That is a really important point. You don't have to go anywhere.

The upper and upper middle classes have traditionally been Episcopalian and Presbyrterian, not big box nondenominational.

Big-box non-denominationals are a fairly new phenomenon, aren't they? I'm not a Christian, but it seems to me that I started noticing them about 15 years ago.

The upper and upper middle classes have traditionally been Episcopalian and Presbyterian, not big box nondenominational.

In the northeast and midwest, yes, but not the south and Sun Belt. That's where these churches are being built.

I'm not a Christian....

And you call yourself an American?

Well, I'm going to bed. Probably won't say any prayers, but I will sleep well none the less.

Goodnight all.

I think it's missing a little something. Maybe you could overlay this with an IQ vs. income graph.

Not only am I not a Christian, I don't even play one on TV.

Democrats can't win real Christians, because they support baby killing and grave robbing. So long as that doesn't change, the Democrats won't win elections.

Lets talk about that grave-robbing meme. here is a campaign commercial for ya -

The camera pans a living room where family members are oohing and aahing over a newborn. The doorbell rings, and an IRS agent enters, and presents the newborn with a bill for $30,000 - his share of the National debt.

Call it a birth tax.

And get over that grave-robber bullshit. you want to give Paris Hilton a tax cut. Not one small business and not one family farm has been lost to estate taxes. Not.A.Single.One.

As for "baby killers" - grow a fucking womb or shut the hell up. 'Kay?

Global Citizen-- You assume I'm not female because... why, exactly?

Anyway, your campaign ad is quite a chuckle. Unfortunately, e live in a difficult world. It's either that bill, or the entire family gets blown up by terrorists, ith the consolation that those terrorists didn't have those phone calls listened to.

Not a tough choice.

Anyway, your campaign ad is quite a chuckle. Unfortunately, e live in a difficult world. It's either that bill, or the entire family gets blown up by terrorists, ith the consolation that those terrorists didn't have those phone calls listened to.

Too funny AH. One can't be free and dead at the same time. Too bad liberals still don't realize that.

AH, Al, if you want to give yourselves over to fear, I can't stop you. But I ask that you step aside and let those of us with a clue about what it really means to be Americans get on with living our lives, salvaging our culture and rescuing our Constitution.

And those 5000 fanatics who want to kill us all better get busy. They've got a lot of beheadin' to do.

Global Citizen-- Nice ad hominen attacks.

We're not giving ourself over to fear, we're asking for some basic security measures. By your logic, having a police department is 'giving into fear'. Our culture is doing just fine, despite some support of gay marriage. And our constitution is fine; notice we stil have a very robust court system. Get off your moral high ground; we have reasonable disagreements.

Too funny AH. One can't be free and dead at the same time. Too bad liberals still don't realize that.
Posted by: Al on October 24, 2006 at 1:19 AM

Give me liberty or give me death.

Patrick Henry-- I assume you support getting rid of the police? You'll have more liberty! And just because it means rapists, terrorists, and murderers running free.... well, those are just the chances we have to take. Right? Right?

Gonna hurt yourself jumping to conclusions like that.

The logistics of a successful effort against Americans on American soil isn't workable.

And yeah, I guess the Constitutionis doing okay - we still can hang onto that part about not having to quarter soldiers, so on balance we are fine, I guess.

And by the way, I might get off my high-horse now and again, but I will Never abdicate the moral high ground.

Give me Librium, or give me Meth!

Carry on, troll-whackers. I'll see you tomorrow.

...It's either that bill, or the entire family gets blown up by terrorists, ith the consolation that those terrorists didn't have those phone calls listened to.

Not a tough choice.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 24, 2006 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Conflation as usual.

We have the choice of pay as we go. This administration and house havew decided to burden the future with the cost of our today. The major partof which cost is accrued by a war of choice, not protection or necessity.

That's how we can tell you are Repugnuts not Republicans.

Second conflation:

No police + liberty. Actually the police are a service to society to control those who would intrude on the lliberty of those within out society.

