Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Study reveals the party best affiliated with big business and the majority of the nation's wealthiest districts: The Democratic Party. Wait, what?   (washingtontimes.com) divider line
35
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

505 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2007 at 7:40 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



35 Comments     (+0 »)
 
thalassatx
2007-11-23 6:01:05 PM  
The study was conducted by the Heritage Foundation. That's fair and unbiased.

/sarcasm
 
elysive [TotalFark]
2007-11-23 6:10:50 PM  
thalassatx: The study was conducted by the Heritage Foundation. That's fair and unbiased.

/sarcasm

I have ESP. I knew who conducted the study before even clicking the article!
 
Hal B. Sure
2007-11-23 6:50:36 PM  
And higher income correlates with higher intelligence so...

I loves me some stats!
 
Hal B. Sure
2007-11-23 7:00:36 PM  
And higher income correlates with higher intelligence so...

I loves me some stats!

Allow me to continue:
Higher income = higher intelligence = better health
Thus, it's the poor republicans who are bleeding Medicaid dry.

Please don't point out that 'better health' = longer life and as such, it's the democrats who are bleeding social security dry. That's not the point I'm making thus the point is rendered invalid. Only statistics that agree with my view are correct.
 
Axion22
2007-11-23 7:03:05 PM  
So the poor people are behind the Repubs who don't care about them?
 
Mordant
2007-11-23 7:11:38 PM  
The current Republicans appeal mainly to knuckleheads who are so convinced they'll be rich one day that they don't care if they are screwing themselves right now.
 
Yesdog
2007-11-23 7:12:16 PM  
It's not so much about 'rich' and 'poor', it's more like 'smart' and 'dumb'.

And yes, while it is conceivable that there exists in the world a Republican who is smart, it is inevitably his greed, fear and/or selfishness that defines his particular 'dumb'.
 
SilentStrider
2007-11-23 7:28:29 PM  
they really need to just boot hillary out of the party and be done with it.
 
Hal B. Sure
2007-11-23 7:43:25 PM  
I like how they are very careful with what they're asserting. They're saying that the democrats represent the districts with the highest income averages. Which really means almost nothing but has the possibility of enraging a few bloggers.

They aren't saying that people who are wealthy vote democrat, just that democrats are elected in the wealthiest districts. The votes for 2004 by income (to be fair, these results are from exit polling):

[image from homepage.mac.com too old to be available]


And for the record, my interest in this has nothing to do with my party affiliation (none) or beliefs (also none), I just really love when people massage my back statistics.
 
deeproy
2007-11-23 7:45:26 PM  
Funny, I thought they were both parties of the rich.

/two party system my ass
 
BiffDangler
2007-11-23 7:46:49 PM  
The main goal of the rich is to stay rich, and preserve their relative position. High taxes and regulation accomplish that because they harm young upstarts the most i.e the people who need excess cash to fund their businesses.
 
Captain Darling
2007-11-23 8:00:02 PM  
Mordant: The current Republicans appeal mainly to knuckleheads who are so convinced they'll be rich one day that they don't care if they are screwing themselves right now.

Some people care about things other than money. Republicans own the "values voters", they don't care that the stock market does better under Democrats, they are more concerned with keeping the "gay agenda" at bay.
 
Dave The Slushy
2007-11-23 8:14:13 PM  
Rich people are smarter than poor people. If they weren't so farking stupid, they wouldn't be poor. And as we all know, collages (where people go to get smrt) are breeding grounds for liberal sentiment, which is why you have all these rich, smart people voting for communist policies.

Or they might have a problem with groupthink that leads to starting a land war in Asia while you've already got one on the boil, one or the other...

Poor people, on the other hand, fall into two groups - commies and rednecks. Commies work, get paid fark all, whine about it and think the government should do more to help them. Rednecks work, get paid fark all, whine about it but think the government should get the fark out of their lives, except when it comes to things they like such as roads and daycare schools.

