The Reids

Following up to "szozu" <hoppbunny at hotmail com>

    >> Especially since that definition of "moral issues" is so
    >> narrow-minded (and hardly "moral" in the wider meaning of
    >> the word).
    >Morality in the view of the Bush supporters does not extend to invasion of a
    >country without a valid reason, mass slaughter of innocent civilians,
    >imprisonment without a trial and destruction of a country's infrastructure,
    >leaving much of the population without basic sanitation and clean water. Nor
    >does it extend to the destruction and looting of Sumerian artefacts which
    >belong to all of humanity. The Geneva Convention has also been cast aside,
    >as the US apparently holds itself in moral superiority to the agreement.

the impression I get from here is Bush "morality" is centred
around sex. If men only have sex with their wives (in the
missionary position) don't use contraception or have an abortion,
all is well with the world, sod the poor, murdering foreigners or
environmental responsibility to future generations.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Miguel Cruz

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    > the impression I get from here is Bush "morality" is centred around sex.
    > If men only have sex with their wives (in the missionary position) don't
    > use contraception or have an abortion, all is well with the world

No, that's not it at all. Republican notables have been shown time and time
again to count a great many philanderers and sexual adventurers among their
numbers, and this doesn't affect the vote at all.

Bush morality is all about saying things are wrong. What you do is
irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the ferocity with which you pass
judgment on others. Clinton balked tremendously at saying that his affair
was wrong, and so he was crucified. Bush on the other hand is only too happy
to say that snorting coke is wrong, so he's completely excused.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

nitram

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:24:14 -0600, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz)
wrote:

    >The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> the impression I get from here is Bush "morality" is centred around sex.
    >> If men only have sex with their wives (in the missionary position) don't
    >> use contraception or have an abortion, all is well with the world
    >No, that's not it at all. Republican notables have been shown time and time
    >again to count a great many philanderers and sexual adventurers among their
    >numbers, and this doesn't affect the vote at all.

That's because philanderers and sexual adventurers are not political
party dependent.

If everybody got the sack for philandering and having sexual
adventures,the world would come to a stand still.

    >Bush morality is all about saying things are wrong. What you do is
    >irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the ferocity with which you pass
    >judgment on others. Clinton balked tremendously at saying that his affair
    >was wrong, and so he was crucified. Bush on the other hand is only too happy
    >to say that snorting coke is wrong, so he's completely excused.

Mitterand's popularity shot up, when it was revealed that he had
32(??) mistresses.
--
Martin

The Reids

Following up to Miguel Cruz

    >Bush on the other hand is only too happy
    >to say that snorting coke is wrong, so he's completely excused.

Do you think the US media would have excused Clinton as easily as
Bush for a given transgression with identical apology?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Jonathan Smith

"PTRAVEL" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] .com>...
    > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] m...
    > > "PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:031120041043343804%[email protected]...
    > >> > In article <[email protected]>, PTravel
    > >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> > > "Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> > > > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:32:05 +0000, The Reids
    > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > >Assuming Bush has won I wonder if it will change anything for
    > >> > > > >travellers. When people ask here "will I be welcome in Europe?"
    > >> > > > >we have always said no problem. Re electing Bush in the face of
    > >> > > > >Iraq might make some people see Americans as more culpable after
    > >> > > > >making the same mistake twice? Perhaps Americans will need "I
    > >> > > > >voted Kerry" baseball caps!
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Most of the USAians you meet overseas tend to dislike Bush as much
    > >> > > > as
    > >> > > > the rest of us, that's been my experience so far anyway.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Yep. Take a look at which states went red and which went blue. Then
    > take a
    > >> > > look at such factors as median income and amount of education. Blue
    > states
    > >> > > are international travelers, red states go to Disney World.
    > >
    > > According to exit polls, income and vote were associated - people with
    > > more money voted Bush, not Kerry.
    >
    > And, according to exit polls, Kerry won. Read on in the thread and you'll
    > see the US census statistics.

Will I?

    >
    > >
    > > According to exit polls, there was no association between vote and
    > > education level for college graduates - in other words, you can't use
    > > education as a predictor of vote.
    >
    > As I said, the exit polls were wrong this year. However, it is a FACT that
    > blue states nearly all place in the top half of the country for education
    > and median income, while red states place in the bottom half.
    >
    > Do you live in a red state?

Red county, blue state.

Are you suggesting that all blue state inhabitants voted blue? My
point is, and the data support it, that the well educated well incomed
voted Red more than the poor and uneducated regardless of the state.
I showed you income and education level data at the county level in
Blue states and demonstrated this quite clearly. You, on the other
hand, have made three assumptions in the absence of, and now in
contradiction to, real data.

