Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on January 14, 2002, 10:44:29 AM
-
Can I get an "Amen" ? :)
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/p8d5cc17d9177d19a9d9f99c5fd21cdf6/fdffe183.jpg.orig.jpg)
-
Ahh. Greasing the wheels of commerce.
-
rofl. Good picture :)
-
The question is: If the subway driver knew who was being pushed in front of him... would he even bother to brake?
-
For the benefit of foreigners and other people who aint got a clue here......why? Who is she?
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
Hillary Clinton.
-
Oh right......ok. Didnt know she was disliked that much......
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Oh right......ok. Didnt know she was disliked that much......
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
She isn't
:cool:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
She isn't
:cool:
LOL!
-
Swoop, you are gazing upon the most disliked woman in all of American (if not world) politics. Rudy needed to push harder, perhaps wrap a leg in front of her shin...
-
Swoop.....she was elected to a Senate seat in New York. She is hated by conservatives. She was also rated as one of the top attorneys in the country prior to Bill's election (not female attornys...attorneys period). Some thought she may have been the brains in the family. I think she has had some of the sins of her husband dropped upon her. As with most other "black and white" issues in these boards...she is neither as bad nor as good as people say. It is just hip for conservatives to hate anything Clinton.:p
-
Hillary is so beloved.
Here's a county map of New York; Hillary won the counties in BLUE. Lazio took the ones in red.
"Clinton won in and around the heavily Democratic cities of New York, Albany, Buffalo, and Syracuse, and virtually nowhere else. She won only 15 of 62 counties, in stark contrast to Bill Clinton's 51 counties in 1996, and barely more than half of Gore's 27 counties. Excluding the counties containing the ten largest cities, she won 6 of 50 counties. The map below paints a striking picture."
(http://www.citlink.net/~tomlane/map.gif)
Selected Statistics for Counties Won Clinton Lazio
Number: Clinton 15 Lazio 47
Area: Clinton 9902 sq. mi. Lazio 37,322 sq. mi.
Violent crime rate: Clinton 9.3 per 1000 Lazio 2.4 per 1000
Households receiving public assistance: Clinton 12.8% Lazio 5.9%
Teenage pregnancy rate: Clinton 11.3% Lazio 5.5%
Source:
Hillary's Mandate (http://www.citlink.net/~tomlane/)
-
This is hearsay and may be wrong, someone correct me if I am. Hillary is much disliked in her home state of New York because of a comment she made about 4 NY Police Officers that killed a citizen and were subsequently accused of wrongful death in this case. Hillary called them murderers. They were later acquitted of any wrong doing. Now she is booed almost everywhere she goes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Selected Statistics for Counties Won Clinton Lazio
Number: Clinton 15 Lazio 47
Area: Clinton 9902 sq. mi. Lazio 37,322 sq. mi.
Violent crime rate: Clinton 9.3 per 1000 Lazio 2.4 per 1000
Households receiving public assistance: Clinton 12.8% Lazio 5.9%
Teenage pregnancy rate: Clinton 11.3% Lazio 5.5%
Source:
Hillary's Mandate (http://www.citlink.net/~tomlane/) [/B]
Luckily our democracy is based upon people and not land mass. The logic here I guess is that all elected officials should come from Alaska? Then you could quote the crime rate stats for Nome in winter....that would really be good!
Where is that "number of votes received" stat?
-
Target's right, Toad. Politicians ostensibly represent people, not acreage. It's an election, not a war.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Luckily our democracy is based upon people and not land mass. The logic here I guess is that all elected officials should come from Alaska? Then you could quote the crime rate stats for Nome in winter....that would really be good!
Where is that "number of votes received" stat?
If we were a straight democracy you would be correct sir, alas we are a representative republic who choses it's leaders through democratic elections. If they had something similar to the electorial college for states, Lazio might well be the Senator instead of Hillary. Look at the Bush/Gore map of the USA it looks pretty much the same as the NY map, blue/red ratio wise :) This way you don't get the population centers telling the country folk how to do their business.
-
The only thing you have wrong is her home state, which is Illinois. Otherwise you are correct.
Part of her plan to upend Rudy's run for senate was to illustrate how he let the police run rampant. She therefore had no problem jumping on the police when it met her needs. Naturally this must now be embarassing for her, given the sudden rise in popularity of police and fire workers. That she had the gall to try to jump up on the stage in front of them during their concert is an indication of her overwhelming need to be in front of the cameras. Luckily, they gave her the welcome she so richly deserved.
Hillary wants to run for president in 2004; look for more grandstanding attempts.
-
Originally posted by Udie at Work
If we were a straight democracy you would be correct sir, alas we are a representative republic who choses it's leaders through democratic elections. If they had something similar to the electorial college for states, Lazio might well be the Senator instead of Hillary. Look at the Bush/Gore map of the USA it looks pretty much the same as the NY map, blue/red ratio wise :) This way you don't get the population centers telling the country folk how to do their business.
Even if the state of New York were set up in an electoral college fashion with counties offering a certain number of electoral votes, Clinton probably still would have won. Electoral votes per state are based on population, and the popular winner of a state receives all of its electoral votes (a ploy that strengthens states with large populations, not small ones). With a winner-takes-all-strategy, a candidate can win 15 low-population states and still receive fewer electoral votes than a candidate who wins one massive state (e.g. California or Florida). This would be the same in New York -- Lazio may have won every "electoral vote" from all of the highlighted counties, but their lower population levels would have meant that the fewer but more populous counties won by Clinton still would have yielded a higher electoral total.
What a lot of people are forgetting is that the candidates winning the popular vote have traditionally won the electoral college as well. The 2000 election was a bizarre fluke that highlighted the systemic problems with the electoral college, but the basic pattern stands. Population is more important than acreage.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Kieran
The only thing you have wrong is her home state, which is Illinois. Otherwise you are correct.
