Talk Islam

thabet

Comments

  • razib 3:08 pm on June 9, 2008 | #

    the main weakness with these arguments is that there is information on the table which they discard. obama’s problem with “white working class women” is very regional. west virgina = problem. oregon = not so much.

  • BK 3:55 pm on June 9, 2008 | #

    These are the same people who sign into Dean’s World and Sanity Squad, Captain Quarters, LGF…You think Michelle Merken or the Tranny or Bill O’Reilly appeal to a functional frontal lobe?

    I don’t think so.

    These are lost votes. Pity them.
    The cure for extreme ignorance is death.

  • razib 6:12 pm on June 9, 2008 | #

    “Dean’s World and Sanity Squad, Captain Quarters, LGF”

    i’m pretty sure this is factually wrong. the weblog reading/news following set are very different from female white blue collar workers.

  • BK 12:05 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    I honestly don’t know who listens to Michelle Maulkin or Ann Coulter. Single white working class imbeciles? Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs? Pat Santy? Who is their audience? Baffling!

    Sure, there are also white, middle/lower class rube males who log into these sites.

    What is amazing to me is that people will vehemently vote against their own self interests.

    Takes all kinds.

  • razib 1:10 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    “Sure, there are also white, middle/lower class rube males who log into these sites. ”

    no, the point is that blog readers, right-wing or left, tend to be affluent and well educated.

    “What is amazing to me is that people will vehemently vote against their own self interests.”

    depends on what they perceive their “self interests” to be. i think people should be careful about psychoanalyzing the mental states of other people (i don’t like the term “self hating” either).

  • BK 8:57 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    We can be so careful as to say nothing. Guarenteed no mistake.

    What I am saying is that a battle-ground for blue-collar voters is perplexing for the democratic party and Obama because the Republican party offers them nothing but lip service to their religious ‘values’ and removal of funds from their kids school and health programs.

    As far as affluent bloggers, Razib, these are general rules and percentages. Affluent people generally don’t flock to ignorance. There are exceptions. There are exceptions to most rules. It takes more than affluent bloggers to have kept Bush in power for 8 years. It has taken millions of people who have voted to go to war for no good reason, and continue to support it.

    Your affluent bloggers have abandoned Bush in droves. Those who remain are very wealthy and corrupt, the military and some of these blue collar people.

    Blue collar people have computers and read blogs like millions of others.

    I think people should be careful NOT psychoanalyzing others and trying to figure out what is in their minds. Why have they supported Bush and allowed this country to be dragged in a terrible direction.

    The blogs I listed are some of the stalwarts and centers of vehement Bush support….STILL! Understanding them is valuable, I think.

  • razib 9:02 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    BK, sorry to be a bitch about this, but you’re wrong. bush won th rich, kerry won the poor (whites). you can check the exit polls in 2004. thomas frank was wrong. see here for a regression analysis, but just look up the exit polls for 2004.

    you say: “these are general rules and percentages” and then say “Blue collar people have computers and read blogs like millions of others.” the question is: do, as a general rule, blue collar workers represent the blog readers you’re talking about. as a factually manner, in terms of general percentages, no, they don’t.

    “The blogs I listed are some of the stalwarts and centers of vehement Bush support….STILL! Understanding them is valuable, I think.”

    if you characterize the demographic incorrectly you won’t understand them.

  • BK 9:08 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    How the hell do you know? Have you taken exit polls after people log out from those polls?

    You don’t know. Your facts are slack.

    All we can say is what values those sites cater too and the socio economic status those values represent.

    Yeah, I am gonna go through your stats and put an end to this. It sounds a little counter-common sense to me.

    Back after some research.

  • BK 9:09 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    “log out from those blogs….”

  • BK 9:11 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    Who is the “base” of the republican party. What is the SE status of the Religious Right?

    Do Hagee and other mega church televangelists appeal to college educated secular masses?

    Doubtful

  • razib 10:33 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    BK, what’s your problem? seriously. i’m just saying you’re wrong, there’s no problem with that. you’re trading off stereotypes which are coarsely correct, but not at the level of granularity you’re talking about.

    “Who is the “base” of the republican party. What is the SE status of the Religious Right?”

    it depends on how you define “religious right.” those with more conservative in terms of religious issues are less educated, but you’re simply merging the whole population. the population is clustered (obviously the fact that black americans have more conservative views re: creationism and inerrancy doesn’t entail that they vote for the conservative party).

    stereotypes are not always correct on the margins. you’re obviously projecting the idea that socially conservative type are less educated and less affluent. these are both correct if you lump the whole population together, but the reality is that among republicans there is an affluent educated socially conservative segment who exist as the nodes for the religious right activist class.

    you are clearly wrong on one thing though: in general, republicans are the party of the rich, democrats the party of the poor, even for white people. thomas frank is wrong and his views are commonly promoted because of particular stereotypes people have about why social conservatives vote the way they do and what they look like. the main SES confound is that those with postgrad degrees tend to vote more democrat, but, 1) education doesn’t track income perfectly, 2) lots of people with postgrad degrees are teachers with masters (or civil servants, etc.), not the small number of phds or professional degree holders (former are dem, latter less so). the major contextualizing variable is that region matters for this generalization a lot, the difference between the rich and the poor is a lot less extreme in blue states than red.

