Poor Poor GOP 2008 is gonna hurt

#76
#76
Looking at the first page of this topic, you strayed from DAVOL's definition right off the bat. So I'm not too sure you even followed your own argument of following DAVOL's argument.

Your problem is that you are stuck on population rather than those who are voting. I could care less how many people fall within the population. The original argument focused on classes and who actually vote and in what effect.

If you look at your Wiki definition you will see what actual incomes define each range. Look at the numbers of those voters I posted and see what numbers fall within the class ranges commonly defined on sites such as Wiki.

I will repeat that definition again, of course with slight variance. The bottom two brackets are defined in the lower class range. The brackets up to $100K and some sources even go higher to define middle class. The rest is upper class. So I stand by the same breakout where 64% is defined as the Middle.

So to make this even more basic, the upper and lower classes could vote for Pat Buchanan and they still would be outweighed or influenced by what the middle decides. Or back to the OH example, it was blue collar middle class voters who gave Bush that election. Even expanding outside of that, the battleground was the heavy middle class areas of the country. In 2006 it was the same case. In 200, 2002, and 2004 the GOP pulled the middle class to them. In 2006 we saw the trend reverse.
 
#77
#77
CSpindizzy said:
Looking at the first page of this topic, you strayed from DAVOL's definition right off the bat. So I'm not too sure you even followed your own argument of following DAVOL's argument.

Your problem is that you are stuck on population rather than those who are voting. I could care less how many people fall within the population. The original argument focused on classes and who actually vote and in what effect.

If you look at your Wiki definition you will see what actual incomes define each range. Look at the numbers of those voters I posted and see what numbers fall within the class ranges commonly defined on sites such as Wiki.

I will repeat that definition again, of course with slight variance. The bottom two brackets are defined in the lower class range. The brackets up to $100K and some sources even go higher to define middle class. The rest is upper class. So I stand by the same breakout where 64% is defined as the Middle.

So to make this even more basic, the upper and lower classes could vote for Pat Buchanan and they still would be outweighed or influenced by what the middle decides. Or back to the OH example, it was blue collar middle class voters who gave Bush that election. Even expanding outside of that, the battleground was the heavy middle class areas of the country. In 2006 it was the same case. In 200, 2002, and 2004 the GOP pulled the middle class to them. In 2006 we saw the trend reverse.
Click to expand...

I strayed because our data was not matched to his definition - I acknowledged that and described why 35K-75K was our best available metric to the original 40-80K

I am not stuck on the population vs those who are voting. To define voters by income class we first have to look at how many are in each income class. Your definition creates disproportionate high and low ends. Middle means middle. To relate this to proportion of vote, the upper income group votes at a higher rate (near 80%) than the lower income group (near 50%). Thus defining income classes appropriately (e.g quintiles) shows a greater amount of votes coming from the top 20% than from the bottom 20%. Your data shows the top with 15 and the bottom with 21% simply because of the way you defined middle. In effect, you've defined the lower income group as containing about 28% or so of the population while the upper income group contains less than 15% of the population. This is an arbitrary definition that is inconsistent with the implied centering of terms, lower, middle and upper.

As for the Wiki - we again see a definitional problem. The refer to class - suggesting up 50% in the middle class. Differing definitions suggest income ranges that take this definition beyond 50%. I've seen ranges up to $175,000 and as low as $60,000. There is no common definition of the middle income group unless you use quintiles, quartiles, thirds or some other centered metrics. Using quintiles and allowing the 3 middle quintiles as middle income, the range is roughly 20k-90k.

Looking at Ohio - the vote difference was just over 100,000. Claims of voter intimidation and lack of voting machines hit at the lower income portion more than the middle income portion. Accordingly, had those people voted we could see a change in the WH. The election could have been decided by the lower income group.
 
#78
#78
From the Wiki:

The term middle class in more colloquial language use may refer to all those individuals who might at one point or another be identified as middle class, as they occupy neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. Most of those with households income between $40,000 and $95,000 identify as "middle class." The term can also be used to describe those at the actual center of the income strata, who may also be referred to as the middle-middle class. There are many different theories on the middle-middle class. The middle-middle class may be composed of those households with annual incomes of 80% to 120% of the national median household income. Persons in this income range could, in accordance to solely economic reasoning, be referred to as the American average. Such households would boast annual incomes ranging from $35,200 to $52,800, and thus be located in the middle of the income range.[13] Some of these households, while actually being in the middle and thus sometimes referred to as being middle class, cannot, however, afford the middle class lifestyle.[9] Yet another definition states that the statistical middle class includes all those households with income ranging from $25,000 to $100,000.[1] This is, however, a very vague definition, as it includes persons from all but the lowest quintile. Using this definition creates a class so economically fragmented that it would lump together those who are struggling to make ends meet with two incomes and those who are able to live the iconic middle class lifestyle with just one income and are highly educated.
Click to expand...
 