I thought to be a senator you had to reside in the state?
-
I thought to be a senator you had to reside in the state?
Yes, that's true. Remember when Bill was in all that hot water and Hillary moved out and bought a house in NY? Yup, she was establishing residency. Even Bill's bad situation played to her favor, garnering her the sympathy vote.
What was laughable was her showing up at Yankee ballgames with a Yankees' hat and acting like a native New Yorker. She began attacking Rudy at this point, and was making pretty good progress. Honestly though, when she sat down to dinner with a few Arab leaders' wives I thought she would lose the Jewish vote for sure.
-
New York has a history of electing "short term" residents as Senators. Hillary has a residence in the State, just like RFK did in the 60's.
Home State.....aint where you're born, its where you live!
-
The electoral college is picked from the popular vote. Therefore the populous vote does represent the electoral college vote and vise versa.
In all but 1 or 2 states the group of electors is chosen before the election. One group representing the democrats and the other republicans. As the populous vote comes in for the state and is tallied whoever has the most from the populous, democrat or republican, is then selected to represent the state at the electoral vote. This vote does not actually happen for some time after the election.
The members that have been picked to represent the state during the electoral process are usually hard-liners to their party and would not switch votes, but it has happened a few times in the past. A republican electoral party is sent to the capitol, based on that states popular vote, and then one of them voted democrat. Needless to say it’s political suicide to do.
So, the electoral college is a representation of the popular vote. By instituting the same system to counties the results would have come out the same.
What outlining the number of counties and how they voted shows is the disparity between rural communities and metropolitan areas in the way they think and believe. I won’t argue that one is better than the other but it should be disturbing that there can be such a difference in beliefs based on the location of your house.
I know two people in about the same situation as the other but one lives downtown K.C. and the other the boot hill of Missouri in the sticks. One wouldn’t think of taking assistance from the government and damn near kill’s himself trying to make it. The other sits on their bellybutton all day and does nothing. Where do you think each lives?
Zippatuh
-
If they had something similar to the electorial college for states, Lazio might well be the Senator instead of Hillary.
QUICK, call the Supreme Court!
It might not be too late to steal another election! :p
-
Socalist health care.
False billings at her Law firm(please show me what you base that top lawyer info on-other than total billings).
Lost records in her control.
"squeaky" firings of non-political staffers to employ her friends.
Whitewater.
Vince Foster.
I won't dispute she is the brains of the family, but I will dispute the cumulative total thereof.
Yeah, America LOVES her.....
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Yeah, America LOVES her.....
Maybe you don't, but the rest of America seems pretty split on the issue. The latest summary of polls through November at Polling Report (a nifty website that summarizes the results of major polls on a wide variety of issues) shows that 44% of Americans approve of Hillary Clinton and 44% disapprove of her, with the rest undecided or indifferent.
Unfortunately, the website doesn't break down the findings into subcategories, as I'd be interested in finding out how Republicans and Democrats split on approval/disapproval. Any guesses? :)
Here's the link: http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
What outlining the number of counties and how they voted shows is the disparity between rural communities and metropolitan areas in the way they think and believe.
Zippatuh
~DING!~ Give the man a SEE-gar.
The acreage stat is (IMO) not too awfully significant....
but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?
The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.
-
..
-
Originally posted by Toad
~DING!~ Give the man a SEE-gar.
The acreage stat is (IMO) not too awfully significant....
but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?
The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.
LOLOLOLOL...........Please Government....save us from those Plebians! This is racist bullcrap hiding in a cloak of ignorance. The crime rate, teen pregnancy rate and public assistance rate is higher in the inner city? Shocker!
Maybe the people living in this sesspool of iniquity wanted a change so they voted for Hillary.
Quoting statistics means nothing.............the map is not the territory.
:cool:
-
So at the end of Hillarys term you expect these figures to eaven out? :)
All I saw in Hitlerys campaign were the usual we fix all promises of left leaning politicans.
Real leaders like, Rudy, actually do things to fix problems.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Maybe the people living in this sesspool of iniquity wanted a change so they voted for Hillary.
:cool:
You mean kinda like where the governor uses his state troopers to bring him prostitutes? ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So at the end of Hillarys term you expect these figures to eaven out? :)
[/B]
If you look at the pattern of support for Hillary Clinton over time, the even split in support actually came after lower support (39%) a couple of months earlier. Unless that's within the margin of error of the poll, her support numbers are actually increasing over time.
It's very difficult to tell if those numbers will go up or down by the end of her term. Job-wise, she's benefitting from a resurgence in public approval of Congress. The state of the economy at the end of her term will also benefit or hurt her reelection chances. However, barring her doing something phenomenally stupid, I don't suspect that these numbers will change dramatically.
All I saw in Hitlerys campaign were the usual we fix all promises of left leaning politicans.
Real leaders like, Rudy, actually do things to fix problems.
All of which is fine and good, but it has nothing to do with public opinion or the misperception of a general hatred toward Clinton as claimed in this thread. I think there is a hatred of Clinton within a certain partisan or ideological segment of this country, but polls show that this dislike does not manifest itself among all Americans.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.
There are many that feel as you do Kieran, what I take offense to, is posting this:
"Swoop, you are gazing upon the most disliked woman in all of American (if not world) politics. ".
That is not true.....some dislike her, some hate her, some feel she is a strong woman who mad the mistake of being a strong woman. Your views do not constitute even the majority of Americans. Why couch them as such?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.
I'm not writing to how you or anyone else on this forum feels about Hillary, Kieren. What I am writing to is this mistaken notion that a personal dislike for Hillary Clinton somehow equates to a universal dislike for her. Public opinion polls show that this is simply not the case.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I'm sure those of you familiar with my example realize that only the Roman Citizens could vote. Roman citizenship was pretty well restricted to Romans only, with some exceptions. So, in the example, racism obviously had no role.