One party seems to say's "meh, we can take the hit, have some free pills - it's not like Britney needs the new Porsche" while the other says "ZOMG!! TEH TERRIZZSTSS ARE GUNNA KILL U AND STEAL UR STUFF!! GIVE US ALL UR MONI OR WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!!1".

Naturally rich/smart people don't fall for this jibbajabbah, which leaves the rednecks and their masters that tell them what they want to hear. Unfortunately for the entire planet, there are too many rednecks in America.

/End caffeine effected rant.
 
RussianPooper
2007-11-23 8:17:32 PM  
The Republican base of the 21st Century

media.urbandictionary.comView Full Size
 
Onager
2007-11-23 8:19:07 PM  
Hal B. Sure

Win. Thread over. Time to trash the page.

What do you expect from a paper owned by the Moonies?
 
GodsTumor
2007-11-23 8:26:35 PM  
The oil companies sure know who give them the most bang for their buck...


In the full 2003-2004 cycle, these ten oil company PACs gave:

* ExxonMobil $728,545 (95% to Republicans)
* Occidental $361,000 (81%)
* ChevronTexaco $350,300 (88%)
* Ashland $306,600 (87%)
* ConocoPhillips $242,000 (88%)
* BP $220,499 (62%)
* Marathon Oil $181,250 (83%)
* Anadarko $178,000 (94%)
* Sunoco $148,630 (80%)
* Shell Oil $85,000 (84%)
Link
 
underbridge
2007-11-23 8:34:53 PM  
Studies like this deeply sadden me. Not because of the questionable statistics or meaningless correlations, but because the partisan nature of so many comes out.

If a study says that party A has more money, and you like party A, then you say it is because people in party A are smarter, more successful, more hard working, better educated.

If you don't like party A, you say party A therefore doesn't care about the poor, you say they don't deserve their wealth, you say part A protects the wealth of it's own and prevents others from becoming wealthy.

Please people, stop. I swear one day I'm going to go around with a poll asking people questions and just flipping around "republican" and "democrat" to prove a point. I'll make up some issue... a new bridge, say which party is for it and which against it then poll people.

I'd bet my life savings that I could show if I say "The republicans are for the bridge, the democrats are against it, what do you think?" that republicans will say the bridge is a good idea and the democrats will say it's a bad idea. Then I'll switch it around and say "the democrats want the bridge and the republicans don't" and I'll get republicans opposing it and democrats supporting it.

No critical thought, no research, no reading, no discourse. Just follow the leader, whichever leader your parents told you to follow.
 
Treize26
2007-11-23 9:08:56 PM  
underbridge wins this thread by a landslide.

You people are sheep, Republican and Democrat.
 
Nemo's Brother
2007-11-23 9:09:20 PM  
Paris Hitlon = Rich Democrat.
 
Guntram Shatterhand
2007-11-23 9:20:39 PM  
Nemo's Brother: Hitlon

[image from wolf3d.co.uk too old to be available]

????
 
FuriousGeorge945
2007-11-23 9:32:51 PM  
Wow, incredibly retarded argument he has there.

FTA:
"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with the Washington Times.

Very closely correlated my ass. I'll take on his main statistics one by one.

1. He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.
Is this anything new? States with larger urban populations tend to vote democratic, and larger urban populations generally means higher incomes.

1. If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions
Ok, so out of the wealthiest 1/3 democrats represent 58%. That's hardly that impressive. It's even less impressive given the fact that if you take all of the districts, 54% are controlled by democrats. I'm not going to go through the statistical tests for it (largely because I've forgotten the formulas), but a 4% difference from the norm in a sample size of 435 is not all that significant, and certainly couldn't be described as "very closely correlated".

2. But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats.
This one is the most blatant attempt to spin the statistics. Democrats hold 50% of these, despite holding 54% of the districts. This actually goes against his argument, and makes his previous point look foolish. If democrats representing 4% more of the wealthiest 1/3 than they do of the total is statistically important and a sign of "very close correlation", why isn't republicans holding 4% more of the above median than they do of the total important?

Nice try, Heritage Foundation.
 
