Why is it that you believe that those in urban areas vote based on government assistance and that those in equally poor rural areas don't?

 

So Owsley Co is your national snapshot for those on assistance?

Why is it that you believe that those in urban areas vote based on government assistance and that those in equally poor rural areas don't?

 

I honestly don't think most people can handle an honest answer to this question. The honest answer to this question would have people calling you names. We don't want hard answers in this country we want the most PC answer that doesn't hurt anyones feelings.

I'm not sure a rural county in Kentucky compares socially or in any other way with people on assistance in a large urban area....say LA, Chicago, Detroit. How did they vote?

 

 

So, I have an unsubstantiated personal theory about urban vs rural/suburban voting as a whole. Everyone wants to put it down to "welfare voters" pushing the numbers. I actually feel as a %, people who receive tons of aid do not tend to vote at all. HOWEVER, people who live in densely populated urban areas (in many cities) tend to vote more liberally. My wholly personal theory is that people who live in densely populated areas tend to lean more to the left because of the sheer nature of their everyday life...they live in high concentrations, encounter every single economic demographic daily, and thus have a little more of a "we're all in it together" attitude. This is a theory of my very own, no stats, no links, no sources. But hey...if spindoc can have his and people respect it, then I can have mine.

So Owsley Co is your national snapshot for those on assistance?

 

Not trying to be snippy...but what is your personal national snapshot of those on assistance?

Why is it that you believe that those in urban areas vote based on government assistance and that those in equally poor rural areas don't?

 

I'll go in general with the prior-stated premise to think it absurd to think that those raised on government assistance will not vote for politicians who will sustain this assistance. Maybe the question is why the populace of Owsley county and others in the poor south vote republican rather than democrat?

 

In my opinion, these arguments are less valid than they seem. Both poor white southerners and African-Americans have very good reasons to vote for the parties that they do. In both the Democratic and Republican Party there are a subtle (and sometimes not very subtle) currents of hostility towards white southerners and African-Americans, respectively. You don’t have to be in politics very long to be aware of this. White southerners and African-Americans will naturally be reluctant to vote for a party whose fundamental narrative, in many ways, paints themselves as antagonists. Voters aren’t stupid, unlike what many people say.

 

?They Vote Against Their Own Self-Interest? | MyFDL

 

from this link...interesting short read...

Not trying to be snippy...but what is your personal national snapshot of those on assistance?

I don't have one. And you were being snippy and it's ok. I think that those with access to public transit are way more likely to get to polling places however.

Who grow up in that cycle and get to vote soon. Which is my entire point.

I would think that the 50 million-plus kids now receiving free or reduced-price school lunches have higher aspirations in life than joining their parents in the federal food stamp program.

So, I have an unsubstantiated personal theory about urban vs rural/suburban voting as a whole. Everyone wants to put it down to "welfare voters" pushing the numbers. I actually feel as a %, people who receive tons of aid do not tend to vote at all. HOWEVER, people who live in densely populated urban areas (in many cities) tend to vote more liberally. My wholly personal theory is that people who live in densely populated areas tend to lean more to the left because of the sheer nature of their everyday life...they live in high concentrations, encounter every single economic demographic daily, and thus have a little more of a "we're all in it together" attitude. This is a theory of my very own, no stats, no links, no sources. But hey...if spindoc can have his and people respect it, then I can have mine.

 

I would argue people in big cities are more liberal because they are so used to government running their lives they know nothing else. Where people who grow up not depending on government seem to vote more republican.

I would think that the 50 million-plus kids now receiving free or reduced-price school lunches have higher aspirations in life than joining their parents in the federal food stamp program.

 

What kid is more likely to go on government aid as an adult. Someone who's parents weren't on government aid or who's parent was on government aid.

So, I have an unsubstantiated personal theory about urban vs rural/suburban voting as a whole. Everyone wants to put it down to "welfare voters" pushing the numbers. I actually feel as a %, people who receive tons of aid do not tend to vote at all. HOWEVER, people who live in densely populated urban areas (in many cities) tend to vote more liberally. My wholly personal theory is that people who live in densely populated areas tend to lean more to the left because of the sheer nature of their everyday life...they live in high concentrations, encounter every single economic demographic daily, and thus have a little more of a "we're all in it together" attitude. This is a theory of my very own, no stats, no links, no sources. But hey...if spindoc can have his and people respect it, then I can have mine.

I agree with this totally. I'm not sure it's a "we're all in this together" attitude. That's socialism, ain't it?

I think it's "I'm gonna do what I can to make sure I get what I can", so maybe that's my personal snapshot.

The poor vote for liberals because they feel the gov will take care of them and give them free money, food, housing, and be able to live off others so they won't have to work. The reason unemployment benefits are continued every time is the gov wants to keep those people on a leash. Our gov doesn't want to add jobs, they want people to rely on the gov so they can get votes.

I would think that the 50 million-plus kids now receiving free or reduced-price school lunches have higher aspirations in life than joining their parents in the federal food stamp program.

 

Wow, do you ever encounter those on aid on a personal daily basis? Ever? Serious question because I suspect you do not. If you do, and that's your stance, you must have a really interesting group of folks where you are.

What kid is more likely to go on government aid as an adult. Someone who's parents weren't on government aid or who's parent was on government aid.

You and every other employed person posting on this board is one merger, one "whoops" e-mail, one pink slip away from becoming a "citizen on assistance."

You and every other employed person posting on this board is one merger, one "whoops" e-mail, one pink slip away from becoming a "citizen on assistance."

 

Or, crazy as it may seem, we would go get another JOB. I know, ludicrous.

So Owsley Co is your national snapshot for those on assistance?

 

No, it's an anecdote to demonstrate that government assistance isn't so easily correlated to voting behavior. But, I do think if you zoom out to the South and other rural areas more broadly you'll find Owsley isn't an exception.