Can't tell for sure...but this picture has me wondering if I might be leaning a little to the Left.

[BigRedBuster]

the gerrymandering that Democrats do around poor minority neighborhoods.

Don't make me pull images of Democratic and Republican districts to show that both parties have, egregiously, done this. It's not a Democrat thing, it's a politics thing. And it should be a crime.

OH...I COMPLETELY agree that both sides do this. My point was, which one makes sure that as many poor minority neighborhoods are pooled together?

 

[Junior]

the gerrymandering that Democrats do around poor minority neighborhoods.

Don't make me pull images of Democratic and Republican districts to show that both parties have, egregiously, done this. It's not a Democrat thing, it's a politics thing. And it should be a crime.

OH...I COMPLETELY agree that both sides do this. My point was, which one makes sure that as many poor minority neighborhoods are pooled together?

Which one tries to make sure as many poor white areas are pooled together?

 

[BigRedBuster]

OK...can anyone seriously claim with a straight face that the Republicans pander to the poor more than the Democrats? Seriously?????

 

[Junior]

OK...can anyone seriously claim with a straight face that the Republicans pander to the poor more than the Democrats? Seriously?????

I thought we were talking about who relies on the poor, not panders. I promise you, it ain't rich people comprising the 47% of the population that voted for Romney.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Soooo.....you are saying that the rich vote for Democrats and the poor votes for Republicans?

 

[Junior]

Soooo.....you are saying that the rich vote for Democrats and the poor votes for Republicans?

I'm saying there are plenty of rich people who vote either way and plenty of poor people who vote either way. It isn't mutually exclusive. Anyone arguing otherwise is full of... well, you know what.

 

[knapplc]

From the 2008 election:

2008 Electoral Map

To help illustrate this a little better:

 

[rawhide]

so everyone is basically 53/47 give or take a few percentage points

 

[BigRedBuster]

Soooo.....you are saying that the rich vote for Democrats and the poor votes for Republicans?

I'm saying there are plenty of rich people who vote either way and plenty of poor people who vote either way. It isn't mutually exclusive. Anyone arguing otherwise is full of... well, you know what.

I agree....Thanks for agreeing that this is an idiotic statement.

Please. The right counts on the poor and uneducated far more than the left. The current republican party relies almost exclusively on the willfully ignorant, religious fanatics who vote against their own economic interests. That's pretty much the definition of the Tea Party. Morons who wear their ignorance like badge of honor.

 

[Junior]

Soooo.....you are saying that the rich vote for Democrats and the poor votes for Republicans?

I'm saying there are plenty of rich people who vote either way and plenty of poor people who vote either way. It isn't mutually exclusive. Anyone arguing otherwise is full of... well, you know what.

I agree....Thanks for agreeing that this is an idiotic statement.

Please. The right counts on the poor and uneducated far more than the left. The current republican party relies almost exclusively on the willfully ignorant, religious fanatics who vote against their own economic interests. That's pretty much the definition of the Tea Party. Morons who wear their ignorance like badge of honor.

The bolded part is overstated. The rest of it is right on the money, mostly. Especially the bit about the Tea Party.

 

[carlfense]

the gerrymandering that Democrats do around poor minority neighborhoods.

Don't make me pull images of Democratic and Republican districts to show that both parties have, egregiously, done this. It's not a Democrat thing, it's a politics thing. And it should be a crime.

Beyond that . . . why would the Democrats gerrymander poor minority neighborhoods? Logically, that doesn't make sense. Don't get me wrong . . . poor minority neighborhoods are definitely gerrymandered (particularly in PA) but it sure wasn't the Democrats drawing those districts. What benefit would they receive from winning 99% of the vote in one district when they could win several districts with 55% of the vote?

 

[carlfense]

Let me ask you this, which party do you think panders more to taking care of the poor as a public perception?

Let me ask you this, which party characterizes taking care of the poor as pandering?

Which party does more to get into those poor neighborhoods to register people to vote and give them transportation to the polls?

Oh, just come out and say it. You don't really mean poor. You're talking about something else here.

Which one plays to the fears that unemployment and welfare will go away if they aren't elected?

If only we could look to some sort of record to see if this is accurate . . .

Which one points to the other party as the elitists that only care about rich people?

If that characterization upsets the GOP they could stop reinforcing the perception.

 

[BigRedBuster]

the gerrymandering that Democrats do around poor minority neighborhoods.

Don't make me pull images of Democratic and Republican districts to show that both parties have, egregiously, done this. It's not a Democrat thing, it's a politics thing. And it should be a crime.

Beyond that . . . why would the Democrats gerrymander poor minority neighborhoods? Logically, that doesn't make sense. Don't get me wrong . . . poor minority neighborhoods are definitely gerrymandered (particularly in PA) but it sure wasn't the Democrats drawing those districts. What benefit would they receive from winning 99% of the vote in one district when they could win several districts with 55% of the vote?

You're right, that has happened too. If there are districts that are made up of suburbs and affluent neighborhoods that the Republicans control, the Dems have pushed for poorer neighborhoods to be included with them so that the Dems have a chance.

Look. Junior was right. Both sides have their groups of rich and poor people along with educated and uneducated. So, for Strigori to make that statement was....well.....

 

[BigRedBuster]

Let me ask you this, which party do you think panders more to taking care of the poor as a public perception?

Let me ask you this, which party characterizes taking care of the poor as pandering?

Which party does more to get into those poor neighborhoods to register people to vote and give them transportation to the polls?

Oh, just come out and say it. You don't really mean poor. You're talking about something else here.

Which one plays to the fears that unemployment and welfare will go away if they aren't elected?

If only we could look to some sort of record to see if this is accurate . . .

Which one points to the other party as the elitists that only care about rich people?

If that characterization upsets the GOP they could stop reinforcing the perception.

Good...so you agree with me.

 

[carlfense]

Good...so you agree with me.

Not really . . . I don't know that I'd say "far more" but I think that the voting patterns (often against their own interest) do offer some evidence in support of the idea that the GOP is more dependent on poor voters. Uneducated? Maybe. Probably some overlap there.