    > >> > > I am NOT suggesting that all Democrats are necessarily educated,
    > >> > > culturally-sophisticated professionals and all Republicans are
    > necessarily
    > >> > > semi-literate, uneducated Walmart cashiers. However, there is an
    > absolute
    > >> > > correlation between how a state voted and the education level of its
    > >> > > populace.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Educated, culturally aware people travel internationally.
    > Statistically,
    > >> > > they are far more likely to be (a) democrats, and (b) from an urban
    > >> > > area
    > in
    > >> > > the west coast,
    > >
    > > Educated culturally aware people are not more likely to be Democrats,
    > > Paul.
    > > Just because you think you are cultured and you are a dem
    > > doesn't make you typical of all dems nor does it make you cultured.
    >
    > Whereas you are, evidently, a Republican, and never miss an opportunity to
    > insult me. You explain the correlation between the census figures and the
    > 2004 vote, then.

You are wrong, Paul - being well off and educated makes you more
likely to have voted Republican than Democrat.

    > >
    > >> >
    > >> > Like Compton, South Central, East Oakland and Watts... good grief !
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> All cities have depressed areas. Blue states include New York,
    > >> Washington
    > >> D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Boston and Philadelphia -- all
    > >> cultural centers, all with a proportionally more educated demographic,
    > >> and
    > >> all with a higher per capita income.
    > >
    > > Let's look at California, as an example. Ventura, Orange, San Louis
    > > Obispo, and San Diego county - all at the top end in terms of income
    > > and any other metric (education, for example)and all voting Republican
    > > in a state that went as to Kerry in rather impressive numbers.
    >
    > Ventura and San Louis Obispo are hardly playgrounds of the wealthy.
    > However, the exceptions prove nothing and simply miss my point.

The are at or exceed the state median income and education level.

    > Make a list of the great cities of the US. Use, as criteria, what YOU think
    > of by "cultural center," "financial center," "government center," etc. Why
    > are so many of them (nearly all, in fact) in blue states?

The income of New York County is at the state median - the income in
Nassau county exceeds the median by 50% - Nassua, though not majority
Republican, voted in much greater numbers for Bush than what one saw
in the City. That is the point.

Philadelphia, Chicago, LA - all the same. City centers where income
and education are below the state median voted more blue than the
surrounding counties where income and education are higher. Illinois
was amazing in that regard in that Kerry carried the state on the
backs of the poor in the City.


    > >
    > > Let's try NY - though Kerry was impressive in the city itself, I would
    > > argue that the median income in NY is hardly impressive though the
    > > cost of living might be.
    >
    > New York ranks 17th out of 51 (DC is included as a "state" in the census
    > rankings) for median income so, sorry, but you're simply wrong.

NY City is hardly impressive - in fact, taking all the burroughs
together, the medican income is in the proverbial toilet. The only
highlight is Manhatan where the median income is at about the state
median. The reason why NY styate ranks 17 is because of the income in
the commuter counties, not because of the income in the city itself.

    > > Westchester was very democratic but Putnam
    > > and Orange went Republican.
    >
    > In almost all cases, whether a state went Democratic or Republican was a
    > matter of 3 to 5 percentage points, meaning there are large numbers of each
    > party in most every state.

Exactly - though one can readly discern the trend at a county level.
As education and income go up, the proportion of votes for Republicans
goes up.

    > However, blue states are the homes to most of America's great cities, and
    > it's the cities that voted Democratic.

But the educated and well incomed do not generally live in the city -
they live in the burbs and commute - 3 million plus a day go INTO the
city of New York - from places that decidedly vote more Republican
than the city itself.

    > > Let's look at other enclaves of the rich and famous - Fairfield county
    > > in CT. Probably the richest county in the state - and it was split
    > > almost 50/50.
    >
    > I don't see what point you're making. Yes, there are rich counties that
    > voted Republican. So what?

The point is - Red voters from Blue states travel to Europe, if one
subscribs to the Tauger rich and educated hypothesis.

So - no comments on the data?

    > > Let's look in NJ - what county do you think is the richest? Morris and
    > > Somerset went Republican as did Warren and Sussex counties - the
    > > bedroom communities for Wall Street and the pill belt. Note that
    > > Hudson and Essex went Kerry - two of the poorest counties in the
    > > country.
    > >
    > > How about Chicago? The richest county is DuPage - no doubt about
    > > that. How did these rich folks from Oak Brook vote? Yep, Bush. What
    > > county do you think Kerry dominated? That's right, COOK county and
    > > that is the ONLY county that he dominated across the entire state -
    > > and it has one of the lowest median incomes of counties across the
    > > state.
    > >
    > > San Francisco - now there's a weird duck. Look at the California
    > > propositions and you'll quickly find that SF is so far out of the
    > > mainstream of California the best solution would be to cast it out
    > > into the Pacific.
    >
    > Apparently you're completely unfamiliar with SF. The whacko county
    > propositions didn't pass here.

SF isn't unique in its political orientation?

