[cherdano]

Uh, I think it's obvious why Republicans are inflation hawks right now. Higher inflation = faster economic recovery = more likely that Obama will win a second term. Obviously most Republicans aren't that cynical, but some are, and a few others are pushed the same way subconciously, throw in the current Republican group think and you have uniform opposition to any stimulative measures.

[hrothgar]

 cherdano, on 2011-July-25, 08:36, said:

Uh, I think it's obvious why Republicans are inflation hawks right now. Higher inflation = faster economic recovery = more likely that Obama will win a second term. Obviously most Republicans aren't that cynical, but some are, and a few others are pushed the same way subconciously, throw in the current Republican group think and you have uniform opposition to any stimulative measures.

Nate Silver's 538 blog on the New York Times web site has a couple very articles that explain the intransigence of the Republican Party.

http://fivethirtyeig...not-compromise/
http://fivethirtyeig...-voters-behind/

Simply put, the inmates are running the asylumn.

The Republicans have spent decades courting/creating an incredibly ill informed segment of the American public. At this point in time, their entire electoral strategy boils down to mobilizing said "base" and trying to make sure that the Democrats don't show up at the polls.

[luke warm]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-25, 08:58, said:

At this point in time, their entire electoral strategy boils down to mobilizing said "base" and trying to make sure that the Democrats don't show up at the polls.

surely nobody would be so idiotic as to allow that to happen - again... eh?

[Bbradley62]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-25, 13:43, said:

surely nobody would be so idiotic as to allow that to happen - again... eh?

Was that sentiment from 2004?

[luke warm]

no, it was more along the lines of "who do you blame for that?"

[y66]

The anti-inflation club includes quite a few European politicians, not just U.S. Republicans. So, I don't think this is about sabotaging the U.S. economy in order to win the next U.S. presidential election. I think it's about doing whatever it takes to protect the interests of wealthy bondholders. If the consequences include a sabotaged economy or two, too bad.

Quiz: What percent of all financial securities held by Americans in 2007 were held by the wealthiest top 10 percent of Americans?

Spoiler

98.5

Source: Edward N. Wolff in Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 (pdf) via Krugman

[awm]

While he is not exactly a columnist, I will mention that I find Michael Steele to be hilarious. He works for MSNBC now.

[Winstonm]

Two long term trends are most likely responsible for most of the U.S. ills: the dumbing down of the population and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor.

An uneducated poor populace is sure to turn to magical thinking in order to find hope, and propagandists are quick to offer alluring stories of magical no-pain economic growth from tax cuts and the magical powers of unfettered business operations as a Messianic solution to save our country.

States like Texas are especially hard hit - not only with drought but with the stupid tree: (emphatic snark added)

Quote

In Texas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently designated all 254 counties in the state natural disaster areas. Concidentally, at the same time so did the Department of Education.

[blackshoe]

I would think that putting something like that in a quote box, without attribution, is pretty much equivalent to "I made it up", unless it's clear from other things in your post who you're quoting, which is not the case here.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-30, 14:41, said:

I would think that putting something like that in a quote box, without attribution, is pretty much equivalent to "I made it up", unless it's clear from other things in your post who you're quoting, which is not the case here.

That's because I did make up the part in italics - I thought you might have guessed that by the "(emphatic snark added)" disclaimer I stated.

The idea of the Dept. of Education declaring Texas a disaster struck me as a humorous addition to the real headline that was not put in italics. I didn't quote anyone because I didn't want anyone to think it was anything other than a joke.

Nevertheless, thanks for playing, do you or do you not have a sense of humor?

[luke warm]

 Winstonm, on 2011-July-30, 07:58, said:

Two long term trends are most likely responsible for most of the U.S. ills: the dumbing down of the population and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor.

An uneducated poor populace is sure to turn to magical thinking in order to find hope, and propagandists are quick to offer alluring stories of magical no-pain economic growth from tax cuts and the magical powers of unfettered business operations as a Messianic solution to save our country.

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2011-July-30, 14:59, said:

That's because I did make up the part in italics - I thought you might have guessed that by the "(emphatic snark added)" disclaimer I stated.

The idea of the Dept. of Education declaring Texas a disaster struck me as a humorous addition to the real headline that was not put in italics. I didn't quote anyone because I didn't want anyone to think it was anything other than a joke.

Nevertheless, thanks for playing, do you or do you not have a sense of humor?

I do, and yes, the juxtaposition was kind of funny. It wasn't clear to me, though, whether the first part was also made up, which is why I posted.

