Poor Poor GOP 2008 is gonna hurt

#51
#51
CSpindizzy said:
. Who in the GOP do you think is capable of defeating her?
Click to expand...

beats me. I think anyone really. she's way too polarizing an individual. and let's remember that clinton was a virtual unknown at this same time when he was running for president.
 
#52
#52
Actually the Census numbers show the higher incomes as being the larger group. That is not the case. The lower to middle by far are larger than the upper income.
 
#53
#53
droski said:
beats me. I think anyone really. she's way too polarizing an individual. and let's remember that clinton was a virtual unknown at this same time when he was running for president.
Click to expand...

What does Bill have to do with this?
 
#55
#55
But in third against? Were they national names? Was the establishment solely behind any of those other two? Moneywise, where were the other two? Comparing the situation of 1992 and 2008 is apples to oranges. This is solely Hillary's to lose.
 
#56
#56
CSpindizzy said:
Actually the Census numbers show the higher incomes as being the larger group. That is not the case. The lower to middle by far are larger than the upper income.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by larger group? The numbers you provided show what percentage of the vote came from each income category. Those numbers match closely to the number of people in each income category. Since

The second set of census numbers (from the 2004 vote) showed the percentage of people in each income category that actually voted in the 2004 presidential election. Those numbers show a slightly increasing proportion of actual voters per category as the category value rises.


Here are the income categories from 2002 Census data numbers (with your voting data percentages in ()):

15% - less than 15K (10%)
13% - 15k to 25K (11%)
12% - 25k to 35K (12%)
16% - 35k to 50K (17%)
19% - 50K to 75K (22%)
11% - 75k to 100k (13%)
14% - 100k and up (15%)

As you can see, the % of people in a given income category is very close to the percentage of the vote coming from that income category. Likewise, if you examine the Census data on voting by income, you'll see the same thing - only at the very low incomes is the percentage that votes significantly lower than for other income groups.
 
#57
#57
Here's a different way to look at the data. Comparing the percentage of the vote from the income category to the percentage of people in the income category (with percent in the income category as base).

less than 15K (33% less)*
15 to 25K (15% less)
25 to 35K (same)
35 to 50K (6% more)
50 to 75K (15% more)
75 t0 100K (18% more)
100K + (7% more)

*This category contains 15% of the population but only accounts for 10% of the vote.
 
#58
#58
What does that have to do with the fact that by far a majority of those who vote are in the lower half of the income spectrum? Most of the voters are in the middle income or lower income ranges. So those potentially affected by a "tax on the rich" are not playing as much of a role as those who would benefit from that tax hike.
 
#59
#59
CSpindizzy said:
What does that have to do with the fact that by far a majority of those who vote are in the lower half of the income spectrum? Most of the voters are in the middle income or lower income ranges. So those potentially affected by a "tax on the rich" are not playing as much of a role as those who would benefit from that tax hike.
Click to expand...

I didn't make such a claim. DAVOL suggested that elections are truly decided by people making between 40 and 80K a year.

I've simply been looking at the amount of vote that comes from that group and showing his statement is not backed by the facts. About 60% of the vote comes from outside that range. As I suggested earlier, one could quibble about the definition of "truly deciding".

Your data is entirely consistent with that I've posted from the Census data. No claim was ever made that rich make up more of the vote or are more important voters.

As shown in your data, 48% of the vote comes from households making 50K or more.
 
#60
#60
And 72% comes from household incomes of under $75K. So basically 3/4 of the votes comes from lower and middle class homes.
 
#62
#62
And 72% is much larger than 67%. Look at what is weighted. Look at the numbers. The upper class is clearly the smaller number here participating in elections. You can extend and group in other brackets all you want but clearly the lower and middle class voters are the larger voting blocks participating in elections.
 
#63
#63
Many statisticians will go as far as saying Middle Class goes up to and even over $100K household incomes which throws this over the 85% mark.
 
#64
#64
CSpindizzy said:
And 72% is much larger than 67%. Look at what is weighted. Look at the numbers. The upper class is clearly the smaller number here participating in elections. You can extend and group in other brackets all you want but clearly the lower and middle class voters are the larger voting blocks participating in elections.
Click to expand...

The difference lies in the lower grouping (below $35K) being larger than the upper group (75K +) by 5% points. Add the middle to either and you get the bigger block.

Yes 72 is larger than 67%. I don't think you'll find anywhere that I've suggested otherwise.

For the umpteenth time - an assertion was made that the election is clearly decided by those in the middle. The numbers don't provide supporting evidence. More of the vote comes from outside the middle than from the middle.

Since the low end tends to go democrat and the upper end tends to go republican (at least based on 2004 election numbers) one could argue that these categories are determinant since a major drop in participation from either group would sway the election towards the other end while a drop in the middle would reduce the votes for each side (in theory).
 