The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made :) )
When the societal view shifts... as it did in the Roman Empire... to the view that voting yourself "bread and circuses" is an acceptable and indeed desirable goal, then sooner or later the non-workers inevitably outnumber the workers. This creates a situation that cannot last.
-
So the thread begins with Hillary Clinton and now turns to an argument about the unsustainable nature of American democracy because people vote for "bread and circuses?"
I don't see it, sorry. The reason lower class individuals (large numbers of which are located in New York City) tend to vote Democratic is that Democrats favor policies that benefit and appeal to them... the exact same reason that upper class individuals tend to vote for Republicans.
Instead of seeing this in the classicly stupid "more government" and "less government" debate, think of it in terms of the Philip's Curve of inflation vs. unemployment. Lower class individuals favor fiscal policies that decrease unemployment at the expense of inflation; they tend to live paycheck to paycheck, so having a job outweighs how much their money will be worth in ten years. Upper class individuals favor fiscal policies that reduce inflation at the expense of unemployment; the sorts of jobs possessed by upper class individuals typically aren't affected by increasing unemployment. However, they face the possibility that their long term life savings will substantially devalue over time due to inflation.
Democrats and Republicans favor different fiscal policies. Can you guess which party supports which policy? Why should it be any surprise then that urban, lower class voters support policies that benefit or appeal to them?
Now please take down the "bread and circuses" straw man you've built up. It doesn't belong here. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I think the connection between the street populas in ancient Rome and today's population centers is obvious. I believe the phrase "being on the dole" even has latin roots.
If you've ever wondered why a higher proportion of welfare recipients vote Democratic, here is your answer. If you relied on welfare, would'nt you vote for the politician who promises continued or increased welfare?
Sure, there are exceptions, but generally, its just human nature. I think that was a good observation, Toad.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So the thread begins with Hillary Clinton and now turns to an argument about the unsustainable nature of American democracy because people vote for "bread and circuses?"
That is called "positive feedback". At best system working in positive feedback mode will stabilise some state extrememy far from optimal - when it hits some external restraint or it runs out of resources. In most cases such systems just break to pieces.
The way it will happen in US is the "lower class individuals" voting for policies that appeal to them in the short term disrupt the foundation of our economy and reduce it's competitivness and productivity.
If you try decrease unemployment by making it hard for companies (rich) people to fire employees, it will greatly and negatively affect their ability to do business. So eventually teh employment will be lower even while "protected".
Same with inflation - high inflation makes the country unattractive for investments which results in outflow of jobs and wealth.
The "bread and circuses" comparison is not a straw man but very apt here - besides food and entertainment romans voted the means to ensure the suppy of them those B&S.
Which ment constant warfare and subjugation of other countries for purposes of extortion. At some point their ability to hold the empire's provinces and extended borders exceeded their means and romans were forced to accept military services of barbarian chiefs and offer them citizenship - that is when the whole system collapsed.
Rich men have longer horizons then poor men and are more actively interested in long-term prosperity of the country even though the collapse would be more harmfull to poor men - losing money is much better then death of starvation. That was the reason why countries throughout the history attached some property requitement to citizenship franchise or voting rights.
miko
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm sure those of you familiar with my example realize that only the Roman Citizens could vote. Roman citizenship was pretty well restricted to Romans only, with some exceptions. So, in the example, racism obviously had no role.
The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made :) )
When the societal view shifts... as it did in the Roman Empire... to the view that voting yourself "bread and circuses" is an acceptable and indeed desirable goal, then sooner or later the non-workers inevitably outnumber the workers. This creates a situation that cannot last.
Here is why I think your post was racist....even if you are not:
but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?
The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.
We were discussing the inner city and their support for Hillary in the election. Is there any doubt that "Plebian" refered to those inner city people? Or at least to the supporters of Hillary or her politics? The historical meaning of Plebian is kind of irrelevant when taken in the context of your example.
" The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made ) "
But the people in the suburbs or country don't fall into your "human nature" wanting something for nothing? What would be the difference? Aren't they all people? Should we look at the racial demographics for the 2 candidates and apply those numbers to your point? Of course it would look racist.
-
So what? Anyone who lives in a metropolitan area are enlightened individuals while the rural folks are just racist rednecks? I don’t see how race was drawn into this other than by you stating it.
As far as jobs and living paycheck to paycheck. My mothers’ family is from a small town in Shanon county Missouri where there are three places to work. Walmart, where there is a waiting list for the ones who work there to retire and you have to drive quite a distance to get there. The hat factory, which by the way goes in and out of business as it is easier and cheaper to make ball caps over seas. And working the tourists at the river, which is obviously seasonal at best.
The county votes republican. Who’d a thunk.
Zippatuh
-
I must be slipping......I thought it was very clear. Ahhh well.:rolleyes:
One more try....
Toad was saying that it is human nature to "take something for nothing".
Based upon the thread, I assume that Toad leans more to the right and was commenting on Hillary's support in the inner city and metropolitan areas.
Consequently it looks very much like the inner city/metropolitan people are the ones Toad ment wanted "something for nothing" and were being refered to as "Plebians" in his post.
So......the "Plebians" are inner city types and want "something for nothing" while good upstanding (white?) republicans live in the country and do not want "something for nothing".
I hope this helps.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The way it will happen in US is the "lower class individuals" voting for policies that appeal to them in the short term disrupt the foundation of our economy and reduce it's competitivness and productivity.
