What's Wrong With Kansas - Revisited

[volinbham]

Watching Kansas lose to Northern Iowa and subsequently destroy my bracket I was reminded of the short-sightedness of the "What's Wrong with Kansas" argument.

In short, WWwK wonders why people in Red states seemingly vote against their 'best interests" by voting Republican/conservative.

The author's mistake is thinking he understands the "best interests" of these Red Staters. It is a very shallow (read: economic) view of interests. (Eg. Dems would improve the economic condition of Red Staters so why don't they vote Dem).

Back to the game. I had economic interests in Kansas winning. Since they lost, I'm guarantee to lose money.

Here's the thing. I was pulling for UNI all the way and was very happy they won. Did I "vote" against my best interests? No. My core value is to favor the underdog and that overrides minor economic concerns.

Likewise, Red Staters "best interests" are represented by their values; not simple economic gain. The same is true of Blue Staters who vote for programs that will cost them more in taxes.

So are people voting against their own best interests?

Don't bet on it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

How exactly would Dems improve the economic conditions of red states?

 

[volinbham]

How exactly would Dems improve the economic conditions of red states?

The argument (not mine) is that many that would be "helped" by government programs end up supporting R candidates against those programs.

For example, a lower income R who votes for an R candidate is working against his/her interests since a D candidate would pass govt. programs which send resources to that R voter.

 

[allvol123]

The argument (not mine) is that many that would be "helped" by government programs end up supporting R candidates against those programs.

For example, a lower income R who votes for an R candidate is working against his/her interests since a D candidate would pass govt. programs which send resources to that R voter.

Not if the lower income R is intelligent enough to see the forest instead of just the trees.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

The argument (not mine) is that many that would be "helped" by government programs end up supporting R candidates against those programs.

For example, a lower income R who votes for an R candidate is working against his/her interests since a D candidate would pass govt. programs which send resources to that R voter.

So in other words, some idiot leftist who doesn't understand how government works (i.e. who pays for said programs) thinks Red Staters are stupid for actually figuring it out.

 

[bam15]

The argument is implying that the poorest states are in the south, which they are, which also vote overwhelmingly in favor of Republican candidates.

The argument is also insinuating that those individuals who fall below the poverty line would be better off voting for Democratic candidates, which is true for most of the time.

It all goes back to Social issues, I know plenty of people who would be better off under Obama's economic plan rather than say McCain, but overwhelmingly voted for McCain simply because of Abortion, Guns, and LGBT issues.

The author simply doesn't understand the Bible Belt.

Regardless, plenty of wealthy people vote against their own interests by voting Democratic. [Warren Buffett]

 

[volinbham]

The argument is implying that the poorest states are in the south, which they are, which also vote overwhelmingly in favor of Republican candidates.

The argument is also insinuating that those individuals who fall below the poverty line would be better off voting for Democratic candidates, which is true for most of the time.

It all goes back to Social issues, I know plenty of people who would be better off under Obama's economic plan rather than say McCain, but overwhelmingly voted for McCain simply because of Abortion, Guns, and LGBT issues.

The author simply doesn't understand the Bible Belt.

Regardless, plenty of wealthy people vote against their own interests by voting Democratic. [Warren Buffett]

It does NOT all go back to social issues.

People are NOT voting against their own interests.

Both misconceptions are born out of the mindset that says "we know what's best for you".

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Don't bet on it.

That was either very clever or very ironic that your would close a post about gambling/tourney brackets with that last line.

 

[bam15]

It does NOT all go back to social issues.

People are NOT voting against their own interests.

Both misconceptions are born out of the mindset that says "we know what's best for you".

No some people philosophically disagree with economic plans, but that's a rarity.

Social conservatives are the reason Bush won, it doesn't get any simpler.

The core of those conservatives are in the South/Bible Belt, which happens to be the poorest area in the country.

If anything, the founding fathers were terrified of the idea of fleeting passions, so in a sense, they thought they knew what was best.

 

[MG1968]

If voting for democrats was the surest way for a population to prosper, how do you explain Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other major cities in the north and the south that have been controlled by democrats for decades?

 

[volinbham]

That was either very clever or very ironic that your would close a post about gambling/tourney brackets with that last line.

clever of course!

 

[volinbham]

No some people philosophically disagree with economic plans, but that's a rarity.

Social conservatives are the reason Bush won, it doesn't get any simpler.

The core of those conservatives are in the South/Bible Belt, which happens to be the poorest area in the country.

If anything, the founding fathers were terrified of the idea of fleeting passions, so in a sense, they thought they knew what was best.

You are missing the point. People understand their interest when they vote (for the most part). R's aren't R's simply due to social issues.

Someone who may "benefit" from a govt. program may vote against it because they do not believe in such government programs whether it "helps" them personally or not.

That is the issue. Thinking people should vote for things that help them personally misses the point that ideals are often enduring and not swayed by short-term economic gains.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

No some people philosophically disagree with economic plans, but that's a rarity.

Social conservatives are the reason Bush won, it doesn't get any simpler.

The core of those conservatives are in the South/Bible Belt, which happens to be the poorest area in the country.

If anything, the founding fathers were terrified of the idea of fleeting passions, so in a sense, they thought they knew what was best.

I don't disagree that Social Conservatives got Bush re-elected, but if you're a true fiscal conservative you certainly weren't going to vote for Gore or Kerry.