    “Do Hagee and other mega church televangelists appeal to college educated secular masses?”

    btw, i’m not sure if it is really worthwhile to engage with you when you throw out weird things like this. most people with college educations in the united states aren’t secular. in fact, 40-50% of those with college educations are creationists depending on how you skin it.

  • razib 10:36 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    btw, this blog has good stuff on these sorts of questions (if you’re interested in data as opposed to your intuitions).

  • razib 10:38 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    and the main reason i’m saying that malkin et. al. don’t have working class people reading them is that you find out things like the fact that only 2% of typical blog readers have only high school educations. the surveys vary on the specific number, but the tendency is the same, all people who read blogs are just way above average attainment in terms of education.

  • BK 10:43 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    What’s YOUR problem. I’m just saying your wrong.If you don’t want people emotionally invested, don’t GET emotionally invested.

    I like to argue and debate. I think I am right and you are wrong.

    I want to go through and check what I thought was common knowledge and check why you think it is wrong.

    No problem.

  • razib 10:49 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    “I like to argue and debate. I think I am right and you are wrong.”

    right, i don’t really like to argue and debate.

  • BK 10:50 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    you are clearly wrong on one thing though: in general, republicans are the party of the rich,

    Razib, if you have a deep need to be intellectually over-bearing, have at it. But don’t reframe me.

    If I have to police every one of your misrepresentations, we are gonna be here all day.

    The Bush administration is about funneling money up to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor. This is a basic government principle, specifically with the republican party and especially true with Bush.

    Do you want a fact check on that too?

    If I have to defend the statement against exaggerations like, “So you are saying all republicans are rich and all democrats are poor?”

    this discussion can end now.
    That is just a cheap debate strategy.
    Not an effort at discussion.

  • BK 10:55 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    “Do Hagee and other mega church televangelists appeal to college educated secular masses?”

    btw, i’m not sure if it is really worthwhile to engage with you when you throw out weird things like this. most people with college educations in the united states aren’t secular.

    Then don’t engage me. I don’t think we communicate. You are on a different plane.

    I made no such statement. I said do you think Hagee, a person very representative of the religious right, appeals to people who are college educated *******AND******* Secular.

    Excuse the asterisks but I have to make a point.

    You make straw men out people’s comments and then procede to imagine you are correcting them.

    What *is* your problem?

    This discussion is over. I am tired of you.

  • razib 11:00 am on June 10, 2008 | #

    “If I have to defend the statement against exaggerations like, “So you are saying all republicans are rich and all democrats are poor?” ”

    ? my other comments made it clear i’m not saying you were saying anything like that. here’s the e-poll for 2004 for bush v. kerry, with bush percentages:

    under $15,000 36%
    $15-30,000 42%
    $30-50,000 49%
    $50-75,000 56%
    $75-100,000 55%
    $100-150,000 57%
    $150-200,000 58%
    $200,000 or More 63%

  • BK 12:54 pm on June 10, 2008 | #

    Um. Ok. NOW I get it. The irrational now becomes clear.

    One look over at http://www.Sudanesethinker.com and it all comes back to me. The Friedman piece…Iran…”Our Enemies?” Neocon……

    This is not about the veracity of the argument. This is about being a right-winger and defending your turf.

    I forget there are right-wing, right leaning people (Muslims?) who support Bush.

    Sorry if I rubbed your personal politics too raw Sudanese Razib.

    It is only that your peeps have completely effed up my country. And want to go further into the disaster.

    I can’t talk to neocon Americans. You people literally make me sick.

  • BK 1:13 pm on June 10, 2008 | #

    I am a little unclear actually on Sudanesethinker.

    I am checking out Gene Expression to get the background.

    Maybe I have been misinformed.

  • razib 1:34 pm on June 10, 2008 | #

    huh? i am right leaning if you count moderate libertarians such, but do not support bush. i’m an atheist, not a muslim. you’re just wrong about the type of people who consume right-wing media, that’s all.

  • razib 1:37 pm on June 10, 2008 | #

    btw, what does sudanese thinker have to do with any of this?

  • BK 3:00 pm on June 10, 2008 | #

    Nothing. My mistake.

Leave a Comment

*

Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word
To prevent spam, please type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.