[/B]
Nonsense. If you've ever studied economics or the Philip's Curve, you'll find that there is an optimal equilibrium point between inflation and unemployment. The more you push in one direction, the more you receive diminishing returns while exaggerating the impact on the other. So you can damn near eliminate inflation, but you'll do it a massive cost to unemployment, and vice-versa. Responsible fiscal policies balance the two. Political debate centers over just where that optimal equilibrium point happens to be.
Edit: It occured to me that I should probably explain the Philips Curve better. Its began as an observation about the apparent statistical tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. If we witness an increase in aggregate demand in an economy with a fixed supply, price levels increase (inflation). Companies scramble to meet this increased demand by increasing their production capacity; they do so by hiring new employees (decreased unemployment). If, on the other hand, aggregate demand decreases with a fixed supply, price levels decrease (deflation). Companies now overstock goods and must reduce any unneeded personnel (increasing unemployment).
This gets more complicated with things like short-term and long-term Philips Curves, but I hope you get the idea. It's not so much, then, that Democrats favor "job protection" as it is that they favor policies meant to increase aggregate demand (i.e. lower class payroll tax breaks). Republicans tend to favor policies that either reduce aggregate demand or increase aggregate supply (hence "supply-side economics" from the Reagan era) through things such as corporate tax relief.
Try not to think of it terms of "long term" or "short term" here. Zero percent inflation in the long term at the cost of 50% of the jobs in the American economy is hardly forward thinking.
If you try decrease unemployment by making it hard for companies (rich) people to fire employees, it will greatly and negatively affect their ability to do business. So eventually teh employment will be lower even while "protected".
Same with inflation - high inflation makes the country unattractive for investments which results in outflow of jobs and wealth.
[/B]
Economic history rarely agrees with your assertion that high unemployment and high inflation go hand in hand. Inflation may actually be the sign of a strong economy with very high growth and very low unemployment. The Federal Reserve's efforts to slow down the growth rate of the economy (via interest rate increases) throughout the 1990s was also an effort to stem inflation during a robust period of growth and high employment. About the only time period I can think of that witnessed both high unemployment and high inflation would be the "stagflation" era of the 1970s.
The "bread and circuses" comparison is not a straw man but very apt here - besides food and entertainment romans voted the means to ensure the suppy of them those B&S.
Which ment constant warfare and subjugation of other countries for purposes of extortion. At some point their ability to hold the empire's provinces and extended borders exceeded their means and romans were forced to accept military services of barbarian chiefs and offer them citizenship - that is when the whole system collapsed.
[/B]
Did you know that welfare constitutes less than 1% of the federal budget? The vast majority of discretionary spending goes toward defense, and the vast majority of non-discretionary spending goes toward Social Security (and to a much lesser extent, Medicaid/Medicare). It's possible that America is moving toward a point where its needs exceed its means, but it probably won't be due to assistance to lower class families.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
The county votes republican. Who’d a thunk.
Obviously there will always be cases like the one you've cited, but your example doesn't disprove the general argument. I'd be happy to provide links to the National Election Studies website at the University of Michigan for you. Their excellent work since the 1950s routinely shows a strong relationship between income and party affiliation among voters.
Here's the link: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Just for the record....I think she's a nasty scruple-less skank who gets votes/approval by telling the easily persuaded what they want to hear; when in reality she could give a toejam as long as they further her career.
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We were discussing the inner city and their support for Hillary in the election. Is there any doubt that "Plebian" refered to those inner city people? Or at least to the supporters of Hillary or her politics? The historical meaning of Plebian is kind of irrelevant when taken in the context of your example.
"Plebeian" is, of course, used in its strictly historical sense because this is obviously a purely historical observation. The Roman Empire did begin to fail when the plebeians (Etymology: Latin 'plebeius' of the common people, from 'plebs' common people) began to realize that it was easier vote themselves the things they wanted instead of working for them. Race was essentially a non-issue in the enfranchised section of that society.
Now, are there people in US society that have reached the same conclusion? Of course there are. Are some of them in the cities? Certainly. Are some of them in the rural areas? Certainly.
Is that a racist observation? Only to some people. Some see racism everywhere. Some see a claim or "racism" as the card that "trumps" all other arguments, removing the need for factual discussion. :D
But the people in the suburbs or country don't fall into your "human nature" wanting something for nothing?
Check those stats again. "Households receiving public assistance: Clinton 12.8% Lazio 5.9%" Quite obviously, there are some in the rural (Lazio) counties that have figured it out as well.
I pause here to note that I am most certainly in support of helping people who actually need help. There ARE folks that need financial assistance and I am more than happy to contribute.
At the same time, I'm realist enough to know that there are some who are quite content to freeload. I personally believe this segment is growing pretty fast.
The original observation stands: historically, a succesful society destroyed itself when the "common man" found he could vote himself the things he desired instead of working for them.
I believe ANY society that follows that path will suffer pretty much the same fate.
Now if you want to make that into a "racist" statement... that would be the product of your mind, not mine.
-
I think it funny.
People that post to this thread are not from New York (barring several)
Tend to your own State. Let New York take care of itself.
-
Originally posted by blutic
I think it funny.
People that post to this thread are not from New York (barring several)
Tend to your own State. Let New York take care of itself.
There's nothing wrong with a healthy interest in politics regardless of where it's located. Hillary Clinton is a national figure serving in a national institution, and she is therefore worthy of discussion by everyone.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
THe Roman empire was the most multiethnic/multicultural/multireligious/gayrights/liberal permissive and in the end most socialist/communist culture in all of history yet they were militaristic opressed women crushed revolts/dissent and were one of the greatest slave users of all time, they were also the most powerful and technologically advanced for their time. They even had a few BLACK (or as you libs would say African-American :D ) Caesars IIRC.
Kinda wierd huh?
As for the communist remark, well read up on the food distribution schemes and associated things especially towards the end.
-
OK Toad.
So your comment about the Plebians was strickly historical and made no reference to either Hillary or Lazio supporters...Is that correct?
