wind even brings the wholesale costs of electricity down.

 

[Cutlass]

Wind doesn't generate enough revenue for the fossil fuel and nuke industries.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I was going to point out how we've been posting less graphs, but I see no trend:

 

[Mise]

The last column is wrong

 

[Save_Ferris]

The last column is wrong

Whatever, I already spent 20 minutes making it.

 

[luiz]

I'm reading through all of this...but if the only variable was how rich people vote, why aren't poor states like Utah and Idaho Democratic? There are far more poorer people (incomes under 35K) than wealthy in those states...they aren't red by just the margin of the wealthy alone.

I guess it's not so much rich but non-poor. From what I gathered the poor vote in a remarkably similar way throughout the US, while the non-poor differ from blue to red states.

 

[Arwon]

I was going to point out how we've been posting less graphs, but I see no trend:

If you could find a way to graph all the non-chart posts by what chart they're referencing, that might be interesting.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

From what I've read, Republican leaning states receive more from the federal government primarily because of the Social Security program. Republican leaning states tend to have larger populations of senior citizens. This is partially because older people tend to be more conservative, but also because of happenstance of geography. Republican leaning states tend to have warmer, milder climates, which are attractive to retired people from colder Democratic leaning states. The statistics are heavily skewed by people who paid into the system while living in "blue states" and then were paid by the system once living in "red states."

 

[Cutlass]

I haven't seen numbers on that. But a lot of places in the North have the problem of a lot of elderly people retired there and a lot of younger people moving away. Many areas of New England are like that.

 

[Mise]

I guess it shows that the graphs on e.g. page 14 (and possibly 15) were so interesting that we spent basically two full pages talking about them.