    >
    > >
    > > How about Portland? The only dominant Kerry county was Multnomah -
    > > that is the center of Portland. Based on 1999 data, in that county
    > > there were more poor people than in the rest of the state as a
    > > percentage of total population. The median income was about the same
    > > as the state average. Again, though some affluent people live in the
    > > center of the city, the money resides in the burbs -
    > >
    > > Clakamas county, for example, had a poverty rate half the state rate
    > > and median household income 25% higher. Clakamas went for Bush. I
    > > will admit thatr there doesn't appear to be too much difference in the
    > > proportion of people with college degrees though there are more people
    > > lacking a high school diploma in Multnomah.
    > >
    > > Lets play some more, Paul. How much money is in the Dallas/Fort Worth
    > > area and how did they vote versus the poorer part of the state?
    > >
    > > Dallas County was a toss up and the median income is just a hair
    > > higher than the state average as is education level. Counties that
    > > went pro-Bush, a 60/40 or better split, like Tarrant and Denton in the
    > > greater D/FW metroplex, have higher incomes (Denton almost 50% higher)
    > > and more college graduates than Dallas county. Rich educated texans
    > > voted for Bush.
    > >
    > > Starr county which voted 70/30 for Kerry has a median income less than
    > > HALF the state median and almost 2/3rds of the adults don't have a
    > > high school diploma. Poor uneduated Texans voted for Kerry.
    > >
    > > The only anomaly is Travis county - and it always has been a weird
    > > duck. But when you compare it to it's bedroom county just to the
    > > north, you find that Williamson county has a median income twice that
    > > of the state and 50% higher than Travis. And it went very Republican
    > > in the election.
    > >
    > > More? What about Michigan? The richest and one of the most educated
    > > counties is Livingston County - and it voted Bush 63/36. One of the
    > > poorest and least educated counties, Wayne, voted Kerry - 70/30.
    > > Granted, Washtenaw, voted Kerry and has a fairly high income and
    > > education level - but that's only because it's home to a very liberal
    > > U of M.
    > >
    > > Which leaves a question - is Pennsylvania more or less educated than
    > > Virginia? Nope. In fact, if you look at Philadelphia - the place
    > > where Kerry dominated (the rest of the state was at best split if not
    > > pro-Bush), the education level and income (once again) are below the
    > > state median. Bucks and Chester counties, two of PAs richest were
    > > indifferent or leaning toward Republican - and they aqre also the
    > > highest educated.
    > >
    > > Your hypothesis is unsupported by the data, Paul. But then again,
    > > we've come to expect that from you.
    > >
    > > js

Jonathan Smith

[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>> Maybe Minneapolis, too.
    > >>
    > >> Yep -- thanks for reminding me.
    > >
    > > OK - what about Minnesota? Decidedly Democratic. So, who voted for
    > > Kerry? Hennepin and Ramsey counties. How rich and educated are they
    > > compared with the rest of the state?
    > >
    > > Hennepin is about at the state median, slightly higher. Ramsey
    > > slightly lower in income but a few more college graduates. Certainly
    > > not outliers by any means as compared with the rest of the state.
    > > What about the decidely Republican counties of Wright, Mcleod and
    > > Carver? Wright - higher income, lower percentage of college grads.
    > > Mcleod - slightly lower income and and not as educated. Carver is the
    > > richest county in the state and one of the most educated - by far.
    > > Looks like the rich educated Minnesotans live in Carver and vote
    > > Republican.
    >
    > Looks to me like some rich people like to separate themselves from poor
    > people (suburbs that read high on the average income scale). Others don't
    > (urban areas that have some o the poorest as well as many very rich people).

Data please - I don't believe that incomes in cities is bimodally
distributed.

    > No doubt there is something different in the outlook of these two different
    > groups of above-average-income folks that may also appear in the voting
    > booth.
    >
    > Nevertheless, what Paul has shown is a correlation between overall state
    > income and voting democrat.

Which is meaningless and the conclusions drawn erroneous. Just
because a wealthy state votes one way or another is not evidence that
the wealth in the state voted that way.

The conclusion Paul makes that American travelers to Europe are
Democrats because states voting Democratic are richer than those not
voting Democrat is just plain misuse of statistics.

    > Is this because having democrat-aligned values makes you richer? Is it
    > because being richer leads you to democrat-aligned values?

The relationship of income to party affiliation is not rich/Blue, OK.

    > Or is it, as you
    > seem to be suggesting, because being rich and republican is a magnet for
    > huge numbers of democrats who will move across the country to live in the
    > same state as you?

Using county voting and census data it is a statistical fact that as
income and education rise, the probability of the county tally to be
more Republican than the rest of the state goes up.

Under Pauls assumptions of causation, American travelers to Europe are
more likely to have voted for George Bush than for John Kerry.

js

Bill Moore

In article <[email protected]>,
The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Following up to Miguel Cruz
    >>Bush on the other hand is only too happy
    >>to say that snorting coke is wrong, so he's completely excused.
    >Do you think the US media would have excused Clinton as easily as
    >Bush for a given transgression with identical apology?

Bush never apologized for his coke snorting. And he only
admitted to it in the most roundabout, vague way.

