>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you shoulda checked some other references. Apparently,
>>>>> things have changed. These studies say patterns have reversed. But
>>>>> they don't take into account the great deal of Repuglican fraud
>>>>> which has taken place. "It's not the vote that counts, it's who
>>>>> counts the vote".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1010426
>>>>> "...Abstract:
>>>>> We find that income matters more in "red America" than in "blue
>>>>> America". In
>>>>> poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to
>>>>> vote for
>>>>> the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as
>>>>> Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote
>>>>> preference. In
>>>>> addition to finding this pattern and studying its changes over
>>>>> time, we
>>>>> use the concepts of typicality and availability from cognitive
>>>>> psychology to
>>>>> explain how these patterns can be commonly misunderstood. Our
>>>>> results can be
>>>>> viewed either as a debunking of the journalistic image of rich ?latte?
>>>>> Democrats and poor ?Nascar ? Republicans, or as support for the
>>>>> journalistic
>>>>> images of political and cultural differences between red and blue
>>>>> states?differences which are not explained by differences in
>>>>> individuals'
>>>>> incomes.
>>>>>
>>>>> For decades, the Democrats have been viewed as the party of the
>>>>> poor, with
>>>>> the Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections,
>>>>> however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing
>>>>> well in the
>>>>> richer ?blue? states in the northeast and west coast, and Republicans
>>>>> dominating in the ?red? states in the middle of the country. Through
>>>>> multilevel modeling of individual-level survey data and county- and
>>>>> state-level demographic and electoral data, we reconcile these
>>>>> patterns.
>>>>> "...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2110937
>>>>> Economic Self-Interest and Political Behavior, by Stanley Feldman В©
>>>>> 1982
>>>>> Midwest Political Science Association.
>>>>> ..."Abstract
>>>>> The nature of the relationship between personal economic well-being
>>>>> and
>>>>> political behavior has been an object of much theory and research
>>>>> in the
>>>>> social sciences. A growing number of studies of survey data have
>>>>> concluded,
>>>>> however, that there is little or no relationship in the U.S. between
>>>>> financial well-being and political attitudes and behavior. This
>>>>> paper offers
>>>>> an explanation for these findings based on the way people perceive the
>>>>> nature of their financial well-being. The analysis shows that
>>>>> belief in
>>>>> economic individualism leads people to accept personal
>>>>> responsibility for
>>>>> their economic conditions, which in turn eliminates any connection
>>>>> between
>>>>> personal well-being and political evaluation."...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2111717
>>>>> ..."Group-based economic assessments affect the presidential vote
>>>>> choice,
>>>>> but, surprisingly, this influence is not a function of group
>>>>> membership,
>>>>> group identification, or traditional forms of group comparison such as
>>>>> relative deprivation. Instead, findings point to the significance of a
>>>>> unique form of group comparison, sociotropic fairness: voters are
>>>>> substantially more likely to judge the president favorably if they
>>>>> feel that
>>>>> class groups have enjoyed similar rather than dissimilar changes in
>>>>> economic
>>>>> performance. "...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Don't bust his bubble, Bob. After all, he looked it up in the World
>>>> Almanac. Gotta be true....
>>>>
>>>> jak
>>>
>>> Typical reply from the uneducated. The credits that I read in the
>>> reply were Dept. of Labor, Election Commission, Commerce Commission,
>>> etc. The Almanac does not make editorial comments but only collects
>>> information from government, religious, sports, etc, and reports in
>>> the book. Try reading history also. Can be very enlightning to those
>>> without a closed mind.
>>> I'm pretty much a democrat in my voting but I did vote for Dwight
>>> Eisenhower. I have met McCain and I don't think much of him. I
>>> haven't decided about Obama yet. Still a lot of background reading to
>>> do.
>>>
>>> ** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
>
> One of the quoted papers is a collaborative venture of these gentlemen.
> It is precisely what it claims to be, a paper, not a factual document
> and is not based on statistical records but heavily on personal opinion
> as do all of the quoted papers.
> Any subject that an assistant or professor can get published adds to his
> credentials for raises and tenure. It makes no difference what the
> subject is, or how inaccurate the discourse is, he can still say "I was
> published".
> Andrew Gelman is a professor @ Columbia University. His published papers
> include one regarding the NYPD Stop & Frisk policy and another about
> Mathematical Modeling of Trench Warfare. Not much of a viable source.
> Boris Shor is an assistant @ the University of Chicago.
> Joseph Bafuni is an assistant @ Dartmouth College.
> David Park is an assistant @ George Washington University.
>
>
> ** Posted from
http://www.teranews.com **
