predictions for the next 4 years

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinkles states that "the rich are not W's base" and I think that misses the important question.

What important question? The question I intended to answer: was jewscout's claim that the rich are W's base correct? In my mind, the answer is no, because

W's base is the religious right, which includes some people that are filthy rich and some that are dirt poor.

 

[Bastet]

Logically, what we see here is the Fallacy of Distribution (in this case - the fallacy of Division). This logical fallacy basically assumes that what is true of a class (or group) is true of its members. The application in this argument is the assumption that because a state has a lower average income, that all of the voters within the state have a low income. We are then making the further illogical leap that all of these low income voters are voting for a given candidate (by the same percentage as the state was carried). This conclusion is not supported by the premise. Without a breakdown as to how each individual voted correlated to that person's income, we cannot draw any logically sound conclusion.

Actually, TVOR, if you read my post properly, you'll see that I don't disagree with this:

Of course, it's all based on averages, and since every city in every state has its rich and poor areas, and I have yet to see statistics on who voted for who within those areas, these can only be a guide. They still don't tell us who voted for who...rich man or poor man.

Perhaps I wasn't my usual eloquent self in expressing that point, because I'd just spent a couple of hours playing with numbers and was going crosseyed.

Two examples:
I'll call this "Spinkles" - A state with low average income (we'll use WV) voted for Bush, therefore, poor people voted for Bush. A state with high average income (we'll use MA) voted for Kerry, therefore rich people voted for Kerry.

I'll call this "Bastet" - A state that has low average income but votes for Bush (overall) does not mean that poor people voted for Bush at all. It is very possible that whatever rich people there are in WV (every state has a certain percentage of rich voters) all voted for Bush. The rest of the population was probably split almost evenly - the poor religious right voting for Bush and the poor people that can think for themselves voting for Kerry. Thus, Bush carries a "lower income state".
I'll save the typing, but you understand the concomitant argument for rich states (I hope).

Reality:
Without clear factual data showing each person's income and how they voted, we can only guess whether the assumption made by Spinkles is correct (poor people vote for Bush) or the assumption made by Bastet - that rich people vote for Bush and that they got just enough help from poor religious people to put him over the top, is correct (if either - there are other possibilities).

Spinkles has already addresses the point that he was trying to make, so I'll just restate my own (since you've jumped to your own conclusions about what I was trying to prove). This was Spinkles' original post that I was responding to:

1) "The rich" are not W's voting base. In fact, states with higher average incomes per person voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

All I was trying to point out, was that states with higher average incomes per person, did not vote "overwhelmingly" for Kerry. It was a close race in all but a few states. And, as you and I have already stated, just because a state has a higher average income, does not mean that there are not rich and poor areas within that state -- and we still do not know who voted for Bush, and who for Kerry, within those areas. That's all. I wasn't trying to prove that Bush got the rich vote in every state - just that it was possible he got some, and that it wasn't logical to assume they all went to Kerry. I'm sure there are plenty of rich, educated people out there who went and voted for Dubya. Being rich and educated, doesn't preclude ignorance. In reality, for all we know, "the rich" stayed home on election day, scratching their bums.
I certainly said nothing about "poor religious people". They were your words, TVOR, not mine. I personally don't think that people in the middle of the range - and who most likely comprise of more people than either the rich or the poor - should be discounted from the equation at all.

In all honesty, I tend to agree with Sunstone's observation - that people with more disposable income (rich people) tend to be better educated, and that they might well have voted predominantly for Kerry. I am biased, but I see this as a positive, not a negative.

They might well have - but it's all just assumption until we go around door to door and ask, isn't it? Exit polls don't mean a whole lot...

I will continue to believe that the single largest block of votes that Bush received came from the religious right, which is comprised of the entire spectrum of income classes (thus removing average income from the equation to a very large degree).

I agree with this myself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

All I was trying to point out, was that states with higher average incomes per person, did not vote "overwhelmingly" for Kerry.

There has clearly been a miscommunication here, which I tried to address in an earlier post. When I said rich states voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, I meant the overwhelming majority of rich states voted for Kerry...not that in each rich state, Kerry won the overwhelming majority of the votes. Sorry for not being clearer.

In any case, we seem to have reached the consensus that "the rich" are not W's base. The religious right are W's base, and they comprise both rich and poor.