The acreage stat is (IMO) not too awfully significant....
but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?
The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.
Why are these rates significant if you were not referencing the difference between the rates for the supporters of each candidate (Clinton and Lazio). If your reference was "strictly historical" why is it relevant to this issue?
It seems obvious to me you were making the point that the Clinton supporters were the ones "voting themselves bread and circuses". And since these people tend to be urban as pointed out by others in this thread........the connection is again obvious.
I promise to never throw out the "Race Card" without a logical explanation. I would also like to point out that I never called YOU a racist. I think your comment is a wonderful example of the racism unconsciously exhibited that we still have to deal with in our society.
-
No, it's an overall observation; the "bread and circuses" approach is eventually unsupportable by any society, past or present.
Note once again that the posted stats show results for BOTH candidates.
The "acreage" stat isn't important in any way that I can determine. It's a "gee whiz" filler.
OTOH, add the rates together for both candidates in the Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate categories.
What does it say about our society then? Taken TOGETHER? A good thing? I don't think so.
YMMV.
(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)
-
Tah Gut/DMF-
Point to any, any female politician that is more universally disliked. Your polls mean nothing in that context.
I stand on my original observation.
-
(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)
OK Toad. I accept your explaination as I realy have no way of knowing what was in your mind. S!
OTOH Combining a 12% rate and a 5% rate doesn't give you 17%. The combination of the 2 would be weighted toward the greater population base and would end up somewhere between 12% and 5% probably closer to 12 than 5.
-
Indira Gandhi :D
Of course she's gone now.
Did Maggie Thatcher ever have an approval rating lower than 40%?
-
The % are looking only at the folks who actually voted, I believe. So a few things. The stats are probably not representative of anything except that. In other words, in the overall general population of the State of NY (voters and non-voters alike) the percentages could be either higher or lower.
I think in the limited voting group, you could add the percentages.
Lots of stuff missing in these "quick" stats. For example, the % in any category for Hillary or Lazio could be either urban or rural. The stats don't say where they live, just who they voted for. One must assume that the candidates each had supporters in both areas.
So, summing up once again, to me the important thing is that "bread and circuses" will never work... and it seems that b&c is becoming a popular philosophy.
-
Plus you have to look at WHO they polled!
I remember Gore boasting about how his approval rating was better than Bush's but he failed to mention that they only polled Democrat counties.
Polls don't mean diddly!
-
As long as Hillary has eyes on the Democratic nomination for 2004 and there is the least possibility of her getting it, I will be very interested in all that she does. That is what we are supposed to do, right? Stay abreast of our political leaders? Her being a very integral part of one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history makes me doubly interested.
I don't apologize at all for those feelings, she earned my distrust, ten-fold.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
As long as Hillary has eyes on the Democratic nomination for 2004 and there is the least possibility of her getting it, I will be very interested in all that she does. That is what we are supposed to do, right? Stay abreast of our political leaders? Her being a very integral part of one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history makes me doubly interested.
I don't apologize at all for those feelings, she earned my distrust, ten-fold.
DITTO to that!
She said back in her Senate campain that she would serve out her full term, which should eliminate her from the 2004 race. So I fully expect that she will run. She'll do it just to be the first woman to run for President.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
(BTW, if it bothers you that Hillary's supporters lead these categories... and that it appears "racist" to even post the comparison... that again is in your mind. In my mind, the problem is that the combined total of these stats is pretty high... too high.)
C'mon, Toad, you're stretching here. I've already stated that there's a a strong statistical relationship between income level and party affiliation. I'd be happy to run a quick analysis of the entire NES dataset from 1948 to 2000, which contains the pooled responses of over 48,000 people over that 50+ year span. I can absolutely guarantee you that not only will income be a statistically significant predictor of party affiliation, but it will also be a powerful one. Now, guess what factor also stands as the most important predictor of which candidate we vote for in an election? Party affiliation.
So generally speaking, those with lower incomes tend to be Democrats and vote with the Democratic party. It's pretty obvious that those with lower incomes are going to receive higher levels of public assistance than those with higher incomes. Unfortunately, there are also connections between low income/poverty and both pregnancy rates and violent crime.
I never really saw your argument as racist, but it does fail to recognize the demographic realities driving voting behavior. I'm sure I could pick out some other statistics like white-collar crime to show that Lazio supporters are all embezzlers, but that's just as empty an argument as the one you're making.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Point to any, any female politician that is more universally disliked. Your polls mean nothing in that context.
I didn't say that Hillary Clinton wasn't the most disliked female politician. In fact, I think you're probably correct there judging by her overall disapproval rating. Where you're wrong again is in claiming that she is universally disliked. Sorry, but this just isn't the case given the statistically even split between those who approve of her and those who disapprove of her. With a 44% disapproval rating, not even a majority of those polled dislike her. That's hardly "universal."
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Plus you have to look at WHO they polled!
I remember Gore boasting about how his approval rating was better than Bush's but he failed to mention that they only polled Democrat counties.
Polls don't mean diddly!
Did you check out the link I provided? It consisted of an idex of polls from various respected polling organizations such as Gallup. Gallup employs very scientific methods of randomization to ensure an accurate cross-section of respondents. In addition, even if this particular poll was somehow biased in favor of Democrats, the results over time suggest a consistent pattern of support (or lack of support) for Hillary Clinton. It's very, VERY unlikely that Gallup and three other polling firms would consistently oversample Democrats in the long run. As these poll results coincide with other polling firms and with previous polls by the same firm, they're probably pretty reliable. As well, polling organizations "weight" results that oversample one party over another, granting more statistical weight to those respondents whose party has been undersampled.