#65
#65
CSpindizzy said:
Many statisticians will go as far as saying Middle Class goes up to and even over $100K household incomes which throws this over the 85% mark.
Click to expand...

Given that the median income (at the time of the Census #'s) was 55K then the middle class should extend down to 10K. Under that scenario, 90% of the vote comes from the middle and upper class.
 
#66
#66
If the argument was truly about the middle class deciding the election then the numbers support the argument. You are grouping two classes when the argument focused on a single class. So going with the argument, the lower class has 21%, the middle 64% and the upper is 15%. So based on that, the middle truly decides the election. The middle by itself outweighs both others combined. So I'm not sure how you can say the argument was wrong. The middle decides elections.
 
#67
#67
CSpindizzy said:
If the argument was truly about the middle class deciding the election then the numbers support the argument. You are grouping two classes when the argument focused on a single class. So going with the argument, the lower class has 21%, the middle 64% and the upper is 15%. So based on that, the middle truly decides the election. The middle by itself outweighs both others combined. So I'm not sure how you can say the argument was wrong. The middle decides elections.
Click to expand...

I'm going on DAVOL's definition of the middle (40-80K) which does not include 64% of the vote. I'm not sure how you are defining the middle to get 64%. The closest data to DAVOL's numbers are 35-75K (same absolute range but shifted downward by 5K) and that shows 39% of the vote.

Further, the slant of rep/dem is correlated to income grouping. Therefore, changes (drops in participation for example) at either end are likely to have a larger effect on outcomes than the same percentage participation drop in the middle since the middle is relatively equally divided on party.
 
#68
#68
Well I'm going on what is commonly referred to as Middle Class. The bottom two brackets are lower class and then from that point to 100K is middle class. Anything higher than that is upper class.

So by simple mathematics the middle class by those numbers comes to 64% of the vote. The original argument focused on a single class out of three and looking at those numbers 2/3 of the active voters fall within one of those classes. I'm not sure why you are discussing party since we are only arguing household income and participation in elections.

So for the umpteenth time, by common definitions of household incomes and class, 2/3 of the active voters in recent elections come from the middle class. Last I checked 2/3 is a pretty good determining factor to not only elections but any other analytical point.
 
#69
#69
You've chosen a different definition of middle class than that to which I've been responding all along.

Even so, the argument is not supported until one determines what it means to say a particular income class "determines" an election. Results from the 2004 election suggest that the middle class was almost evenly distributed among Bush and Kerry supporters. Accordingly removing this entire group (no matter how you define it) would have less impact on the outcome of the election than would removing the entire lower class or entire upper class. Since they are not completely evenly distributed, the middle class does have a determinant effect on the outcome but it is impossible to say they have the most determinant effect (or to say they clearly determine) on the election.
 
#70
#70
Thanks to Iraq, the democratic nominee is mostly likely going to be the next president. All signs point to Hilliary Clinton being the next president.

I think a majority of Congress will be voted out as well, from both sides.
 
#71
#71
it might be Hillary, but she isn't doing herself any favors by proposing a 110 billion dollar socialized medicine scheme.
 
#72
#72
volinbham said:
You've chosen a different definition of middle class than that to which I've been responding all along.

Even so, the argument is not supported until one determines what it means to say a particular income class "determines" an election. Results from the 2004 election suggest that the middle class was almost evenly distributed among Bush and Kerry supporters. Accordingly removing this entire group (no matter how you define it) would have less impact on the outcome of the election than would removing the entire lower class or entire upper class. Since they are not completely evenly distributed, the middle class does have a determinant effect on the outcome but it is impossible to say they have the most determinant effect (or to say they clearly determine) on the election.
Click to expand...

And even after I defined at least the ceiling you continued your point along this DAVOL defined group?

You really have got to be kidding me. Who said anything about party or who they actually vote for between Kerry and Bush? We're arguing over which class has greater sway over the election. Simple math shows that 2/3 of a voting block comes from the middle class but yet you say there is no evidence to suggest they have an influence?

Let's really get into details since you truly like to do that. You only use one election while I use every major one going back to 2000. And for the sake of the argument, let's look at microtargeting and what actually determines the elections - the electoral college. I will even bring Mr. Karl Rove into the argument. What single state was the leading target among both parties in 2004? Ohio. It's not known for its extravagant and wealthy lifestyles. Rove and the GOP pushed hard for the blue collar traditional union category votes. Last I checked those were not upper class nor lower class. Other states Rove targeted? WI, MI, IL, MO. Again these were targeted for their middle class groupings.

Let's go further here. In 2006, what Senate races flipped control? MO, VA, MT? The areas that were focused on in microtargeting were middle class, soccer mom, blue collar, NASCAR dad, etc. To win elections both parties have hit these areas (Middle Class mind you) to win.
 
#73
#73
CSpindizzy said:
And even after I defined at least the ceiling you continued your point along this DAVOL defined group?
Click to expand...

