Republican activist likens Michelle Obama's ancestors to gorillas

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest
>congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households
>are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate
>seats.

Looks like Democrats are becoming the party of the rich and successful. Interesting change.

The real data is even more interesting. I read a series of articles about it in the Economist a while back. Let me see if I can find some of them on-line.

Democrats tend to control areas with greater income disparity. This is probably because people there (both the rich and the poor) see the difference daily, and want to change it. Republicans tend to control areas where income is distributed equally. Again, this may be because they don't see the point of re-distributing wealth when folks are pretty close income-wise. Some of the data even suggests that people who move between these sorts of areas are more likely to change their voting patterns, and that changes in the income distribution of the areas also changes the voting patterns.

Basically, democrats are pushing for redistribution to create income equality, while republicans are already living in the democratic utopia.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

That is interesting, but it isnt what I am asking.

I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

[billvon 2,991]

>Democrats tend to control areas with greater income disparity. This is probably
>because people there (both the rich and the poor) see the difference daily, and
>want to change it. Republicans tend to control areas where income is distributed
>equally. Again, this may be because they don't see the point of re-distributing
>wealth when folks are pretty close income-wise.

Or (alternative interpretation) democrats are more popular in areas with a lot of diversity, and people want a representative who represents a lot of different incomes. Republicans are popular where everyone has the same income/politics/social status and want to keep it that way.

Basically, democrats are the party of diversity, and republicans are the party of "keeping people in their place."

(I really don't think that's any more valid than your interpretation, just wanted to present an alternative.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That is interesting, but it isnt what I am asking.

I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

You made the assertion...prove your cite.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

I think it's going to depend on your definitions of "wealthy" and "white". Also, probably on your definition of "in" the party--are we talking about people's voting preferences, or just those people who are political activists in their spare time?

Assuming that wealthy means over 250k per year income (Obama's definition) and that "white" means straight western european ancestry, I'm going to guess no.

If you restrict wealthy to people who have no need to work, or include those of Indian and Asian ancestry in "white" (as affirmative action generally does), then it may be so.

I actually know loads of Republicans who are caucasian, but generally fall into middle (or lower) income categories. Besides, aside from African Americans (who are overwhelmingly democrats) ethnicity is actually a surprisingly bad indicator of party affiliation.

If I recall correctly, the wealthiest and most republican ethnic group in the USA is Indian. Japanese and Vietnamese Americans are also more likely to vote Republican, although the last time I saw the numbers, the Japanese Americans were above the average income level and the Vietnamese were below.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Quote

Quote

That is interesting, but it isnt what I am asking.

I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

You made the assertion...prove your cite.

What assertion? I asked a question and guessed... (those are not assertions... those are questions and guesses)

[chasteh 0]

Quote

I think it's going to depend on your definitions of "wealthy" and "white". Also, probably on your definition of "in" the party--are we talking about people's voting preferences, or just those people who are political activists in their spare time?

No. Perhaps I need to restate the question as to eliminate all ambiguity.
The 250k+ criterion will surely work for the question, so here it goes...

Is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men leading the republican party higher than the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men leading the democratic party?

Semantic definitions:
"wealthy" here refers to those earning over $250,000 dollars a year in income
"income" here refers to any method by which a person receives funds in the form of personal profit
"white man" here refers to man of at least 51% caucasion
"leading" refers to any judge, senator, congressman, president, or ranking affiliate of the official party itself

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is interesting, but it isnt what I am asking.

I am asking, is the ratio of wealthy white men to those who aren't wealthy white men in the republican party higher than that of the democrat party?

You made the assertion...prove your cite.

What assertion? I asked a question and guessed... (those are not assertions... those are questions and guesses)

I beg your pardon, then...your original post read more like a statement posed as a rhetorical question.

For 2007, 7 out of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrat. In the top 20, 11 are Democrat. In the top 25, 14 are Democrat.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chasteh 0]

Now I remember what I wanted to add earlier on. I saw the picture of the black man on your attached photo.
I guess what I want to know is how having a picture of a black republican makes the republican party not prodominantly lead by wealthy white men...(it doesn't)
and if it doesn't, it would be interesting to have an actual statistic of information which would indicate which party truly is the "wealthy white man's club."

[mnealtx 0]

See my post directly above - sorry, but I'm not interested in breaking down to race and gender for you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Well, you've got your criteria. Go out and find the answer, and report back. We'll be waiting.

Almost anyone can come up with examples to prove that one side or the other is wealthy, white and male (Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? George Bush?). If you seek real numbers, I encourage you to go get them.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

Quote

Well, you've got your criteria. Go out and find the answer, and report back. We'll be waiting.

Almost anyone can come up with examples to prove that one side or the other is wealthy, white and male (Ted Kennedy? John Kerry? George Bush?). If you seek real numbers, I encourage you to go get them.

It's just that... with so many people on here saying that it is or isn't the wealthy white man's club, then they also must have the information to back that claim up. Perhaps I will look it up on my own....