Welll MCG right or wrong you have a very strong opinion as to what makes up the base of the Republican party. So a question for you, what in you opinion makes up the base of the Democratic Party?
Bill, Good question and certainly the Dems have their fair share of the uneducated in inner cities. However, the very well educated tend to be Democrats. The more forward thinking intellectual community and metropolitan dwellers tend to be Democrats.
Bill, he's got to be putting us on. He does have a sense of humor. I'm a democrat, and I've never had anything but respect for my fellow Americans regardless of political affiliation or state in life. MCG's comments are so elitist that he can't possibly be serious. If he is, he's part of the problem and beyond help.
I can't help but agree Sid. Besides he didn't answer the question, I asked about the core of the Democratic Party to compare with the Rural Christions he thinks are the core of the Republican Party. As far as education level determining which party someone belongs to that seems to vary with where a person lives, what kind of education etc. I don't think either party has a claim in that area.
You know my nephew and a ND grad tried to make that same assertion to me that the Blues (he lives in Boston and is a dem) are more educated and can evaluate issues more clearly. The Reds tend to be states where education is poor. I think it does accuartely reflect the elitist feelings of the Northeastern Democrats. They don't give the common man much credit for being able to evaluate things, and they need to do it for him for his own protection.
I think I've posted this before, but it needs to be repeated from time to time, because truth sometimes differs from "common knowledge." re: the Religious Right The Religious Right is NOT the base of either party. Just 4 years before they voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan, they had voted overwhelmingly for Jimmy Carter. Their traditional home was in the Democratic Party, until the Far Left hijacked that party and began to attack everything from the Christian origins of the Constitution to Christmas. This drove most fundamentalist protestants and Catholics to the other party where they are today. The last time that I looked, about 60% of the Religious Right describe themselves as Republicans with the remainder still in the Democratic Party. BTW - Most African-Americans describe themselves as part of the Religious Right. Republicans are currently attempting to use this (religion) as the wedge to break their solid block... re: education The more education that a person has, the more they tend to be a Republican. It has always been that way and its that way now. This is reflected in the true base of the Republican Party, which is small business. That's where their money is and that's where their votes are. The Republicans are the party of the lower-middle class, middle class and upper middle class. This is most often reflected in the records of campaign donations. In the 2000 Election, the average donation to the Democratic Party was over $10,000, while the average donation to the Republican Party was under $50. Meanwhile, 23 millionaires gave more than one million $ to the lib/Dems that year, while only one person gave that much to the Republicans. Several of the biggest billionaires, such as George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the sugar-daddys who bankroll all lib/Dem activities... The Democratic Party is made up of just a few special interests; mostly public employee unions, trial lawyers and the voting blocks that they control. In fact, if it wasn't for lawyers, school teachers and college professors, the Democratic Party would have almost no educated people in it at all. This is most often reflected in voting patterns which showed in the 2004 Election that the Democrats carried only ONE educational category: voters with LESS than a high school education. "Liberal intellectual" has become an oxymoron. The only people who believe it are the lib/Dems themselves. The evidence to support their claim does not exist... ................TP 8)
"In the 2000 Election, the average donation to the Democratic Party was over $10,000, while the average donation to the Republican Party was under $50." So...educated people are less able to donate to their favorite party? Too smart to do so? Not convicted enough to do it but capable? Do you have a link that shows education levels by party?
So I've heard all your charges that the Republican Party is the party of the rich and powerful... Now you maintain that all them smart rich folks are democrats. So all the poor and downtrodden are Dems...all the smart sucessful rich folks are Dems...obviously all the oppressed middle class are Dems... Only folks left to be Repulicans are the stupid suckers on this board. stu
Here's a link to a discussion of this topic; http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2006/02/money_politics.html stu
The only empirical data I've seen is consistent with JO'Co point....the more education one has attained, the greater is the propensity to be Republican and vice-versa.....those that did not finish high school were more than twice as likely to deem themselves Democrats. The exception is for those that have graduate degrees are more likely to be democrats. Here is a link.... http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539 Terry
I have always held the opinion that the rich enterpreneur is definitely Republican and he is probably educated also. However, this is not what makes up the voting base of the party. There aren't enough entrepreurial millionaires in the country to sway an election. The voting base of the party is the rural, religious right. That's where the numbers come from.