[Winstonm]

Quote

are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of,

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the guys and gals I grew up with, who make $20-50K a year, who sit in front of Fox News at night, drinking beer and nodding when Bill O'Reilly says, "Turn off his mike," who got school loans to go the local Junior College for two years because university cost too much, and who have been on unemployment benefits three times in the last 20 years, who have modest homes financed by Fannie Mae, ride the city bus to work and ride Amtrak to the ballpark on weekends, who like to fish on the reservoir created and maintained by the Corp of Engineers, who work for and own hospices that are Medicare funded and who then turn around and go on vacation to Washington, D.C. to Glenn Beck's Tea Party "Stop Big Government" rally while saying, "The government has never done anything for me."

Maybe I meant ignorant lower middle class instead of poor.

(Btw, I know the person described. And yes, she did use her personal vacation time to go to Beck's rally, and yes she was employed by hospice.)

[kenberg]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-30, 15:10, said:

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

I like the stats. Apparently Ph.D.s (for example me) as well as those who never attended high school (for example my father) vote Democratic. In between they vote for Republicans. What's the old saying? Oh yes. A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring. Whatever a Pierian spring might be.

Kidding, guys, kidding.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-30, 15:10, said:

let's check that out, do you mind? these charts seem to show that those who haven't graduated high school vote demographic more often than not... are these the uneducated poor you're speaking of, the ones that turn to magical no-pain economic growth schemes? granted these are 2004 numbers, and i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to show, but unless you mean you're describing democratic voters i don't think the stats bear you out

If folks are interested in this topic, Red State, Blue State by Gelman is mandatory reading

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/069113927X

An earlier academic paper is available at http://www.stat.colu...hed/rb_qjps.pdf

[luke warm]

 Winstonm, on 2011-July-30, 17:02, said:

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the guys and gals I grew up with, who make $20-50K a year, who sit in front of Fox News at night, drinking beer and nodding when Bill O'Reilly says, "Turn off his mike," who got school loans to go the local Junior College for two years because university cost too much, and who have been on unemployment benefits three times in the last 20 years, who have modest homes financed by Fannie Mae, ride the city bus to work and ride Amtrak to the ballpark on weekends, who like to fish on the reservoir created and maintained by the Corp of Engineers, who work for and own hospices that are Medicare funded and who then turn around and go on vacation to Washington, D.C. to Glenn Beck's Tea Party "Stop Big Government" rally while saying, "The government has never done anything for me."

Maybe I meant ignorant lower middle class instead of poor.

(Btw, I know the person described. And yes, she did use her personal vacation time to go to Beck's rally, and yes she was employed by hospice.)

just to be clear then, when you say "uneducated poor" you don't really mean those who are uneducated nor those who are poor... just another in a long line of talking out your ass posts

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-30, 17:39, said:

I like the stats. Apparently Ph.D.s (for example me) ~~~ vote Democratic.

only the poor and uneducated ones

[Winstonm]

Quote

just another in a long line of talking out your ass posts

No doubt, but someone has to take up the mantle of the liberal "talking out your ass posts" as you have dominated the discussion thus far from the right wing aspect.

[hrothgar]

 luke warm, on 2011-July-31, 07:22, said:

just to be clear then, when you say "uneducated poor" you don't really mean those who are uneducated nor those who are poor... just another in a long line of talking out your ass posts

There is a reason that I posted the "Red State, Blue State" article.

Gelman's notes the following

1. If you analyze data at a state wide level, rich states tend to vote for the Democratic Party. Poor states tend to vote for the Republican.
2. If you look at data at an individual level (look at individuals within a state), rich individuals vote for Republicans and relatively poor individuals vote for Democrats.

The key insight here is this is ALL a hell of a lot more complicated than the simplistic platitudes that both of you are provided.
Wide, sweeping generalities (and single variable models) have very little descriptive power.

As a practical example, let's consider "education".

Historically, there was a positive relationship between level of education and voting Republican.
White collar professionals tended to vote for Republicans.

More recently, this flip flopped.
Today, white collar professions are much more like to vote for Democrats than they did 30 years ago.

As a result, its pretty easy to pull a study that maps "Education" to voting patterns and assert whatever you damn well please.

At the end of the damn, the real models tend to be pretty complicated.
However, if you want a simple model that explains what's going on, the key variables to focus on are

1. Population density
2. Religious intensity

[Winstonm]

Richard,

I read the Gelman's red state/blue state article. It seemed to me that the most important point made was how voting dynamics have changed over the course of the past 10-15 years, especially in the wealthier states.