We are the champions

It is asserted  by the left that the Democratic party champions the poor and seeks to better their situation.  In conjunction with this assertion, the Democrats also advocate that the Republican party is one in which their interest lies in championing the wealthy.  They assert that the propensity for people to vote Republican increases with an associated increase in income.

When one looks at the election, many of the wealthiest sectors of society voted for Obama.  Therefore, this assertion is not borne out by the facts.  Bill Gates, Movie Stars and wealthy counties in N.Y., Florida, California, the states with the highest concentrations of  wealth voted primarily for Obama.

This seems counter intuitive until one considers that vast numbers of low income people also voted for Obama.  Logic would then dictate that the Democratic party is a primarily a duel income demographic as it consists of a mix of  the extremely wealthy and the lower income demographic.  A demographic wherein the number of lower income people out number the higher income people.

Since elections rely upon the greater accumulation of votes in order to secure a victory,  logic dictates that under the condition of the assertion that Republicans are the party of the wealthy to be true, the greater the number of people who are wealthy would benefit the Republicans.  Their interest would then lie in increasing the incomes of those who are poor as it would diminish the support of the Democrats in their largest demographic income sector.

Conversely, the  interest of the Democrat party to maintain their largest demographic( low income) would best be achieved by maintaining their largest voting  base at a lower income level and thereby avoid losing voters whose propensity  to vote Republican in direct, positive correlation to their increase in income level is greater .

This assertion is supported by the evidence that in population sectors where income levels are lowest are Democrat.  In addition, the fact that sectors, such as largely Democrat inner-city sectors, have remained poor for decades also supports this assertion as being actual.  Therefore, the party that actually benefits the poor while achieving their goal of winning elections is the Republican party. 

Peace

Permalink
tags:
posted on Mon, Jan 04, 2010 02:01 AM
last updated on Mon, Jan 04, 2010 02:01 AM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Yes and bycwrite6 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
When the lower incomers outnumber
the wealthy, they'll get their wealth
away from them which seems be to be
the ultimate goal. Then what?
It won't matter who elects who.
Republicans bySINBAD6 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
are the most misunderstood folks I know of. President Lincoln - a republican set the black man free. President Johnson and his great society put them back into slavery.
RE: Republicans bydanie0066 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Sinbad - please elaborate.
RE: Republicans byRightof Left6 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
The Party of Lincoln in the 1860s has as much resemblance to the modern day G.O.P. as the Democratic party of 1860s has to the Democrats of today.

That is to say, zero, nada, zilch.

I also await your elaboration on the above observations. I am pretty sure I know where you want to go but who knows, maybe you will surprise me.
this is a required field byRightOn6 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Los Angeles and Detroit - the two biggest holes in the country, people fleeing continually. The pride and joy, the capitals of Democratic power.

Democrats want people poor people to get money and only the Republicans to give it to them.
RE: this is a required field byLiberal Doses6 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
RightOn,

I agree. Though actually, the elitist democrats( and democrat idealists grounded in fantasy) want the poor people to get money from the government only "if they qualify" and after it has been taken from the taxpayers and diminished through layers of government bureaucracy. So the end result is they get a few pennies on the dollar, after much paperwork and a dehumanizing process where they are given something for doing nothing but feel humiliated.

Republicans are natural targets for tax dollars because they actually work! The democrats demonize the Republicans as being evil, because their philosophy encourages success and independence and runs counter to their agenda of maintaining control by maintaining a large class of people dependent on the government.

Peace
RE: this is a required field byRightOn6 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
Ya, Orwell was more prophetic than anyone realized. I just wish things would blow up, rather than a slow decay until the day we have Ministries of this and that...
i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences... byxfile10696 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
the following is what you're postulating, right?
---
Premise: Since poor people vote for Democrats, then Democrats who wish to remain in power have a vested interest in keeping the electorate full of poor people.

Premise: Many poor areas in past and present are largely Democratic, and many of these poor areas continue to be poor.

Conclusion: Democrats keep the poor down. The poor should not vote for the Democratic Party, instead they should vote for Republican Party.
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences... byLiberal Doses6 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
xfile,

Not quite right.

Peace
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences... byRightOn6 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse)
Scully,

You watched too many X-files episodes. Terrible show btw.

You're missing the point, try to keep up.
RE: i think i can summarize this in a couple sentences... byxfile10696 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
OK, well how far off am I? If my summary came off as sounding overly-blunt, it wasn't an effort to put words in your mouth, just an attempt to consolidate the premises of your conclusion.

One thing I should admit is a mistake by oversimplifying your conclusion (apologies) - I think your conclusion was closer to "The Republican party is the party that can both benefit the poor AND achieve the goal of winning elections." This is - at best - a prediction of the future, since US Census Data on poverty rates presents a much less convincing picture.

Regardless, none of your conclusions are "logically dictated". You should look up "inductive reasoning". And you should know that assertions do not equal facts. And you should cite evidence that people switch parties when they rise from one socioeconomic level to a higher one (possibly the biggest premise of your argument). And you should get a handbook for writers. I often refer to my old standby from college days, Simon & Schuster's 3rd Edition (available for $20 here).
Your difficulties started with the words, "I think." byLiberal Doses6 months ago (2 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Xfile,

You need to look up the word, "extraneous."

Peace
RE: Your difficulties started with the words, "I think." byxfile10696 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse)
once again, you choose not to defend your stance, this time choosing instead to go after two words in the subject line of my comment. apparently you have nothing to say in regards to further explaining your "logically dictated" assertions.

why would you think i need to look up "extraneous"? because i forgot to mention the several extraneous points in your post that essentially undermine the very conclusion you attempt to come to? i can only spend so much time dissecting your nonsense. it's child's play really.