In other words, polls do mean diddly whether you agree with them or not. I think a healthy cynicism of polls and polling techniques is a good thing... we should always know the exact question asked, for instance, and we should know how many people were polled. However, I do think your blanket condemnation is unwarranted.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Todd, we're off the trail into the brush here.
My argument is that a society that votes itself bread and circuses won't survive very long. There's evidence in these meager stats that both "parties" probably have folks that think they can freeload.
Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?
Doesn't matter........ no society can long survive a populace that would rather vote themselves largess than work for it.
Plenty of Republican AND Democratic hogs, rich and poor alike stuff themselves at the public trough. It can't last.
I'm against the "Bush" part of the stimulus plan that dumps huge amounts of money on CEO's that move good-paying US jobs overseas while blaming the American worker for being greedy and then vote themselves bonuses larger than the GNP of Latin American countries for doing so.
Just as I am against the "Daschle" part of the stimulus plan that dumps huge amounts of money on the Federal Government in the form of taxes. Anyone with half a brain realizes that a huge percentage of this money will simply be wasted without doing a single thing for the "common man" while being used to fund "pork" that will insure the reelection of the "hog farmers" in Congress.
Why not let the "common man" stimulate the appropriate areas of the economy by spending his own money for the things he needs/wants?
The map shows the urban areas of NY... which are, I think, Democratic "strongholds" that voted for Hillary. The rural areas of NY which are probably Republican "strongholds" that voted for Lazio. Same was seen nationally in the Presidential race.
Urban areas have higher crime, teen pregnancy and assistance rates. Big suprise right?
Apparently it's immediately "racist" to point that out simultaneously with election results. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
My argument is that a society that votes itself bread and circuses won't survive very long. There's evidence in these meager stats that both "parties" probably have folks that think they can freeload.
[/B]
What you've described is a common problem with democratic systems identified by a fellow named Mancur Olsen. It's known as the paradox of collective action, where the tendency is to freeload if possible, because it yields the same benefits as working hard without the effort. The solution to this is to implement some form of oversight or punishment to ensure compliance.
We can't punish voters for how they vote, but members of Congress do face public scrutiny and oversight.
Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?
[/B]
Zippatuh, apparently.
Doesn't matter........ no society can long survive a populace that would rather vote themselves largess than work for it.
Plenty of Republican AND Democratic hogs, rich and poor alike stuff themselves at the public trough. It can't last.
[/B]
I don't disagree with you, but I'm not exactly sure how you were attempting to make this argument with your original statistics. Rates of public assistance, violent crime, and teen pregnancy don't seem at all connected to the notion of systemic largesse or pork barrel politics.
Also keep in mind that our system of government has not suddenly moved toward pork; the incentives were always there. Read David Mayhew's _Congress: The Electoral Connection_ sometime for more on that, but the basic argument is that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection (and always have been for that matter), and to that end they pursue activities that will get them reelected. These include advertising, credit claiming, and position taking. Credit claiming is the really important one, as members of Congress need to "bring home the bacon" to districts to show that they do things for their constituents. They've done this since the beginning our of Republic, and they're very good at it judging by reelection rates.
Why not let the "common man" stimulate the appropriate areas of the economy by spending his own money for the things he needs/wants?
[/B]
The problem is having money to spend on those appropriate areas. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck don't have much choice in how they're going to stimulate the economy, and those who don't but fear for their jobs probably aren't going to be spending very much. One role government fulfills is improving aggregate demand through interest rates and taxes.
This still doesn't really speak to levels of teen pregnancy, violent crime, or public assistance, however. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
What you've described is a common problem with democratic systems identified by a fellow named Mancur Olsen. It's known as the paradox of collective action, where the tendency is to freeload if possible, because it yields the same benefits as working hard without the effort.
Olsen may get the credit but I'm willing to bet that observant folks had this figured out a LONG time before he published. ;)
The solution to this is to implement some form of oversight or punishment to ensure compliance.
Which the US has pretty much failed to do and is unlikely to become more successful at.... IMO, of course.
We can't punish voters for how they vote, but members of Congress do face public scrutiny and oversight.
Sure they do... by the very people they attempt to buy off with "pork barrel politics" on both sides of the aisle. If one has figured out the "paradox of collective action", who is one likely to vote for and keep in office if possible? A reformer? :)
I don't disagree with you, but I'm not exactly sure how you were attempting to make this argument with your original statistics. Rates of public assistance, violent crime, and teen pregnancy don't seem at all connected to the notion of systemic largesse or pork barrel politics.
They aren't my statistics. The thread was drifting into "is Hill liked or disliked". I found that page that pretty much lays out who voted for her in the NY Senate election and some demographics.
My comment at the end is a Historical observation on the whole US political election process. Seems to me the electorate is moving towards "bread and circuses" rather than what the founders had in mind for the role of the Federal Government.
...members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection (and always have been for that matter), and to that end they pursue activities that will get them reelected.
No argument there. The difference that I see is that now we're moving towards an attitude described by the "paradox of collective action" and I believe this is a sea-change in the electorate. I've only taken an interest in politics over the last 30 years but I think even I can see a change occurring since my youth. I'm sure my father sees it even more clearly when comparing it to his youth. It's not the POLS that have changed... most of them have always been scalawags. It's the ELECTORATE that's slipping.. IMO, of course.
The problem is having money to spend on those appropriate areas. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck don't have much choice in how they're going to stimulate the economy,...
So the solution is to raise their taxes, giving the each LESS money to spend between paychecks. Sorry, I don't agree.
and those who don't but fear for their jobs probably aren't going to be spending very much.
So if they don't spend it, they'd be saving it? We KNOW the government is going to be borrowing heavily due to the war/security costs (those smart missiles that we have nearly run out of aren't cheap) so a rise in the personal savings rate would be a BAD thing? Wouldn't that help keep interest rates down?