I can't believe this thread. Let me get this straight, the two largest voting blocks for the Democrats are the blue collar (non college) labor unions and the eternally educationally deprived African-American community. This later group needs affirmative action just to get into a higher education institution. And MCG is trying to tell us that Dems are better educated? The typical Democratic voter is a poorly educated urban dweller who relies on the government for assistance or a job.
Interesting take on demographics by the Dems themselves: http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=253890 I guess what I should have said is that educated, socially moderate professionals (my group) trend to be Democrats. Granted that is only a part of the Democratic base and minorities and urban dwellers do make up a substantial part of the base but only a part of it. This latter Dem group I'll hold up against the rural Christian right from the Republican side as two groups I do not identify with and I feel they are are on the political fringe from where I sit. However, they do make up a voting base that both parties must cater to specifically. I noticed in the 2000 election that in the most rural states Bush not only won but he won by a landslide. Not surprising. What this article is saying from the DLC is that the Dems need to recognize that the fast changing and growing countryside is where they need to focus on getting new voters. That seems easier said than done for the Dems but I feel their chance may be in that educated, socially moderate voter that is also tagging along with population growth in rural or fringe areas.
Bill, can't you visualizr gipper in a courtroon or a depostion with that no-nonsense, get-to-the-point style? I'm sure he's pretty darned effective. One of the things that has disappointed me about my party (dem) over the past 30-some years is the desire to make the government the caretaker for the less fortunate in our society. I believe in and support that concept, but it's the definition of "less fortunate" that I have a problem with. It (the definition) is ever-expanding to include people who are fully capable of standing on their own two feet but who have been conditioned to rely on the government for handouts. This makes the dems' version of government an enabler and IMO stagnates the potential for downtrodden folks to rise out of poverty and be active contributors to society, thus breaking the cycle. I'm just elaborating on gip's point.
I agree about gipper Sid, I wouldn't want to be in the courtroom with him as the opponent cross examaning me. But he better keep that soft side hidden when in court. :roll: :roll: :roll:
That's a pretty good article MCG. Especially when you know it is a written by a Democratic operator. Once you get by the first paragraph which is largely partisan demo talk I agree with a number of things he says. But i would take issue with both you and him about socially moderate voters being Democrat. I would need to know lot more about what you consider a social moderate. I would bet a social moderate according to you and him would be classified a whole lot more left by a lot of other people. Also I'm at a loss as why you keep harping on rural Christians. As if there's something wrong with being a Christian or living in rural areas. I don't understand that. Most of us feel comfortable with people from all walks of life and I can assure you that because someone is more comfortable in a rural setting than a large city for instance doesn't make them undesirable. As you've pointed out before I've lived in Florida most all my life, mostly in South Florida and mostly in Miami. But now I live in Kissimmee which is growing rapidly but is a mix of cow country with big ranches, a large hispanic community, people from all over the world and lot's of tourists. I find I can communicate with and like all of them. Not all individuals but all types people. You seem to only be comfortable with what fits your idea of who you are. Also his point about the Bush states growing faster is very, very ture. And that means every 10 years those states increase their electoral vote. Best examples are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona/ all four of these staes will be in the top ten population wise, with Florida , Georgia and North Carolina such traditional big states as Michigan and Ohio. And those states are far more Republican than they are Democrat. I didn't include California and Texas because they are already the biggest states. But it might be worth noting that Florida and Texas are projected to grow as fast as California ove rthe next 20 years or so while New York either stays about the same or loses population. Georgia will eventually displace New York as the 4th largest state.