#79
#79
So to make this even more basic, the upper and lower classes could vote for Pat Buchanan and they still would be outweighed or influenced by what the middle decides.
Click to expand...

Interesting example. If the upper and lower (based on your definition) voted for Buchanan he would win unless the middle favored one other candidate by a minimum of 56% to 44%.

Exaggerated example but shows that the pattern of the vote is critical as well. The more the middle has parity on candidate choice, the less influence they have.
 
#80
#80
volinbham said:
Interesting example. If the upper and lower (based on your definition) voted for Buchanan he would win unless the middle favored one other candidate by a minimum of 56% to 44%.

Exaggerated example but shows that the pattern of the vote is critical as well. The more the middle has parity on candidate choice, the less influence they have.
Click to expand...

I am truly astonished that you are even still using this logic. The upper and the lower would have 36%. Last I checked it takes more than 36% to win. So basically it would take the middle's action to decide the election. Again, I will refer to the electoral college argument even though you refuse to go that way.

Again, I also refer you to the experts in the debate. You can argue all you want but the people making the big bucks on this all argue counter to your point. Since this is their livelihood and it has been proven, I'd tend to side with the people I work with daily.

Again, I'm not sure why you bring these odd factors into the argument. Voter intimidation was alleged but never proven. So that factor is a non-starter in itself. This claim is made in every election and yet has found any evidence to be a deciding or even substantive factor in elections.

As for Wiki, congrats on cutting out one portion. Nevermind the rest or the links from that as well. Also feel free to use the Google search engine. Again, I said variance and even referenced that middle class is often referred to as being higher than $100K in combined HH income.

Thus, college education is one of the main indicators of middle class status. Largely attributed to the nature of middle class occupations, middle class values tend to emphasize independence, adherence to intrinsic standards, valuing innovation and respecting non-conformity.[6][2] Politically more active than other demographics, college educated middle class professionals are split.[7] Income varies considerably from near the national median to well in excess of $100,000.[5][2]
Click to expand...

According to sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James Henslin, Joseph Hickey and William Thompson, the upper middle class constitutes 15% of the population.[2]
Click to expand...

However, according to James M. Henslin, who also divides the middle class into two sub-groups, the lower middle class is the most populous, constituting 34% of the population.[5]
Click to expand...

Sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class.
Click to expand...
 
#82
#82
CSpindizzy said:
I am truly astonished that you are even still using this logic. The upper and the lower would have 36%. Last I checked it takes more than 36% to win. So basically it would take the middle's action to decide the election. Again, I will refer to the electoral college argument even though you refuse to go that way.
Click to expand...

In your example, Buchanan would have 36% and parity in the middle would yield 32% each to 2 other candidates (assuming that's what you were discussing).

How would electors then be chosen? Buchanan in this case could have a plurality of the vote in any or all states.
 
#83
#83
CSpindizzy said:
As for Wiki, congrats on cutting out one portion. Nevermind the rest or the links from that as well. Also feel free to use the Google search engine. Again, I said variance and even referenced that middle class is often referred to as being higher than $100K in combined HH income.
Click to expand...

If this deserves congratulations then you are due them as well :hi:
 
#84
#84
volinbham said:
In your example, Buchanan would have 36% and parity in the middle would yield 32% each to 2 other candidates (assuming that's what you were discussing).

How would electors then be chosen? Buchanan in this case could have a plurality of the vote in any or all states.
Click to expand...

I did not mention 2 other candidates. The point was if he got 36 - the full lower and upper class vote with no straying - then his winning or anyone else's for that matter would be dependent on the other 64% of the vote. In other words, the middle is the kingmaker.

My mention of electoral college has to deal with the key states that both parties go after. The key states are typically the blue collar and/or typical middle class states they know hold a decent amount of EC votes. Both parties know these states along with this key group is what steers outcomes of elections. The actions of consultants and candidates shows that the middle holds sway and they want to win over as much of that group as possible. Rhetoric and legislation appeals to this group to win them over especially at election time.
 
#85
#85
volinbham said:
If this deserves congratulations then you are due them as well :hi:
Click to expand...

Only making sure your source's points are clarified. I wanted to make sure that the source's references that hit my points were pointed out as well. We surely don't want to let picking out certain things without everything being put into perspective.

