4 ms·

The first paragraph of this article makes this author's political tendencies eminently clear: >somewhere in Washington, DC, there are a bunch of rich men with

by nickff 13y ago

The first paragraph of this article makes this author's political tendencies eminently clear: >somewhere in Washington, DC, there are a bunch of rich men with white hair, white skin, and black hearts screaming and stomping around in their suits because they don't want poor people to have affordable healthcare Leaving aside the fact that the author assumes that Republicans harbor the most sinister motives possible, while Democrats are purely altruistic; income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race.[1] This tirade makes me doubt the value of the article as a whole, though I largely agree with the conclusion. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/ http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affil...

EpicEng 13y ago
The intro is intended to be comedic and set the stage for the questions, but it's not necessarily obvious at first.
lsc 13y ago
>income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race.[1] Huh. Your referenced link[1] seems to disagree with you; it seems to support the assessment that the Republicans are both richer and whiter than the Democrats, by a fairly large margin. See the section under: "GOP Continues to Lag in Racial & Ethnic Diversity" and on income, it says: "Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans." [1]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/ http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affil...
- nickff 13y ago
  In the highest income quintile, 35% of respondents are independent, 32% republican, and 30% democratic. I said that high income is not a good predictor of party affiliation. If you are in the top income quintile, you are almost equally likely to be independent, republican or democratic; how is income predictive of party affiliation?
  - lsc 13y ago
    I was responding to: >Leaving aside the fact that the author assumes that Republicans harbor the most sinister motives possible, while Democrats are purely altruistic; income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race From the link: "Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points." But let's address your statement from your most recent comment: >If you are in the top income quintile, you are almost equally likely to be independent, republican or democratic; how is income predictive of party affiliation? If you are in the bottom quintile, you are not quite three times as likely to be a democrat than a republican, and the next quintile up, again, you are more than twice as likely to be a democrat than a republican. That's still saying that someone who is very rich is much more likely to be a republican (even if they still only have a 50% chance) than someone who is very poor.
    - nickff 13y ago
      >someone who is very rich is much more likely to be a republican (even if they still only have a 50% chance) than someone who is very poor. This is correct, and I think you would also be correct to say political affiliation varies with income level, but that is still a far cry from income level being predictive of party identification. If you are interested in more accurate predictors of political affiliation, you may want to read Jonathan Rodden's excellent work on geography and political identification.[1] To be clear, this work addresses the populations of areas, not individuals. [1] http://www.stanford.edu/~jrodden/wp/shadow.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~jrodden/wp/shadow.pdf
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Does the income-politics relationship remain if you look only within ethnic/racial groups? Overall, poor people are more Democratic than rich people, but the racial makeups of those income groups are also considerably different: people making over $100k are much more likely to be white than people making under $20k are. It's possible the answer is still yes, but it'd be interesting to see a breakdown.
peterashford 13y ago
Seems like a pretty accurate description of Republicans to me. I say this someone with no affiliations to US politics at all.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
> income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race.[1] From the link you provide: Blacks remain overwhelmingly Democratic in party identification Did you read it?
- nickff 13y ago
  African americans are the most politically homogeneous ethnic group; to say that one race (~14% of the population) can be a reliable predictor of affiliation, does not imply that all races are equally correlated to parties. If a measure accurately predicts less than 20% of outcomes, I would not declare it to be 'good'. Section 9 of this paper addresses race and party affiliation best.[1] If you look at the graph of white (non-hispanic) affiliation, you can see that 38% are independent, 32% republican, and 26% are democratic. You may have also read the table which exposits the racial composition of the various partisan groups, but this does not address race a as a predictor of political stance or vice versa. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-p...
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Jews are democratic at similar levels (though a much smaller portion of the population). And hispanics are shown affiliating republican at levels only slightly higher than blacks do. More of them call themselves independent, but they still vote like democrats. Anyway, the fact that race is poorly predictive when the race is white doesn't make it a bad predictor generally. If you ask for a US resident's race and get a nonwhite answer, you've gained quite a bit of information about their party affiliation.

by nickff 13y ago

EpicEng 13y ago

The intro is intended to be comedic and set the stage for the questions, but it's not necessarily obvious at first.

lsc 13y ago

>income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race.[1] Huh. Your referenced link[1] seems to disagree with you; it seems to support the assessment that the Republicans are both richer and whiter than the Democrats, by a fairly large margin. See the section under: "GOP Continues to Lag in Racial & Ethnic Diversity" and on income, it says: "Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans." [1]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/ http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affil...

nickff 13y ago
In the highest income quintile, 35% of respondents are independent, 32% republican, and 30% democratic. I said that high income is not a good predictor of party affiliation. If you are in the top income quintile, you are almost equally likely to be independent, republican or democratic; how is income predictive of party affiliation?
- lsc 13y ago
  I was responding to: >Leaving aside the fact that the author assumes that Republicans harbor the most sinister motives possible, while Democrats are purely altruistic; income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race From the link: "Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points." But let's address your statement from your most recent comment: >If you are in the top income quintile, you are almost equally likely to be independent, republican or democratic; how is income predictive of party affiliation? If you are in the bottom quintile, you are not quite three times as likely to be a democrat than a republican, and the next quintile up, again, you are more than twice as likely to be a democrat than a republican. That's still saying that someone who is very rich is much more likely to be a republican (even if they still only have a 50% chance) than someone who is very poor.
  - nickff 13y ago
    >someone who is very rich is much more likely to be a republican (even if they still only have a 50% chance) than someone who is very poor. This is correct, and I think you would also be correct to say political affiliation varies with income level, but that is still a far cry from income level being predictive of party identification. If you are interested in more accurate predictors of political affiliation, you may want to read Jonathan Rodden's excellent work on geography and political identification.[1] To be clear, this work addresses the populations of areas, not individuals. [1] http://www.stanford.edu/~jrodden/wp/shadow.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~jrodden/wp/shadow.pdf
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Does the income-politics relationship remain if you look only within ethnic/racial groups? Overall, poor people are more Democratic than rich people, but the racial makeups of those income groups are also considerably different: people making over $100k are much more likely to be white than people making under $20k are. It's possible the answer is still yes, but it'd be interesting to see a breakdown.

peterashford 13y ago

Seems like a pretty accurate description of Republicans to me. I say this someone with no affiliations to US politics at all.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> income is not a good predictor of party affiliation, (and vice-versa,) and the same is true for race.[1] From the link you provide: Blacks remain overwhelmingly Democratic in party identification Did you read it?

nickff 13y ago
African americans are the most politically homogeneous ethnic group; to say that one race (~14% of the population) can be a reliable predictor of affiliation, does not imply that all races are equally correlated to parties. If a measure accurately predicts less than 20% of outcomes, I would not declare it to be 'good'. Section 9 of this paper addresses race and party affiliation best.[1] If you look at the graph of white (non-hispanic) affiliation, you can see that 38% are independent, 32% republican, and 26% are democratic. You may have also read the table which exposits the racial composition of the various partisan groups, but this does not address race a as a predictor of political stance or vice versa. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/ http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-p...
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Jews are democratic at similar levels (though a much smaller portion of the population). And hispanics are shown affiliating republican at levels only slightly higher than blacks do. More of them call themselves independent, but they still vote like democrats. Anyway, the fact that race is poorly predictive when the race is white doesn't make it a bad predictor generally. If you ask for a US resident's race and get a nonwhite answer, you've gained quite a bit of information about their party affiliation.