Also, given a drop in demand... since this group is going to quit spending and save... won't prices fall in response, possibly triggering a buying spree? Sort of like the 0% interest offer did for autos?
Jeez, last time we hit economic difficulties all the pundits were telling us we don't save enough.
One role government fulfills is improving aggregate demand through interest rates and taxes.
OK, aggregate demand is:
"the total level of demand in the economy. It is the total of all desired expenditure at any time by all groups in the economy. The main groups who spend are consumers (consumption), firms (who spend on investment), government (government expenditure) and overseas (exports)."
So you're telling me that HIGHER taxes is going to "improve" the "total level of demand in the economy"?
What's your idea of "improve" then? We may have different views about "improvement". ;)
-
Hmmmm, do I agree or disagree with income dictates party affiliation? Interesting question. I see that links have been provided to show that conclusively the amount of income an individual makes will indeed dictate how they vote. I pondered the idea of searching state specific examples, as I am more familiar with Missouri then NY or the entire nation. I unfortunately do not have the time so here are some educated guesses and thoughts.
I would make the suggestion that citizens living in metropolitan/urban areas have a higher income on average than that of the rural communities. I say this due to the corporate structure, mass production, and generally an abundance of middle income job prospects. You don’t have to be a computer programmer; the black jack dealers at the boats do just fine. As well as the Ford plant, cold storage facility, and whatever warehouse jobs there are out there.
This to me would suggest that in all actuality the voting would be reversed. Republicans voting in lager populations and democrats in smaller less financially stable areas. This doesn’t seem to be the case. Now here is my point. Taking party affiliation out of it. Why is there such a difference between voting depending on the location of your house?
This tells me that two people making 30K a year but one in the sticks and the other surrounded by concrete will have drastically different views about the way government should be run. Why? Different values, morals, upbringing? What appears to be happening to me is that our country is being steered by its metropolitan areas. I’m not real sure how good that can be.
Zippatuh
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am gonna disagree with that strongly. most republicans i know are the middle class -- ie those who make 30 to 80 thousand dollars a year. most of the rich people i know are all democrats because they are rich anyways and taxes dont matter so much to them and they like to feel good and look good in front of their liberal buddies so they are all democrats. also i would say most people who are really freaking poor are democrats ebcause they want the handouts. but the real heart of the republican party is in the middle class, where you make too much to get free stuff from the government, but its enough where they rob you of 35% each year.
hey and im not a staunch republican -- i really dont like their views on conservation and the environment. but i am very against ANY form of government assistance program. it should all come from the community and via VOLUNTARY donations spurred on via tax incentives.
why should i have to pay taxes so the person living next door can get a net refund? if i want to give them something thats great but it should not be mandated by the federal government. you know what people did before welfare? they either starved or got a job. a growling belly is a good incentive to get off your bellybutton and go do something.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat
i am gonna disagree with that strongly. most republicans i know are the middle class -- ie those who make 30 to 80 thousand dollars a year. most of the rich people i know are all democrats because they are rich anyways and taxes dont matter so much to them and they like to feel good and look good in front of their liberal buddies so they are all democrats. also i would say most people who are really freaking poor are democrats ebcause they want the handouts. but the real heart of the republican party is in the middle class, where you make too much to get free stuff from the government, but its enough where they rob you of 35% each year.
[/B]
Demographics just don't back this up. Your own personal experience does not coincide with what we know from over 50+ years of polling. Just to test the hypothesis, I grabbed the cumulative NES dataset from 1948 to 2000, which pools over 48,000 respondents together, and performed a simple statistical analysis of the relationship between income and party affiliation. I did this in two different ways just in case a pure linear approach misstated the functional form of the relationship -- that is, it's possible that there's a linear relationship between income and partisanship up until certain income levels, at which point the relationship reverses itself (as you've suggested). In the first case, I just run a simple bivariate linear regression with PARTY ID as the dependent variable and INCOME as the independent variable. In the second case, I create a series of dummy variables (1 if true, 0 if not) for each income level except the lowest for INCOME... this will show us if there's a nonlinear relationship of the type you've suggested.
FYI, the National Election Studies measures PARTY ID on a 7-point scale scored as Strong Democrat, Weak Democrat, Independent-Democrat, Independent-Independent, Independent-Republican, Weak Republican, and Strong Republican. NES measures INCOME on a 5-point scale based on income percentiles, which allows us reliably compare scores from 1948 with scores from 2000.
Here are the results:
Model 1:
Constant = 2.873 (standard error = 0.028, p < 0.01)
INCOME = .246 (standard error = 0.009, p < 0.01)
Model 2:
Constant = 3.244 (standard error = 0.025, p < 0.01)
INCOME 2nd % = 7.357E-02 (st. error = 0.036, p < 0.05)
INCOME 3rd % = .297 (st. error = 0.031, p < 0.01)
INCOME 4th % = .567 (st. error = 0.032, p < 0.01)
INCOME 5th % = 1.298 (st. error = 0.051, p < 0.01)
Both models tell us the same thing pretty much. In the first case, the baseline PARTY ID score is 2.873 (close to Independent-Democrat), and each successive income level, on average, increases one's partisanship by .246 points.
The second model shows us the same thing by different means. The first income percentile averages a PARTY ID score of 3.244 -- somewhere between Independent-Democrat and Independent-Independent. Each successive level of income nearly doubles the average partisanship score. Compared to the lowest income levels, those in the highest income percentile consider themselves, on average, to be somewhere between Independent-Independent and Independent-Republican.
Stats geeks feel free to correct any inaccuracies.
why should i have to pay taxes so the person living next door can get a net refund? if i want to give them something thats great but it should not be mandated by the federal government. you know what people did before welfare? they either starved or got a job. a growling belly is a good incentive to get off your bellybutton and go do something.