But he certainly has made clear that he thinks it's wrong.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]> , Jonathan
Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "PTRAVEL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected] .com>...
    > > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected] m...
    > > > "PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > >> "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > >> news:031120041043343804%[email protected]...
    > > >> > In article <[email protected]>, PTravel
    > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >> >
    > > >> > > "Jim Ley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > >> > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >> > > > On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:32:05 +0000, The Reids
    > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > > >Assuming Bush has won I wonder if it will change anything for
    > > >> > > > >travellers. When people ask here "will I be welcome in Europe?"
    > > >> > > > >we have always said no problem. Re electing Bush in the face of
    > > >> > > > >Iraq might make some people see Americans as more culpable after
    > > >> > > > >making the same mistake twice? Perhaps Americans will need "I
    > > >> > > > >voted Kerry" baseball caps!
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > > > Most of the USAians you meet overseas tend to dislike Bush as much
    > > >> > > > as
    > > >> > > > the rest of us, that's been my experience so far anyway.
    > > >> > > >
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Yep. Take a look at which states went red and which went blue. Then
    > > take a
    > > >> > > look at such factors as median income and amount of education. Blue
    > > states
    > > >> > > are international travelers, red states go to Disney World.
    > > >
    > > > According to exit polls, income and vote were associated - people with
    > > > more money voted Bush, not Kerry.
    > >
    > > And, according to exit polls, Kerry won. Read on in the thread and you'll
    > > see the US census statistics.
    >
    > Will I?
    >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > According to exit polls, there was no association between vote and
    > > > education level for college graduates - in other words, you can't use
    > > > education as a predictor of vote.
    > >
    > > As I said, the exit polls were wrong this year. However, it is a FACT that
    > > blue states nearly all place in the top half of the country for education
    > > and median income, while red states place in the bottom half.
    > >
    > > Do you live in a red state?
    >
    > Red county, blue state.
    >
    > Are you suggesting that all blue state inhabitants voted blue? My
    > point is, and the data support it, that the well educated well incomed
    > voted Red more than the poor and uneducated regardless of the state.

Exit polls showed that 26% for Kerry had college degree and 25% for
Bush.