Are you confusing lliberty with anarchy? Explain yourself.

Oh, and your taking it awfully personally, what with your family being the target. Wasn't it you a few weeks ago boasting about how safe you are in your community and it's all the East and West coast liberals who are going to get it first?

Well, you never did make sense.

Whoops.
Should be "No police = liberty".

We have the choice of pay as we go. This administration and house havew decided to burden the future with the cost of our today. The major partof which cost is accrued by a war of choice, not protection or necessity.

That's how we can tell you are Repugnuts not Republicans.

I'd be willing to raise funds with an equitable national sales tax. Will you join me?

Second conflation:

No police + liberty. Actually the police are a service to society to control those who would intrude on the lliberty of those within out society.

Are you confusing lliberty with anarchy? Explain yourself.

Similarly, no protection from terrorists = no liberty. If our restaurants are constantly blowing up, if our schools are getting shot up, if our food is tainted, it's impossible for a free society to function. We can argue about where to draw the line, but the notion that any anti-terrorism note is automatically completely destructive to liberty is a fantasy that only liberal bloggers have the luxury of indulging in.

Global Citizen-- Your post responding to mine makes no sense. WTF?

Oh, and your taking it awfully personally, what with your family being the target. Wasn't it you a few weeks ago boasting about how safe you are in your community and it's all the East and West coast liberals who are going to get it first?

Well, you never did make sense.

Missed this bit. No, you're thinking of somebody else. Or, alternatively, somebody spoofed my name and I didn't notice; that hapens fairly often here. I really wish Kevin would move to a registration system.

It makes perfect sense if you know anything about the Constitution in the first place.

Some of us are a little pissed about constitutional abrogation and the suspension of Habeas Corpus when the constitutional criteria are not met. Article III is very specific about this.

To get back on point:

I'll read this graph as the wackier you are on religion and the richer you are, the greater correlation of voting for the party that is further away from social justice, equality of opportunity, or treating people as equals.

So, generally, the wackier and richer you are, the bigger the hypocisy and the less you take Jesus' teachings seriously.

Way to go, wackos!

American Hawk --

No. National Sales Tax is a regressive tax. But more taxation in non-regressive way, sure. Better would be a responsible government that didn't overspend and pass our debt onto our kids.

Good. I'm glad we both agree the police and security agencies can handle this rather than killing thousands of innocents and wrecking our military and NG.

I'm paraphrasing, but didn't Franklin say that anybody who is willing to give up their liberties for precieved secutity will and should obtain niether.

How is it that so-called conservitives(if that is what Republicans are still calling themselves)cannot see the short sightedness in the the policies that they endorse.
1) writing into law the the death of habeus corpus
2) erasing the seperation of church and state for political gain only.(all they really care for is power)
3) getting the country involved in a war of choice, (Afganistan was smart and justified in the beginning, until we left prematurely)
4) Spending worse than any Democratic administration could ever have dreamed.
5) refusing to raise the neccessary funds to cover the spending (even Reagan raised some taxes to offset some of his spending)
6) getting involved with personnel issues (see Teri Shrivo)
7) expanding the government (Medicare)

I guess that I just dont know how these current "Republicans" could have strayed so far from what I thaught were great Libertarian Ideals of Goldwater and the like

Yes, I know my writing is horrid this time of night

However, it does suggest that while Democrats probably don't have much chance of peeling off votes from higher-income evangelicals, they might have surprisingly good luck at using a primarily economic message to win votes from middle-income evangelicals, culture war or no. Food for thought.

Howard Dean voiced this conclusion three years ago. He really is one whacked out, crazy guy, no?

Like almost every other serious study, it shows that class is the main thing that matters in American politics (more sensitive studies usually find race being important, though less so, as well.)

Culture war issues work for the Republicans two ways: they make a little bit of different swinging people on the margins, and they do an incredibly good job of distracting Democrats from focussing on a coherent economic message, while the Republicans get their real base amped up with their clear economic message of handouts for the rich, all the time.

The Republicans whine so much about "class warfare", because they don't want the Democrats fighting it: they'd prefer they won by default, because they most certainly aren't avoiding class warfare.

Kevin,

If anything, that graph conveys exactly how important religion is in American voting patterns. Every one of those trend lines cuts about in half from the $100K point to the

(got cut off for some reason...)

$20K point. Conservative Protestants fall more numerically simply because they have more room to fall -- a standard floor effect. On the other hand, look at any point on the x-axis, and you'll see that conservative protestants vote for Republicans about 4x more often than Afro-American Protestants. How does this show that class is more important than religion in voting patterns?!?!

Um, isn't race neither class nor religion?

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性健康 性爱图片 免费激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸图片 美女祼体图片 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃

I don't think this is suprising information at all. The Republican Party is the party of the wealthy. Period. Full stop. It has been since at least WWII and probably since Woodrow Wilson.

Any poor person who votes for the GOP, Christian or not, is a fool, since the GOP could give a flying fuck about their well-being.

Ditto Conservative Deflator.

If the dems really gave a hoot about the middle class and poor in this country they wouldn't cower every time the repubs declare that the dems are trying to start class warfare. Well it is class warfare! I guess the dems are afraid of pissing off their wealthy supporters.

Lew

The Republicans whine so much about "class warfare," because they don't want the Democrats fighting it: they'd prefer they won by default, because they most certainly aren't avoiding class warfare.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 24, 2006 at 3:02 AM

Trouble is, too many Democrats stupidly ignore "class warfare" as a tactic because they're afraid that it would lessen their appeal among upper- and middle-class elites, from which they get most of their campaign money. Economics isn't the issue -- abortion (oops, "choice" -- forgot to use the euphemism) is. As long as Dems are slaves to the Cambridge/Manhattan/Hollywood axis and don't embrace true populism, this will continue to be their Achilles heel.

Even though the trolls and the spammers got here hours ago... I'm reading now a book that I suspect complements the conclusions of this one--and may be easier to follow: Stephen Hart, What Does the Lord Require?: How American Christians Think about Economic Justice (1992; 2nd ed. 1996). Most of the polling and interview research was done in the late 1980s, but Hart argues that, while there are many religious reasons that Christians lean conservative or liberal, there's really no good predictor of which way individual Christians will lean. To say, for example, "John is a fundamentalist and reads the Bible literally, therefore he's a Christian conservative," is as likely to be a true statement as it is false. That may seem obvious. But real Christians are pulled in as many different directions as anyone else, by the same rhetorical forces; the monolithic claim on truth that Christian political leaders claim is often as much facade to grass roots Christians as it is to others.

I haven't read all the comments, so maybe someone else has caught the obvious fallacy in your take-away.

The fact that high-income conservative protestants are much more likely to vote republican than low-income conservative protestants implies nothing about the efficacy of democratic attempts to peel off votes of one group versus the other. Maybe its much easier to get from 30 percent to 50 percent among the high-income group than it is to get from 45 percent to 55 percent among the low-income group. As a general matter, the more skewed a population's preferences, the easier it should be to peel away the marginal voter.

If our restaurants are constantly blowing up, if our schools are getting shot up, if our food is tainted.
1. When was the last time a restaurant blew up from a terrorist bomb in the US.(outside of 9/11)
2. No one is shooting up our schools except our own strung out teenagers.(read Colombine, Dr. Dobson's state)
3. Tainted food - ok , so don't ever eat spinich again.

bernie goldberg's "bias" is my pick for worst written book in the last few years...

There is a way to tell whether religion or income plays a greater in vote choice, and eyeballing a graph isn't it. Come back with the stats if this is the point you really want to make.

These national security NRA type christian Republicans are so concerned about killing Muslims in the Middle East so they won't have to kill them on the streets of the USA, they conveniently forget about the 25,000 people murdered with handguns in our country each and every year. Its all about God, