IQ and Politics - Do lower income, lower IQ voters, Elect our Leaders?
 

Questions....does this seem accurate to you....it does, to me. If you disagree, please post why....

Does this data provide an explanation about the state that the country is in, to a large degree, a smaller degree, or not at all?

<a href="http://sq.4mg.com/usingSQ.htm">Sloan responds to questions on IQ and SQ:</a>

<b>I included the states with highest populations, and seperately, states with highest and lowest average IQ and income. Comments in the following quote box, are mine <i>-host</i></b>

I guess the poor underclass did not think voting for Democrats was in their best interest in those states.

Little did they know!

Is it possible that the reason Bush got so many votes isn't as dependant on voter fraud, lies and deciet, etc? Is it possible that dumb people just vote for a dumb representative? Is that the brilliant strategy? I find this more frightening than anything....

/coined phrase

Just imagine if only land owners could vote. man that sure would solve a lot of problems.

No one is suggesting disinfranchising anyone. As a matter of fact, more people should vote. The point is that we should have more educated masses. The point is that voting is a responsibility, and part of voting responsibly is doing your homework, and part of doing your homework is being able to even do homework.

It's my right to vote by the flip of a coin, but is that really the way our country wants to be lead?

I wasn't joking.

A well known fact by civil lawyers is that the average intelligence of a civil jury is an EIGHTH GRADE EDUCATION.

When you accept that the majority of your country, society, and government are absolute idiots - you stop being surprised by voting results.

Funny the only "resource" I found through 30min of searching their site is a link to the census bureau that goes no where.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

Ironicly I was thinking the same thing today.

Oh btw living in Illinois the richest counties I'm aware of voted for Bush and tend to vote straight Republican. No idea where this would be going as voting and IQ is not a state wide thing. I'd be happy, no elated if those who didn't graduate highschool were not allowed to vote, and it wouldn't be because Democrats would win :)

Oh and I found this
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

Which uses ACT/SAT scores, shows there isn't a really big difference, and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!

And beats hosts edited version.

Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?

In other words, host give me a break, your side ain't smarter.

Ahhhh finally here someone did my homework for me.... I knew someone would understand.

First, the 'IQ' gap.

To the above may I say 'duh'

Now for the grim reality to the democrats....

http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004...nties-2004.gif

http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/
:lol: host this was an easy one, add more links next time so I don't bother reading it.

Thank you, ustwo, for the resource effort made. I was going to post about the Bell Curve and that large numbers will fall within the mean, plus or minus one standard deviation. IQ's of 101 or 99 are statistically identical. I wasn't willing to "prove" my post, however. :)

People who vote for a living tend to vote Democrat. People who work hard and make their own way tend to vote GOP.

People who rape sedated puppies tend to vote gop. People who don't believe that all minorities are homosexual communists tend to vote democrat.



Perhaps we could all benefit from reading the things we plan on posting aloud, perhaps to other people so that we can avoid making broad sweeping statements that have no basis in reality.

Let's see about that on Tuesday, shall we?

Even in our good old red-state North Carolina, 8 out of 12 congressional races are very likely to go Democrat--including some rural, traditionally conservative districts. I think this indicates that this year's election isn't about traditional demographics. It's a referendum on the failed policies of the administration and the congress that failed to rein them in. You don't have to be a liberal to disapprove of what's been going on the last couple years.

Interestingly, the exceptions are the district that contains non-metro Mecklenburg County (the county where Charlotte is located), non-metro Guilford County (the county where Greensboro is located), and the 3rd District (which is most of the coast), and one district in the mountains (the 10th--Lenoir is the biggest town there). I'm not surprised by the 3rd or 10th, but the areas immediately surrounding two of the state's largest cities are STRONGLY for their republican congressman--in some cases by 40 points or more. I find that puzzling. I'm willing to shrug and let it be a coincidence, unless anybody has a theory about it.

EDIT: Just figured it out. There aren't actually elections in all those districts. Silly me.

By the way, NCB, you're most likely stuck with Brad Miller for another six years. Good thing too--Vernon Robinson's a total sleazeball. He's run a DIRTY campaign. He sent out this vicious letter implying, among other things, that Miller is gay. He actually push-polled me yesterday in his own voice. Totally shameless.

Robinson is great. You may not like him, but he doesnt hide from the tough questions. Miller is a complete pussy who wont answer to his constituents in a district that he literally drew up for himself.

Also, youre counting your chicken well before they hatch. Taylor will keep his seat, as will Walter Jones. Robin Hayes has a tougher road, but I think that he'll keep his seat too. If you like, we could come up with some small avatar bet. Care to make it interesting?

You know, this might be a good idea, have some good-ol' fashioned fun. It might reduce tensions in the Politics Forum a little bit and lighten things up too.

Lay down some background info so those of us not in your district have some idea and I'll make a side bet with anyone who's interested. This could be fun. What do you say TFP?

Bush Co. makes a lot of reassuring noises from its mouths, but generally doesn't actually say anything. It talks about "Victory in Iraq". Though I listen to NPR for about two hours every day while commuting, I have never heard the conditions for "Victory" defined.

But it sounds good. Most of the reassuring noises that have no meaning make for great sound bites. To people who actually listen critically to politicians (I'm not sure why anyone bothers, regardless of affiliation) get so caught up in the emptiness of the rhetoric that they fail to notice how smoothly it's delivered.

Bush is an excellent speech reader backed by even better speech writers. He sounds like he's saying simple straightforward things that are easy for people who aren't really listening to understand. Well reasoned and multi-faceted opinions do not survive television concision or the spin of being dubbed "waffling". Many people pick candidates based on a handful of largely irrelevant cultural issues... play to those issues and otherwise avoid muttering anything substantive and they'll keep voting for you.

This is why Bush won. No one wants to be invited to think about their position on stem cells. Kerry launched on how current stem cell research lines are contaminated with mouse cells. What voters did he win over with that one? I don't even remember what Bush said, probably because he didn't actually say anything... just made reassuring noises that sounded like a point being made.

:lol:

Yes I voted for Bush, twice, because of his easy listening reassuring noises. You sure summed that up nicely.

EDIT: The truth is even sadder then the original post. Nothing to see here. Move along

Can we stop this whole "only stupid people vote for Bush" already? It was old in 2000, it's simply retarded now. The majority of people vote Republican because they felt it was better than the alternative.

Don't assume you're more intelligent than everyone else simply because you feel differently politically.

There is no assumption in the data.

I am curious, though, as to why someone would vote for a bumbling idiot. I know that I am significantly smarter than George W. Bush will ever be (as a paleologist is smarter than a brontosaurus), but I'd never run for President because I don't think I am capable enough to do the best job in that position. There are amazing demands made on the President every day, and when a monkey is left to make those decisions it's no wonder that problems arise. I realize that Gore was boring, not that bright, and riding the Clinton coat tails, and Kerry was pretty weak, and not a strong candiadte, but were they so bad that you would vote for the halfwit?

Sometimes the obvious half-wit is better then the guy you don't think has any wits despite acting otherwise (see: Gore, Al and Kerry, John).

With the benifit of hinsight, I'm sure you've changed your mind. There is no way that Gore or Kerry would have us in the mess we're in now. Please tell me everyone is actually learning from their mistakes. Flip flippong from a mistake to the right decision is a good thing.

I've yet to see any legitimate data. As I stated the "link" provided as a "resource" does not work. They could have easily just made everything up.

Besides, any "point" that people who vote for Bush are rednecks are easily negated by pointing out the inner-city vote-farms which the Dems set up.

I'm "sorry" you "don't" think the data "is" legitimate. I'll "see" if I "can" find another source online"."

Once again, IQ's of 99 and 101 have NO statistical difference. There is no argument to be had here, unless that is the purpose of the OP and posters.

Haven't you figured out by now? That's irrelevant when you want to trash conservatives.

There is a reason for hindsight always being 20/20, but even so I don't think it's true in this case.

I wouldn't trust Al Gore to have done anything post-9/11, and we would likely still be in the same position in Iraq with Kerry, since I cannot see a Republican Congress voting to do anything else with the war other then fight it out.

Do you really think Al Gore would have attacked Iraq? No way, Jose. That automatically means that we wouldn't have anywhere near as much debt, global terrorism would be less, a lot less dead soldiers, better relationships with our allies, and better approval presidental ratings. Also, Gore could pronounce "terrorism" instead of "terrsm" (i.e., he woulnd't make ridiculous verbal blunders day after day). Gore woulnd't have demoted Clinton's top terrorism expert, therefore 9/11 would have been less likely. It's guesswork, but I think it's a reasonable prediction.

As far as not doing anything post-9/11....what did we do? We attacked Afghanistan, now it's run by opium growing warlords (producing a vast majorty of the worlds opiates) and it's less stable than it was under the Taliban, if that's possible. We didn't go into Saudi Arabia; where the suspected 9/11 terrorists were born, raised, and trained; where the financing for 9/11 came from; one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world. We still don't have any idea where Osama is.

This isn't a 9/11 thread will, try looking at the data provided objectively and logically.

I 'debunked' this myth in my spare time between seeing patients. Its obvious, its clear, and you are twisting it to make it fit your world view.

Let's examine your "debunking" claim:
Your "snopes.com" article is irrelevant, since:
<b>[1}</b> What you "found", was the first link that I posted in the OP, pointing to the principle citation (and influence) for the creation of the OP.
What do you mean, <b>"you found it?"</b>

<b>[2}</b>The reason that I prominently posted the link that "you found",
was because, the first thing that the linked page did, was <b>display the identical subject and argument against it, that your long, snopes.com, linked cut and past made....</b>

I posted the link to avoid what you did, anyway;
You attempted to confuse the info at Van Sloan's sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm , by "linking" it with the snopes.com described, debunked IQ/Voting data and table.

<b>[3}</b> At the bottom of the page at the link that "you found",
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm, is a link in big, bokd letters:
<h3>Go to: <a href="http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm">Calculating state IQ's from SAT and ACT scores</a></h3>
The link above displays a page that lists IQ data by state. and at the bottom, <b>the adjustments to address your concerns</b>, are explained:
....<b>Ustwo..... I cannot see where you "debunked" anything....... </b>
In addition to the two points that the "State IQ" site's author, Sloan made, in the sentences just preceding my closing comments...( please review what you've posted that refutes Sloan's claim that his <b>"page presents the best state IQ information available anywhere"</b>), you've ignored the more dramatic 2003, per capita income differences of the two groups of 2004 voters.

Now that your concerns:
...have been addressed by Van Sloan, what argument can you make to persuasively counter his fomula for determining state IQ averages? Is there more authoritative data, or a more impressive formula to determine state IQ,
that you can point to, for us?

Are the flaws in Sloan's method or his data, or his research on the relationships between SAT and ACT test scores, and IQ?

....and, to Ustwo, and Seaver:
Seaver....<b>here is a link to the page at the "dead" census.gov link:</b>
http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

...the last point in Ustwo's "debunking" effort, was anticipated on the page from the this prominent link, displayed in the OP:
<b>Seaver obviously found his way to the page in the preceding quote box, the link Seaver described as,.... "link to the census bureau that goes no where."....is displayed on that page.</b> The calculations of Doug Waage, that impressed Van Sloan enough to create an entire page for...at the preceding link....also impressed me enough to author a new thread about.
<b>So....why do you, Ustwo, ignore it, and instead, post this?:</b>
Since the first link in the thread OP was to Sloan's display of the matrial covered in your snope.com linked material, and making clear that his data and methodology had corrected the flaws in that 2004 internet hoax, why did you lead your "debunking" with the snopes.com article?

<b>In summary....Ustwo, all of the major points that you made in your "debunking" post, were addressed....before you raised them:</b>
1.) The 2004 "internet hoax" described in the first link in this thread OP

2.) "and of course only counts those going to college and taking the exam. I'm sure its all those inner city republican droppouts that sway elections!"

3.)"Also since it doesn't say WHO is voting, its only by state, and states which have large urban centers tend to go to the Democrats, you have to wonder if anything really being measured here?"

4.)"Ahhhh finally here someone did my homework for me.... I knew someone would understand.

First, the 'IQ' gap."

"It's easy enough to figure out. Since electoral votes are based on population (the more people that live in a state, the more electoral votes it has), one merely has to multiply each state's average IQ by its electoral vote count, then add up the totals in each candidate's column, and divide by each candidate's electoral vote total. The results will be a highly accurate average IQ of the voters for each side."
<b>host asks: didn't the core quote box....in the thread OP, the one with the list of more than 20 states...already provide <a href="http://sq.4mg.com/weighting.htm">States IQ chart - weighted by population</a></b>....and doesn't that weighting provide a clearer measure of IQ average, by state, than an "electoral vote", weighting?

host look at the county map and refute that, otherwise dont' waste my time, you didn't address either the 101 - 99 IQ 'margin' or the county map. I have to go play doctor now and you can play internet pundit.

Now I see why the left has such a hard time figuring out 9/11, and the mechanics behind it, they are confused by numbers and what they really mean.

Easy there. We're not the ones who think Iraq was involved.

You didn't debunk anything. You brought up points that had already been addressed, then did a victory dance.

Also, just becuase you can't grasp the simple physics behind 9/11 doesn't mean you can bring it up in every single thread. This thread isn't called "what really happened on 9/11", so either stop flaming and threadjacking and/or move into the appropriate thread.

http://web.archive.org/web/200411140...www/part6.html

How this is is supposed to be a resource is equivilant to me making a website of www.uglyduck.com/us.gov.html and claiming that it is the US Government's website. The "link" which is attempted to be hidden in that follows as... http://www.census.gov/statab/www/part6.html unfortunately, as I said before, it does not work. Therefore this is by definition unsupported documentation, which justly gets thrown out of any argument.

This is the part of the "link" which it supposably is part of. It leads no where. I can put census.gov somewhere in a URL link and it will go no where in the census bureau.

When I see it there maybe I'll believe, until then try forging information some other way.

This is silliness. The web archive at archive.org is completely legitimate as it archives previously live web pages. Instead of attacking the source, perhaps attack the fact that the data has been removed for some reason.

I agree with the silliness...both the question raised in the OP and the reactionary comment by Seaver,re: the link "which is attempted to be hidden".

The link doesnt work because Census Dept moved the Statistcal Abstract of the US from www.census.gov/statab/www to http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

Sorry Sertogis, in my opinion it is as legitimate as Wikipedia. While it may be good for quick referencing, it is only as good as the source who delivers it. Being that the source is quite litterally attempting to paint the stupid brush on his opponents I'd say there's reason to question it.

And I've yet to see any data on the census website which delivers any sembilance of SAT/ACT scores, while there are plenty of graduation rates/etc which are similar I've yet to see anything which supports said thesis.

Ustwo, do you read Time magazine? Your map is a distortion, using a winner-take-all approach. I'm certain you must know that every state is actually a blend of both dems and reps, with most states being fairly evenly divided. This month's Time displays that version of the "map" and is far more accurate representation of the popular vote, vs. your Electoral College map.

Nice catch, host. :thumbsup:

I don't know which party has the voters with the lowest IQ but from the negative campaign commercials I have seen it is apparent that they must think we are all pretty stupid.

Wow, that's it right there. Best quote ever. Sums it up nicely.

Really, broad brush labeling is non-constructive: there are obviously brite and stoopid peepel on bof sides.

flstf has hit it. jorgelito, isn't "sides" spelt "cides?" :)

The level of discourse above does not indicate an intelligence greater than Bush's.

Do you think that once OBL is captured, the threat of terrorism is over?
Do you think that al Qaeda has no significant presence in Iraq?

/threadjack

Coincidentally, I had been thinking of how voters will align at the next election.

Specifically:

1. Will illegal aliens vote Republican or Democrat? (What's to prevent them from voting if they can't be asked for ID?

2. Will drug addicts vote Republican or Democrat?

3. Will the unemployed vote Republican or Democrat? (Today's paper reported that unemployment is down to 4.4%. As Dick Cheney said, since the stock market is up, unemployment is down, and gas prices are down, what else does the administration have to do to get any credit for a job well done with the economy?)

4. Will people who have never worked for a living, including third-generation welfare recipients, vote Republican or Democrat?

5. Will single parents on government assistance vote Republican or Democrat?

6. Will people who are taxed to support those who do not work vote Republican or Democrat?

7. Will members of the US military vote Republican or Democrat?

Biased questions? Certainly some will think so. Revealing questions? Likewise.

There are several charts on pages in the recent State IQ study at the link above the quote box.

If you curiousity is not aroused by the spectacle of a president who repackaged himself from a Connecticut born, silver spoon yankee, a holder of undergraduate and graduate degrees from Yale and Harvard, prepared for university at a presitigious <a href="http://www.andover.edu/about_andover/notable_alums.htm">New England boarding school</a>, into a caricature of a bible belt BA christian, a "southern man", most supporters see as approachable enough to "have a beer with...even though he is not "one of them", doesn't drink beer, and is the most secretive and unapproachable POTUS in modern history.....

.......and is still defended, by those who voted for him, and the troops who serve under him.......and taken at his word, notwithstanding his six year history of distortion and scare tactics, passed off as a "dialogue" between the POTUS and the people, and the spectacle of local support for congressmen and senators, representing the states experiencing the most economic distress, voting for bankruptcy "reform" that hobbles the sick and the many families experiencing home foreclosures and the disappearance of jobs paying decent wages and benefits, then this thread and these study excerpts probably won't interest you.

For the rest of us, there is a need for an explanation for why, Connecticut, for example, a state with the highest national per capita income, and the birthplace of George W. Bush has voted against their "native son" and against a POTUS who lowered and has vowed to keep their taxes lower, and why nearly all of the states with the highest measured average IQ and income, elected representatives to congress that voted against the bankruptcy "reform" bill, and against the tax cutting POTUS, Mr. Bush. Or why, the majority of voters, conversely, in all of the states with lowest income and lowest average IQ.....states with much higher than average, per household foreclosure and bankruptcy voted the opposite way.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

Well, then let me say this:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

That makes me much, much smarter than Bush could ever hope to be.

Not sure what that has to do with the President.

Sounds to me like you are either mocking those who voted for Bush, or the Democrats who couldn't find a competent candidate.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." - President George W. Bush
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...a/foolbush.mov
Not "or". "And". I see that the massively corrupt smut machine that is the Republican Party is responsible, and the weak, little Democratic Part was unabnle to present someone who was actually able to make a stand on serious issues and show people why voting Democrat can help. Gore and Kerry were weak speakers and they let themselves be the pawns of their parties and didn't stand up for themselves. Gore could have easily taken a strong stand on the environment during his 2000 campaign. He sure as hell has post 2000. He didn't, and that's part of why he was never sworn in (that, and the massive cheating done in Florida).

No. I don't see what that has to do with what I said, though.

There's currently an organization called "al Qaeda In Iraq". It's unclear what connection they have to al Qaeda outside of Iraq.

Prior to the US invasion, there was no significant al Qaeda presence in Iraq--in fact, Saddam Hussein considered al Qaeda an enemy, and was fighting to keep them OUT of Iraq. Now that the shit has hit the fan there, al Qaeda In Iraq is just one of many terrorist organizations we've engendered and emboldened with our presence.

Now that that's settled: /threadjack.

I would think that this goes along with your life philosophy of people being generally stupid.

I know I'm just an undergrad... but does no one know how to site sources? Under his works cited section at the end they simply lead to the home sites of various bureaus. They do not lead you to WHERE the information is found so that it is defendable.

Host you can post as many of these as you want, but until I see the data It's bunk as far as I'm concerned.

I see no benefit to this discussion.

Given the bell curve mentioned above and the fact that the election was split about 50/50 it is probably safe to say there are just as many low IQ people voting on either side.

In the end who gives a rat's ass.

Stupid is as stupid does or even smart people can vote for bad policy.


(and don't suppose I am taking a side on this... neither side is exempt from bad policy)

Not to worry...the link you objected to was just for the convenience of anyone
who wanted to view the entire "work" without loading a .pdf file....

Here's the link if you want to pay to view the study:
....and here it is...in a .pdf file, if you want to view it without charge, on author Michael A. McDaniel's own, Virginia Commonwealth University page:

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/...state%20IQ.pdf

Here is the link to a list of linked sources of Michael A. McDaniel's published papers:
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/...blications.htm


Seaver, there is not, as you are aware, much research on this topic. I appreciate that you are interested enough to ask about the link. Since available research is so limited, I don't yet have an opinion on whether McDaniel is the "best and the brightest" in his field. I'm still attempting to reverse an impression that the subject of comparative US states IQ has been "debunked".

To answer you, Charalatan....I explained what motivates me to post about this subject. I just don't understand how Bush could persuade so many people to vote for him....how he kept up any pretense of who he pretended to be....
a southern, "man of the people", after he took office, and even whether he is competent, or deliberately portrayed as incompetent....now.....this far into his presidency. Also....what is up with droves of comparatively poor, white, lower income, less educated, primarily southerners, with high bankruptcy and home foreclosure rates, lacking health benefits more often on average, than higher income northerners....voting for republican congressional representatives, and for Bush. Is it simply because of religious and racial worldview, with a healthy dose of anti democractic party propaganda....or is it because of ???????

More to pounder.....
The determination of average adult IQ in a given country seems a much more daunting task than determining a reliable IQ average of folks of voting age in a given US state.....yet it is being seriously attempted by academic researchers:

Everyone is stupid. It's something to work on.

i am confused.
i am not persuaded that this direction in analysis says anything that is useful.
i do not have a particular problem with the study and its methods, but i am not sure that its design is terribly informative or explanatory.

maybe this is a function of my affection for the kinds of analysis i have been indulging concerning contemporary american conservatism since the late 1980s. this is the possibility that has me confused, truth be known.

from the outset i have been more interested in the structure of conservative discourse and have been thinking alot about how it functions, what it does and why it appeals to folk.

the discursive framework is pretty tight, and thinking about it strips alot of the interest out of reading most conservative responses to issues simply because you can pretty much derive them before anyone says anything.

those which are initially a surprise can be generally explained by looking at adjustments made by the media apparatus.

i dont think the appeal of conservative discourse is a function of people being stupid. i think it is something else--maybe a response to globalizing capitalism in a way--shifting to the frames of the nation and of the will is a way to enable folk to imagine that the categories that enable them to locate themselves socially still function, even though they are being eroded by the reorganization of capitalism.

maybe to some extent you could map one way of thinking about this onto the other, and conclude that folk who are in the most exposed class position are the most likely to avail themselves of a discourse that enables them to deny what is obviously the case--that the organization of the economic model they rely on to eat (say) is changing and that they are or will soon become the second great canary in the mineshaft insofar as consequences are concerned.

this would line up contemporary american conservatism with a long tradition of radical nationalist ideologies that speak to the sense of being-exposed of the petit bourgeois in part by enabling them to cope via denial, by retreating into a fantasy of a pure nation that has somehow or another been betrayed or is under some Threat from a curiously amorphous Enemy.

if this study speaks to anything for me at least, it is an index of the extent to which one of the features of contemporary america that really freaks me out (and i use this term with some rigor): that the system of social reproduction has not been able to catch up to changes in the labor market at all, and that it continues to produce and reproduce an outmoded labor pool. this would be a direct reflection of the rigid class structure of american public education--a subject about which the right has nothing coherent to say, really--all they have ever proposed is a system that would privatize class stratification in order to erase the problem as political. the same dysfunction would continue--in fact they would become worse--but the question itself would be shifted away from politics. if i am right, however, and the system of social reproduction is radically out of phase with contemporary reality and cannot be adjusted with any speed to a shifting reality, i would say that the we are maybe in one of the more benign periods of the gradual implosion of the united states.
this last bit actually connects to the methodology of the study in that sat/act scores are more a measure of class position than intelligence.
whence the underlying suspicion about the study: does it naturalize class disparities? does it conflate the effects of a radically stratified educational system with "natural abilities"?

I don't know, isn't bush the one who favors some sort of amnesty for teh illegals?

I don't know, how do you think rush limbaugh will vote?

Good question. I guess they should start taking credit for an improving economy if they start acknowledging that they were responsible for it going down the tubes as well. Only a fool would give them credit for the good times without blaming them for the bad times.

Depends on if you're talking about rich people who have never worked for a living or poor people who have never worked for a living.

Well, since apparently being a single parent is frowned upon by the republican party, not to mention the idea that even poor children need to eat, i'd guess they'd probably vote democrat.

That's a good question too. We all pay taxes and the polls seem to indicated that republicans are going to take a hit this election, so i guess there's your answer.

It probably depends on how much they believe that we're doing the right thing in iraq. I imagine a large portion of the military doesn't really care much for the republican party's broad support for donny rumsfeld.

I think that they reveal more about you than any sort of objective reality.

Yes?
What?
What?!
WHAT?
WHAT DO YOU WANT!!?!?
OH GOD, WHAT?!!!
*in the corner in the fetal position*

I think we hit on a powerful point with your McDaniel link Host, on Page 4 he states:

Sorry, but there are very few blacks or hispanics in the majority of states touted to prove the superior intelligence of blue states. While California has it's share, there are very few blacks or hispanics in Connetticut.

States like Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and my homestate of Texas are forced to face problems which Northern states would never imagine. I doubt there are people in New Hampshire who do not speak a word of English, and are effectively illitterate, and are forced onto a High School and then handed standardized tests. I doubt Mass. has to spend upwards of an 8th of their budget on English as a Second Language.

So can we end this and say that both sides that toute this line are baseless?

The ideas and research that I'm posting on this thread, may not be that far apart from what I think that you were getting at in your last post, rb.

We perceive that our political system, economic system, and our US society is out of whack, i.e., behaving irrationally, compared to our individual POV:

This seems to be an obvious symptom, but to what degree am I handicapped by it, as well?:
Indeed....<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=110290">a new thread</a> that I started on this forum. less than 24 hours ago, has links to two new Bush administration disinformation stories anout WMD, fully two years after the preceding quotebox of the PIPA survey......they've been doing this, over and over....for five full years since 9/11, and variants of it....since the late 90's to install Bush as POTUS, in the first place. All along, the "faithful" have fallen away....but support ("belief"), seems suspended for about a year, within five percentage points of the current level.

It seems ominous that support for Bush and congressional republicans remains so high....more than half the US military KIA in Iraq have been since the PIPA survey was published in Oct., 2004...