jay
Fri Nov 05, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    > I showed you income and education level data at the county level in
    > Blue states and demonstrated this quite clearly. You, on the other
    > hand, have made three assumptions in the absence of, and now in
    > contradiction to, real data.
    >
    > > >> > > I am NOT suggesting that all Democrats are necessarily educated,
    > > >> > > culturally-sophisticated professionals and all Republicans are
    > > necessarily
    > > >> > > semi-literate, uneducated Walmart cashiers. However, there is an
    > > absolute
    > > >> > > correlation between how a state voted and the education level of its
    > > >> > > populace.
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Educated, culturally aware people travel internationally.
    > > Statistically,
    > > >> > > they are far more likely to be (a) democrats, and (b) from an urban
    > > >> > > area
    > > in
    > > >> > > the west coast,
    > > >
    > > > Educated culturally aware people are not more likely to be Democrats,
    > > > Paul.
    > > > Just because you think you are cultured and you are a dem
    > > > doesn't make you typical of all dems nor does it make you cultured.
    > >
    > > Whereas you are, evidently, a Republican, and never miss an opportunity to
    > > insult me. You explain the correlation between the census figures and the
    > > 2004 vote, then.
    >
    > You are wrong, Paul - being well off and educated makes you more
    > likely to have voted Republican than Democrat.
    >
    > > >
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Like Compton, South Central, East Oakland and Watts... good grief !
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >> All cities have depressed areas. Blue states include New York,
    > > >> Washington
    > > >> D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Boston and Philadelphia -- all
    > > >> cultural centers, all with a proportionally more educated demographic,
    > > >> and
    > > >> all with a higher per capita income.
    > > >
    > > > Let's look at California, as an example. Ventura, Orange, San Louis
    > > > Obispo, and San Diego county - all at the top end in terms of income
    > > > and any other metric (education, for example)and all voting Republican
    > > > in a state that went as to Kerry in rather impressive numbers.
    > >
    > > Ventura and San Louis Obispo are hardly playgrounds of the wealthy.
    > > However, the exceptions prove nothing and simply miss my point.
    >
    > The are at or exceed the state median income and education level.
    >
    > > Make a list of the great cities of the US. Use, as criteria, what YOU
    > > think
    > > of by "cultural center," "financial center," "government center," etc. Why
    > > are so many of them (nearly all, in fact) in blue states?
    >
    > The income of New York County is at the state median - the income in
    > Nassau county exceeds the median by 50% - Nassua, though not majority
    > Republican, voted in much greater numbers for Bush than what one saw
    > in the City. That is the point.
    >
    > Philadelphia, Chicago, LA - all the same. City centers where income
    > and education are below the state median voted more blue than the
    > surrounding counties where income and education are higher. Illinois
    > was amazing in that regard in that Kerry carried the state on the
    > backs of the poor in the City.
    >
    >
    > > >
    > > > Let's try NY - though Kerry was impressive in the city itself, I would
    > > > argue that the median income in NY is hardly impressive though the
    > > > cost of living might be.
    > >
    > > New York ranks 17th out of 51 (DC is included as a "state" in the census
    > > rankings) for median income so, sorry, but you're simply wrong.
    >
    > NY City is hardly impressive - in fact, taking all the burroughs
    > together, the medican income is in the proverbial toilet. The only
    > highlight is Manhatan where the median income is at about the state
    > median. The reason why NY styate ranks 17 is because of the income in
    > the commuter counties, not because of the income in the city itself.
    >
    > > > Westchester was very democratic but Putnam
    > > > and Orange went Republican.
    > >
    > > In almost all cases, whether a state went Democratic or Republican was a
    > > matter of 3 to 5 percentage points, meaning there are large numbers of each
    > > party in most every state.
    >
    > Exactly - though one can readly discern the trend at a county level.
    > As education and income go up, the proportion of votes for Republicans
    > goes up.
    >
    > > However, blue states are the homes to most of America's great cities, and
    > > it's the cities that voted Democratic.
    >
    > But the educated and well incomed do not generally live in the city -
    > they live in the burbs and commute - 3 million plus a day go INTO the
    > city of New York - from places that decidedly vote more Republican
    > than the city itself.
    >
    > > > Let's look at other enclaves of the rich and famous - Fairfield county
    > > > in CT. Probably the richest county in the state - and it was split
    > > > almost 50/50.
    > >
    > > I don't see what point you're making. Yes, there are rich counties that
    > > voted Republican. So what?
    >
    > The point is - Red voters from Blue states travel to Europe, if one
    > subscribs to the Tauger rich and educated hypothesis.
    >
    > So - no comments on the data?
    >
    > > > Let's look in NJ - what county do you think is the richest? Morris and
    > > > Somerset went Republican as did Warren and Sussex counties - the
    > > > bedroom communities for Wall Street and the pill belt. Note that
    > > > Hudson and Essex went Kerry - two of the poorest counties in the
    > > > country.
    > > >
    > > > How about Chicago? The richest county is DuPage - no doubt about
    > > > that. How did these rich folks from Oak Brook vote? Yep, Bush. What
    > > > county do you think Kerry dominated? That's right, COOK county and
    > > > that is the ONLY county that he dominated across the entire state -
    > > > and it has one of the lowest median incomes of counties across the
    > > > state.
    > > >
    > > > San Francisco - now there's a weird duck. Look at the California
    > > > propositions and you'll quickly find that SF is so far out of the
    > > > mainstream of California the best solution would be to cast it out
    > > > into the Pacific.
    > >
    > > Apparently you're completely unfamiliar with SF. The whacko county
    > > propositions didn't pass here.
    >
    > SF isn't unique in its political orientation?
    >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > How about Portland? The only dominant Kerry county was Multnomah -
    > > > that is the center of Portland. Based on 1999 data, in that county
    > > > there were more poor people than in the rest of the state as a
    > > > percentage of total population. The median income was about the same
    > > > as the state average. Again, though some affluent people live in the
    > > > center of the city, the money resides in the burbs -
    > > >
    > > > Clakamas county, for example, had a poverty rate half the state rate
    > > > and median household income 25% higher. Clakamas went for Bush. I
    > > > will admit thatr there doesn't appear to be too much difference in the
    > > > proportion of people with college degrees though there are more people
    > > > lacking a high school diploma in Multnomah.
    > > >
    > > > Lets play some more, Paul. How much money is in the Dallas/Fort Worth
    > > > area and how did they vote versus the poorer part of the state?
    > > >
    > > > Dallas County was a toss up and the median income is just a hair
    > > > higher than the state average as is education level. Counties that
    > > > went pro-Bush, a 60/40 or better split, like Tarrant and Denton in the
    > > > greater D/FW metroplex, have higher incomes (Denton almost 50% higher)
    > > > and more college graduates than Dallas county. Rich educated texans
    > > > voted for Bush.
    > > >
    > > > Starr county which voted 70/30 for Kerry has a median income less than
    > > > HALF the state median and almost 2/3rds of the adults don't have a
    > > > high school diploma. Poor uneduated Texans voted for Kerry.
    > > >
    > > > The only anomaly is Travis county - and it always has been a weird
    > > > duck. But when you compare it to it's bedroom county just to the
    > > > north, you find that Williamson county has a median income twice that
    > > > of the state and 50% higher than Travis. And it went very Republican
    > > > in the election.
    > > >
    > > > More? What about Michigan? The richest and one of the most educated
    > > > counties is Livingston County - and it voted Bush 63/36. One of the
    > > > poorest and least educated counties, Wayne, voted Kerry - 70/30.
    > > > Granted, Washtenaw, voted Kerry and has a fairly high income and
    > > > education level - but that's only because it's home to a very liberal
    > > > U of M.
    > > >
    > > > Which leaves a question - is Pennsylvania more or less educated than
    > > > Virginia? Nope. In fact, if you look at Philadelphia - the place
    > > > where Kerry dominated (the rest of the state was at best split if not
    > > > pro-Bush), the education level and income (once again) are below the
    > > > state median. Bucks and Chester counties, two of PAs richest were
    > > > indifferent or leaning toward Republican - and they aqre also the
    > > > highest educated.
    > > >
    > > > Your hypothesis is unsupported by the data, Paul. But then again,
    > > > we've come to expect that from you.
    > > >
    > > > js

Jonathan Smith

"PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > > US voters who voted for Bush (which implies they liked him better than
    > > Kerry) tend to be socioeconomically better off, tend to be older, and
    > > tend to be male.
    >
    > What's your source for this?