That's a gross oversimplification of the way these things work.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
well stats dont lie and it seems you are right, the wealthier you are the more conservative you are. it would be nice to see age taken out of the relationship though. older people tend to be more conservative, and they also tend to make more money. from the statistics i have taken, you cannot draw a clear conclusion because there are other factors that you have not regressed against. to be truly fair, you would have to perform the study with income as the only independent variable and fix all other variables, such as the respondants sex, profession, ethnicity, and coutless other variables.
as for the gross simplification, i really dont believe you. people live the lifestyle they live in for two reasons.. 1) its how they were brought up, which is unfortunate. 2) that lifestyle is made possible by the social programs of the us government.
my father came to america 40 years ago and built his way from not knowing any english or any people living in the country he moved to all teh way up to where he is now, where he owns his own business, drives a nice car, and raised 4 great kids. he is 62 years old and he still works 70 hour weeks, because he has to. why? you cant find good help. he is doing well now, but you know what his first job was when he came to america? he was a janitor. then worked in a baseball factory. then he worked construction. and finally he opened up his butcher store.
now he makes good money, and you know how much education he has? 4th grade. to succeed in america, you don;t need an education even, though it certainly does help. all you need is ambition and drive. if people are lacking in those areas, let em fall by the wayside. its not those types who made america the nation it is today.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat
well stats dont
Reminds me of a story:
A company was interviewing for a new accountant. The first interviewee is asked; what is 2+2? The interviewee begins writing on the provided chalk board complex equations that uneqivically prove that 2+2=4. Thanks, they say, we'll let ya know.
The second interviewee is asked the same question; what is 2+2? The interviewee breaks out his slide rule and calculator. Through complex calculations proves that 2+2=4. Thanks, they say, we'll let ya know.
The third interviewee is again asked the question, what is 2+2? The interviewee scans the room and quielty says; how much do ya want it to be? You're hired!
-
Originally posted by Zigrat
well stats dont lie and it seems you are right, the wealthier you are the more conservative you are.
[/B]
Well, it's not a measure of ideology, it's only a measure of partisanship. Sociology and political science make a distinction between how ideological one is and how partisan one is -- after all, Southern Democrats until just recently tended to be extremely conservative. African-American males also tend to be very conservative ideologically, though African-Americans in general tend to vote Democratic.
it would be nice to see age taken out of the relationship though. older people tend to be more conservative, and they also tend to make more money. from the statistics i have taken, you cannot draw a clear conclusion because there are other factors that you have not regressed against. to be truly fair, you would have to perform the study with income as the only independent variable and fix all other variables, such as the respondants sex, profession, ethnicity, and coutless other variables.
[/B]
All of these other variables contribute in some form to partisanship, but it's doubtful that including them would significantly reduce the impact of income. Think of the theoretical implications of some of the stuff you're arguing -- how would sex or ethnicity covary with income? Why should their inclusion or exclusion from the regression equation in any way impact upon the relationship between income and partisanship?
There are simple ways of testing the things you've suggested. NES has hundreds of variables, and age, gender, ethnicity, and the like are all included. I just reran my first model adding the variables GENDER (a dummy that is 1 if female, 0 if male) and AGE (coded into various categories by age ranges, ranging from 17-24 up to 85+). Here are the new results when controlling for these variables:
Constant = 2.743 (standard error = 0.047, p < 0.01)
INCOME = .253 (standard error = 0.009, p < 0.01)
AGE = 3.196E-03 (standard error = 0.026, p < 0.01)
GENDER = -5.75E-02 (standard error = -0.014, p <0.01)
All variables are statistically significant predictors of partisanship. With the new variables in our model, income actually increases its impact on partisanship very slightly. Age has a positive and miniscule impact on partisanship -- as you advance through age groups, people do tend to become more Republican, but the effect is extremely small. Women also tend, on average, to consider themselves more Democratic than males (2.743 for males, about 2.69 for females on the PARTY ID scale), though again this effect is minor.
In other words, even if you control for things that theoretically could confound income, income continues to be a strong predictor of partisanship.
as for the gross simplification, i really dont believe you. people live the lifestyle they live in for two reasons.. 1) its how they were brought up, which is unfortunate. 2) that lifestyle is made possible by the social programs of the us government.
[/B]
So prior to social programs for the poor, the only thing keeping people poor was the way they were brought up? I don't suppose aptitude, access, opportunity, luck, or any of a myriad of things mattered then. Lyndon Johnson once remarked, upon driving through the Texas countryside while observing workers in the field, that the only difference between him and them was being in the right places at the right times.
now he makes good money, and you know how much education he has? 4th grade. to succeed in america, you don;t need an education even, though it certainly does help. all you need is ambition and drive. if people are lacking in those areas, let em fall by the wayside. its not those types who made america the nation it is today.
I stated that you made a gross oversimplification because you're combining all forms of public assistance together. Many types of public assistance, such as student loans or school vouchers, are meant to provide opportunities to driven, ambitious individuals who have no outlet for these strengths. That they even exist suggests that being driven alone isn't always enough -- you can't be a lawyer or a medical doctor on a 4th grade education no matter how much you'd like to be one.
So think outside the box of "welfare queens," and look at the bigger picture.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The third interviewee is again asked the question, what is 2+2? The interviewee scans the room and quielty says; how much do ya want it to be? You're hired!
If you see some error in my statistical analysis, by all means point it out to me. If you think that I'm in some way "cooking" a 48,000 respondent dataset to back up what I'm saying, come right out and say it.
The fact is that we may very accurately analyze data using scientific methods. Where statistics and methodology get a bad name is when inappropriate methods are applied to data to achieve a desired outcome. When correct methodology is applied to good data, however, we may have a high level of confidence in the validity and reliability of the results.
-- Todd/Leviathn