:hi:
 
#86
#86
CSpindizzy said:
I did not mention 2 other candidates. The point was if he got 36 - the full lower and upper class vote with no straying - then his winning or anyone else's for that matter would be dependent on the other 64% of the vote. In other words, the middle is the kingmaker.
Click to expand...

If the 64% is divided among other candidates then it requires help from the upper and lower. Even in a 2 candidate race, Buchanan receiving all from the upper and lower could beat the winner out of the middle. In fact, in a 2 candidate race the middle would have to vote 80-20 for the non-Buchanan (or whoever) candidate for Buchanan to lose. Of course it depends on the vote pattern by state to determine electoral votes.

Ohio's income profile is similar to that for the US as a whole - better turnout at the low-end or worse turnout at the high-end could have shifted the state to Kerry and given him the election.

Just to put this to bed from my perspective.

1. The more broadly one defines the "middle" the more likely it's influence on the outcome increases.

2. The influence on the outcome of the middle is reduced the more the vote in that group becomes evenly distributed among candidates.

3. All else being equal, a larger voting block has more influence.

4. The voting pattern in the middle income group appears to be more evenly divided party-wise thus receives more attention since swaying the pattern increases the influence on the outcome due it the size of this group.

5. Changes in turnout at the low or high end can mitigate changes in voting pattern in the middle. Thus campaign efforts are directed both at turnout efforts and moving the middle.

6. Only in some cases will the voting of the lower and upper end be irrelevant in the outcome thus it is only in these case where the middle "truly decides" the outcome.

Corollary: when ever the vote of the upper or lower end has an influence on the outcome, the outcome was not "truly decided" by the middle. The middle may still have more influence in this case but by definition, action in at least one other group impacted the outcome. The vote of the middle can be necessary but not sufficient to decide.
 
#87
#87
I will pass on your wisdom to the political consultants. I'm sure the experts and people who make their living on this subject will be pleased to know you have turned campaign strategy on its head and have created a new methodology and logic that somehow defies what history has shown. Would you like to take a leave of absence from your current job and provide your services for next year? I hear the GOP is in desperate need of some new strategy in order to defeat the Democrats. Surely these pearls of wisdom, although unproven, would be most welcome.As you say, this is put to bed.
 
#88
#88
MG1968 said:
it might be Hillary, but she isn't doing herself any favors by proposing a 110 billion dollar socialized medicine scheme.
Click to expand...

To most conservatives, "socialized medicine" is any health care scheme that does NOT mandate a flow of revenue into for-profit hospitals and the pockets of health care investors. In reality, every plan that has ever been (seriously) put on the table in the U.S. still keeps that spigot of revenue to the private sector wide open. Medicaid and Medicare do. No one has seriously proposed a system in this country where "the government" owns and operates all the hospitals and clinics and in which all health care workers and doctors are government employees.

In other words, conservatives have found that the phrase "socialized medicine" is effective with voters (because they have twisted it beyond any resemblance of its original meaning) and so they keep using it.

The truth is that any form of universal health care that is politically viable in this country would pump billions of dollars into the private health care industry. Conservative politicians' opposition to it is that the government would likely try to cap prices that it would pay for services (like it already does in Medicaid and Medicare) --particularly on prescription drugs, in order to hold down costs, and that angers the industry.

And they don't like that taxes would be raised to pay for it.
 
#90
#90
allvol123 said:
Why should anyone like that taxes are raised to pay for it?
Click to expand...


Well, we could do it like it's been done over the past 7 years: we could just spend trillions of dollars and not worry about how it's going to be paid for when the bill comes due.

Rational people think that if you spend the money, you ought to have the money to spend.
 
#92
#92
Fayettevol said:
Well, we could do it like it's been done over the past 7 years: we could just spend trillions of dollars and not worry about how it's going to be paid for when the bill comes due.

Rational people think that if you spend the money, you ought to have the money to spend.
Click to expand...


Still lumping every one into one small category! Only democrats are rational!

Nice! :eek:k:

What is today's word boys and girls?

Marginalize............

V-106-picture
 
#97
#97
allvol123 said:
You would guess wrong. Not a first for you though.
Click to expand...

So since you cannot take care of your health that would make you irrational. My wrong was in thinking you might actually be rational. I had hope for you. Sorry I'm wrong on your account.
 
#100
#100
CSpindizzy said:
So since you cannot take care of your health that would make you irrational. My wrong was in thinking you might actually be rational. I had hope for you. Sorry I'm wrong on your account.
Click to expand...

A person can take care of their health and still get a cold or whatever, so you are wrong on your own account, again not a first for you. My remark had to with a rational person also taking care of their healthcare needs, meaning insurance as well. Sorry you can't dive into things and do some figuring.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top