County level voting data and Census track economic data. Exit poll
data, which by the way is accurate, it was the interpretation that was
faulty and then only in a few states, support this as well.

js

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:35:07 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Miguel Cruz
    >>Bush on the other hand is only too happy
    >>to say that snorting coke is wrong, so he's completely excused.
    >Do you think the US media would have excused Clinton as easily as
    >Bush for a given transgression with identical apology?

Probably. It's morally fine to do bad stuff, as long as you repent.
Clinton tried to deny, and hide what he did, and therein lies his
mistake. Once you admit something, there is little to report, so the
media moves onto something else. Reporting smoke is better than
reporting ash.

The British thing of applying commonsense and reason does not apply in
the US. This is a country that has boomed on nonsense.
---
DFM

Jonathan Smith

[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 4 Nov 2004 10:42:41 -0800, [email protected] (Jonathan
    > Smith) wrote:
    >
    > >[email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote in message news:
    > >About half of the 23 million US trips to Europe made by Americans in
    > >2002 were made for business purposes. Of those, 77% were made by men.
    > >Professionally they are in the upper levels (managers, execs, etc -
    > >about 90%).
    >
    > Couple of things to note, you're looking at trips, not time spent
    > abroad, business trips from the UK tend to be considerably shorter
    > than recreational trips, whilst not looking for statistics to back
    > this up for the US, I'd be amazed if it was different.

I didn't assume anything - I pointed out the statistic. The trend is
similarly evident among leisure travelers.

    > >Seems that the probability of encountering an American Republican
    > >(pro-Bush) traveler in Europe is higher than the alternative.
    >
    > You've also made another assumption here, that I'm as likely to meet a
    > recreational as business traveller.

You conveniently snipped the leisure traveler data and I did not make
any assumption regarding likelihood of meeting a leisure versus a
business traveler - you did.

    > Outside visitors coming to my own
    > work (who have been almost all democrats)

I don't think your anecdote beats ITA data - do you?

    > I'm much more likely to meet
    > other recreational travellers, meeting business travellers when on
    > holiday is unlikely, we stay in different sorts of places.
    >
    > Jim.

According to the ITA, Americans traveling to Europe tend to be better
off economically and tend to be older and tend to be male and tend to
be from the professional/managerial ranks as opposed to the
clerical/blue collar ranks. The voting demographics are consistent
with the conclusion - a Republican voter is more likely to be older,
richer, male, and professional than a Democrat.

If you would like to argue that there is something unique and special
that makes rich democrats travel in disproportionate numbers, then I
would urge you to provide the eidence.

js

Jonathan Smith

[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > According to exit polls, income and vote were associated - people with
    > > more money voted Bush, not Kerry.
    > >
    > > According to exit polls, there was no association between vote and
    > > education level for college graduates - in other words, you can't use
    > > education as a predictor of vote.
    >
    > According to exit polls, Kerry won the election.

Actually, no. According to the INTERPRETATION of the exit polls,
Kerry won in key states that would have given him the election. The
data were off by a few percentage points (well within the margin of
error) which may have limited the value of the poll to predict a
winner, but the demographic data were much better described and that's
the data I was using, in part, to support the proposition.

"The fallacy of using exit polls as an exact predictor of outcome is
that "you could be very accurate in terms of your sampling error for
traditional polling," he said, "yet if you're off by a point or two,
that could be the difference between a winner and a loser."

And that, Miguel, is the crux of it all.

js

Jonathan Smith

"PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:031120041529433927%[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]>, PTravel
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:031120041133202963%[email protected]...
    > > > > In article <[email protected]>, Miguel Cruz
    > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > > > > PTravel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > > > >> I am NOT suggesting that all Democrats are necessarily educated,
    > > > > > >> culturally-sophisticated professionals and all Republicans are
    > necessarily
    > > > > > >> semi-literate, uneducated Walmart cashiers. However, there is an
    > absolute
    > > > > > >> correlation between how a state voted and the education level of
    > its
    > > > > > >> populace.
    > > > > > >>
    > > > > > >> Educated, culturally aware people travel internationally.
    > Statistically,
    > > > > > >> they are far more likely to be (a) democrats, and (b) from an
    > urban
    > area in
    > > > > > >> the west coast,
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Like Compton, South Central, East Oakland and Watts... good grief
    > !
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Paul probably should have said "Democratic VOTERS". Turnout in
    > Compton
    > is not
    > > > > > great.
    > > > >
    > > > > What he should of done is shown the statistical research, "far more
    > > > > likely" is quite a threshold to prove.
    > > >
    > > > Okay. I don't have all the factors yet,
    > >
    > >
    > > I'll say!
    > >
    > > Where is the travel component ?? That was YOUR thesis!
    >
    > That was my HYPOthesis. I don't know any source that correlates travelers
    > with their states. I was responding to a series of posts which reported a
    > high percentage of non-Bush supporters travelling in Europe. Since non-Bush
    > supporters are, primarily, Democrats, and Democratic states corrollate with
    > higher income and education, it's not a particularly big stretch to say,
    > people with larger incomes and more education are more likely to travel than
    > people with smaller incomes and less education, and, therefore, more
    > Democrats tend to travel.