Follow my posts all along and you'll see this is the primary argument I've been making - DAVOL's claim is not supported by the numbers.

You really have got to be kidding me. Who said anything about party or who they actually vote for between Kerry and Bush? We're arguing over which class has greater sway over the election. Simple math shows that 2/3 of a voting block comes from the middle class but yet you say there is no evidence to suggest they have an influence?
Click to expand...
You've miss quoted me - I've never claimed they don't have influence or even large influence. It is not 2/3's as you claim. At best it is 64% (and you indicated that 5% is a "large" difference so 3% matters). Further, your arbitrary definition of middle class is not an even division since it holds about 28% of the population in the lower class and less than 15% in the upper class.

As to influence, some rough calculations from the 2004 election (presidential) shows omitting even your definition of the upper class yields a Kerry victory in popular vote (please no electoral college lecture - this is but one example). Clearly, this small group - upper class had influence as well since their participation (or lack of) changes the vote.

In short, any voting block has influence. If you define a voting block to include 2/3's then it is more likely to have more influence depending on the pattern of votes within and outside that block.

Let's really get into details since you truly like to do that. You only use one election while I use every major one going back to 2000. And for the sake of the argument, let's look at microtargeting and what actually determines the elections - the electoral college. I will even bring Mr. Karl Rove into the argument. What single state was the leading target among both parties in 2004? Ohio. It's not known for its extravagant and wealthy lifestyles. Rove and the GOP pushed hard for the blue collar traditional union category votes. Last I checked those were not upper class nor lower class. Other states Rove targeted? WI, MI, IL, MO. Again these were targeted for their middle class groupings.

Let's go further here. In 2006, what Senate races flipped control? MO, VA, MT? The areas that were focused on in microtargeting were middle class, soccer mom, blue collar, NASCAR dad, etc. To win elections both parties have hit these areas (Middle Class mind you) to win.
Click to expand...
Yet there are elections where the lower income class is the key to victory or the upper income class is the key to victory. It is not a blanket fact that elections are truly decided by the middle class. Some may be, some won't be.
 
#74
#74
You've changed the definition throughout your argument by even mentioning other ranges. I even defined what I was referring to. But yet you say you've stayed with DAVOL's definition? Go back and even on this page you've thrown a few different defintions around. Which one is it?

Again, I am not referring to Kerry or Bush. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up when I have repeatedly said it does not matter. But again, if you want to bring it up, I will oblige.

How can you discuss a presidential election and not include the electoral college in the argument? You can deny a need for a lecture but in Presidential elections it's a basic part. See American Government 101 if you need a review.

Again, the commonly defined lower class is grouped in the two lower brackets in my numbers. The commonly defined bracket of middle class goes to about $100K and sometimes higher. I cannot get any more simplistic than to say basic math comes to about 2/3.

You can keep arguing Kerry and Bush all day. The numbers speak for themselves. The best consultants in politics will also agree. Unless you are referring to a Congressional district on Long Island you can say that statewide elections and Presidential elections are definitely decided by the middle class. Want proof? Look at what is typically tossed out from Congress at election time. Tax breaks, tuition assistance, wage issues, etc. If you disagree don't go into political consulting. Microtargeting, which had a very thorough testing in 2006, is pretty much proof that this bracket is the targeted group and key to elections.
 
#75
#75
Let me just recap my perspective and you can take it from there.

This began with a statement that elections are "truly decided" by people making 40-80K.

Looking at the % of the vote that comes from that category, the statement is not supported.

Repeatedly it has been acknowledged that the terminology "truly decides" is problematic. Never has it been interpreted to say only influences. I interpret it literally. Under this interpretation, the statement suggests that other groupings do not matter. The Bush/Kerry example is but one showing that voters from outside the middle do indeed have influence - therefore, the middle doesn't truly decide the election. (it is just an example of an election - no more no less).

Defining middle income as you have done is problematic since it defies the word "middle". No matter how large you spread the word middle, it should still have proportionate groups on either side. For example, you could use quintiles and call the middle 3 the middle class while the lowest is lower class and the highest upper class. The numbers you've chosen don't represent middle in a statistical sense. It matters because the upper end votes at a higher rate than the lower rate. Accordingly, equal proportions of the population will yield a higher percentage of the vote from the upper income class than the lower income class.

You keep stating "commonly defined" groupings of middle yet I can find no such common definition. A search of the Wiki suggests most definitions of middle class comprise anywhere from 45-49% of the population. Problematic is that class and income are not the same thing. Either way, class is being defined as the middle half of the population as opposed to 60% or more of the population.

Back to the original stream of my posts - a literal interpretation of "truly decides" is not supported by the data presented in this thread. For that statement to be true, the voting of those in the upper income grouping and lower income grouping would have to be irrelevant. Elections can be changed by voter turnout at the low-end or high-end or the middle. Have I ever suggested the middle is not important? Never.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top