FuriousGeorge945
2007-11-23 9:33:31 PM  
Wow, ignore the fact that I can't count to 3 properly.
 
MilesTeg
2007-11-23 9:36:11 PM  
Seems like when I was a kid, democrats were the blue collar people who cared about the little guy.

Now it seems like they are unpatriotic, wealthy, coastal elitists who are more socialists than capitalists.

They have theirs, so now they just want to perpetuate the government ward class to keep everyone else down.
 
Verrai
2007-11-23 10:35:14 PM  
Yeah, and a full three of the five districts on their graphic just dumped their previous Republican congressman in 2006. Nice try.
 
larry00
2007-11-23 11:21:13 PM  
TERM LIMITS !
 
underbridge
2007-11-23 11:29:41 PM  
FuriousGeorge945 can't even count to 3 and he's trying to lecture the rest of us on statistics? This is the time of people I'm talking about, alright? They come in here, alright, and try to use these numbers to support their case, okay, and then they can't even count? I think FuriousGeorge945 needs to go back to elementary school before he opens his mouth again. Okay, moving on...

/bill o'reilly
 
LeBain
2007-11-24 12:40:08 AM  
One question: Who cares?

Apparently it's important to people on this thread whether they are thought to side with rich or poor people they don't even know.
 
Recall all Repuglikkkans
2007-11-24 1:19:20 AM  
MilesTeg: Seems like when I was a kid, democrats were the blue collar people who cared about the little guy.

Now it seems like they are unpatriotic, wealthy, coastal elitists who are more socialists than capitalists.

They have theirs, so now they just want to perpetuate the government ward class to keep everyone else down.

Think that's you or you actually realize that's the Repuglikkkan spin machine hard at work? The Democrats are the same party they've always been: the party of the underprivileged, the poor, the minorities, etc. The Repugs have been the party of the elites and that hasn't changed. The fact that the right's spin machine has gotten better was what cost 10 good years in the House. Imagine if Clinton didn't have to deal with corrupt Repug agenda and Hillary was able to get through her healthcare plan. Imagine the lives saved, the wars stopped, everything.

// channeling John Lennon
// Imagine a world ...
 
MilesTeg
2007-11-24 2:20:25 AM  
Recall all Repuglikkkans: hat's you or you actually realize that's the Repuglikkkan spin machine hard at work? The Democrats are the same party they've always been: the party of the underprivileged, the poor, the minorities, etc. The Repugs have been the party of the elites and that hasn't changed. The fact that the right's spin machine has gotten better was what cost 10 good years in the House. Imagine if Clinton didn't have to deal with corrupt Repug agenda and Hillary was able to get through her healthcare plan. Imagine the lives saved, the wars stopped, everything.

Now I just think they represent the wealthy elitists and the most ignorant and lazy among us.
 
Seabon
2007-11-24 2:45:49 AM  
Hal B. Sure: quite the chart you have there. It just goes to show, that if the Democrats could somehow convince to poor to go out and vote, they'd win every election.
 
zerkalo
2007-11-24 3:43:28 AM  
Again with the Moonie Times. Good luck with that
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2007-11-24 9:52:03 AM  
Old news...

The money is just chasing the perceived power...
 
PubesTetrazzini
2007-11-24 10:49:20 AM  
submitter: Wait, what?

Um -- they're in charge of the House, kind of in the Senate (*cough* Lieberman) and are the frontrunners for the White House in '08. Money flows in that direction, regardless of political affiliation.

Publicly finance elections and this kind of anti-democratic bullshiat will be marginalized to the hilt.
 
randomjsa
2007-11-24 9:22:09 PM  
thalassatx: The study was conducted by the Heritage Foundation. That's fair and unbiased.

/sarcasm

And any study conducted by any group that said the same thing of Republicans would be hailed as "obvious" by liberals no matter how biased that source was.
 
RanDomino
2007-11-25 5:48:40 PM  
deeproy
Funny, I thought they were both parties of the rich.

это
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want the rest of the Farking story? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.