And you would be wrong - in the absence of additional information your
hypothesis is not supported.

You do understand the fatal flaw in the argument, don't you Paul.

You took two correlations at two levels of data abstraction and made a
causation.

The only thing your data say is that IF income and education are
predictors of travel likelihood, then the probability of a traveler
being from a high income and high education state is greater.

You then argued that the probability of a voter to be Democrat if he
is from a high income high education state is greater.

Then you combine the two and say that Democrats travel more.

Here's the flaw - you have not made the case that Democrats have
higher incomes and higher education. In fact, if you look at the
places where Kerry was strongest, you find that the income and
education is LOWER and where he was weakest, income and education was
higher - irrespective of the state.

Our inner cities in the US, Kerry strongholds, are not where the money
and education reside. And if you think inner cities are rich and
educated, you need to get out more.

Paul provides this chart as evidence.

    > > > but I did get these from the U.S.
    > > > Census for 2000. Here's a list of states that shows how they voted in
    > 2004
    > > > and their rankings with respect to the number of college graduates and
    > > > median income.
    > > >
    > > > Conclusion: States that voted Democratic have, on average, a better
    > > > educated, higher-income population than states that voted Republican.
    > > >
    > > > First column: D= Democrat, R=Republic
    > > > Second column: State name
    > > > Third column: People over 25 with a college degree
    > > > Fourth column: Median income

Let's be a bit selective and look at two individual states - one R and
one D.

DC is small and an anomaly considering what its role is in the US.
Mass is Kerry's home state and every county went his way.
Colorado is a likely cnadidate for a closer look

But I'll opt for Virginia and New Jersey - they are equally opposite
in voter preference and similar in terms of size.

Here are the data -

Virginia (R) 1.4 million D votes, 1.66 R votes for a total of 3
million or so
New Jersey (D) 1.8 million D votes and 1.6 million R for a total of
3.4 million or so.

So the two states are fairly close in terms of size and in terms of
the degree of favoritism for one or the other candidate. They are
also quite similar in terms of income and NJ has a slight lead over
Virginia in terms of education but both still within the top 10 in the
country.

So, which counties contribute to the states income/education and how
did they vote?

The biggest vote getter in NJ for Kerry were Hudson and Essex counties
and he did well in Camden, too.

The biggest vote getter for Bush in NJ was Sussex followed by
Hunterdon and Warren.

Where's NJ money and education? The state percentage of college
graduates is 30% and the median household income is 55K. What's it at
the county level?

Hudson 25% 40K
Essex 28% 45K
Cambden 24% 48K

Sussex 27% 55K
Hunterdon 42% 80K
Warren 24% 56K

Now, let's try Virginia. Median household is 47K and proportion of
college grads 29.5%

Kerry did well in Richmond City,and in Charlottesville and
Norfolk/Newport News

Bush did well in Chesterfield, Loudon, Virginia Beach.

Richmond City 29.5% 31K
Charlottesville 48% 31K
Norfolk 19.6% 32K

Chesterfield 33% 58K
Loudon 47% 80K
Virginia Beach 28% 48K

So, at the county level, the trend is reversed - Republican counties
in both a D and an R state are characterized by a hiogher than median
income and generally an equivalent or better educational level.

You go ahead and pick two similarly sized states with similar rankings
on income and education, pick six counties in each that are of
reasonable size, three that are predominately Republican and three
that voted predominately Democratic (at least 10% different than the
statewide numbers would be nice) and ten tell me again how rich
educated people vote Democratic.

js

    > > >
    > > > D District of Columbia 1 24
    > > > D Massachusetts 2 5
    > > > R Colorado 3 10
    > > > D Connecticut 4 3
    > > > D Maryland 5 2
    > > > R Virginia 6 7
    > > > D New Jersey 7 1
    > > > D Vermont 8 21
    > > > D Minnesota 9 12
    > > > D New Hampshire 10 4
    > > > D Washington 11 16
    > > > D New York 12 17
    > > > D California 13 11
    > > > D Rhode Island 14 13
    > > > R Kansas 15 29
    > > > D Hawaii 16 8
    > > > D Illinois 17 14
    > > > D Delaware 18 9
    > > > R Alaska 19 6
    > > > D Oregon 20 34
    > > > R Utah 21 15
    > > > D Maine 22 36
    > > > R Montana 23 43
    > > > R Georgia 24 23
    > > > R Nebraska 25 27
    > > > R Florida 26 35
    > > > R North Dakota 27 42
    > > > R Texas 28 32
    > > > R Arizona 29 30
    > > > D Michigan 30 19
    > > > R North Carolina 31 41
    > > > D Pennsylvania 32 26
    > > > R Missouri 33 31
    > > > R Idaho 34 37
    > > > R Wisconsin 35 20
    > > > R New Mexico 36 46
    > > > R Wyoming 37 22
    > > > R South Carolina 38 38
    > > > R South Dakota 39 39
    > > > R Ohio 40 28
    > > > R Iowa 41 33
    > > > R Oklahoma 42 45
    > > > R Tennessee 43 40
    > > > R Louisiana 44 49
    > > > R Alabama 45 44
    > > > R Indiana 46 25
    > > > R Nevada 47 18
    > > > R Arkansas 48 48
    > > > R Mississippi 49 50
    > > > R Kentucky 50 47
    > > > R West Virginia 15 51
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > jay
    > > > > Wed Nov 03, 2004
    > > > > mailto:[email protected]
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > miguel
    > > >
    > > >

Miguel Cruz

Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > You go ahead and pick two similarly sized states with similar rankings
    > on income and education, pick six counties in each that are of
    > reasonable size, three that are predominately Republican and three
    > that voted predominately Democratic (at least 10% different than the
    > statewide numbers would be nice) and ten tell me again how rich
    > educated people vote Democratic.

Here you are just shopping for favorable levels of aggregation as well.

I'd be curious to see the deviations in the income levels in the various
counties you looked at. Maybe the only conclusion we can draw is that rich
people who like to live in counties populated only by other rich people,
vote republican.

In any case at the state level, no more or less arbitrary than the county
level, the correlation Paul observed seems to obtain. How can you explain
this?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Jonathan Smith

"PTravel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Following up to PTravel
    > >
    > > >Conclusion: States that voted Democratic have, on average, a better
    > > >educated, higher-income population than states that voted Republican.

Counties that voted Republican, on average, are home to better
educated and wealthier folks than those voting Democratic.

    > > The impression I get from here is that Bush voters are like Tory
    > > voters over here, either very rich and want to hang on to *all*
    > > of it, country dwellers or bigoted white poor people. Add in
    > > religious for US. (the church of england tends towards the left,
    > > seeing supporting the poor as near the core of religious belief).
    > >
    > > Democrats will tend to be well educated white urban people and
    > > most black people.

    > > Stereotypical Bush man: pick up with rifle in cab, goes to
    > > church, white, uneducated.
    > > Kerry: educated, city dwelling, doesn't believe world created in
    > > 7 days.
    > >
    > > Right or wrong?
    >
    > Pretty much on the nose.

No, not at all.

we've been through this more than once - and Paul, in the absence of
DATA you have no basis for your ascertian.

The typical Kerry voter in this election was non-white, lower income,
urban.

That's why Kerry got 90% of the black vote, 55% of the under 50K
family income vote but only 40% of the over 100K incomers...want more?

The typical Republican has a job, goes to church, has kids, and makes
a decent living. The number of college graduates is about the same -
though the number of Post graduate degrees are higher in the Kerry
side - which is what I said earlier - democratic academics are quite
usual, just as there are rich hollywood types who are democratic
leaners. However, across the board, older, wealthier white male
suburban Americans are Republican more often than Democrats and
younger, poorer, non-white female urban Americans tend to be
Democrats.

    > There are a fair number of Reagan Republicans, who
    > tend to be well-educated, well-off and nearly libertarian in their social
    > and political views.

And you know this because? A "fair" number? Is that 2% of the voters
or is that 10% or what? The data show that 6% of "Republicans" voted
for Kerry whereas 11% of "Democrats" voted for Bush. And inspite of
your presumption that exit poll data are invalid, that's what the exit
poll shows - and its CNNs data, not Fox.

You have a different idea? Bring data.

    > Democrats tend to include most minority groups, as well.

The Kerry vote came from the lower income, non-white, urbanites - and
I proved that with data at the county level. Her didn't carry the
southern states because he did not appeal to white voters and can be
offensive to non-white voters in these states as well. Considering
the the ticket failed to carry South Carolina is an example of this
problem

    > The Republican party is, for all intents and purposes, the exclusive
    > province of religious Christians and orthodox Jews.

Kerry got 74% of the Jewish vote. Or are you arguing that there are
Jews and then there are Orthodox Jews? It's 3% of the electorate,
Paul.

You have yet to get a statistic right, Paul but you sure have no
problem pontificating and generalizing. You find this attribute
positive for some reason? Or is it consistent with a Demiocratic
approach - that is not to be overly concerned with the truth.

js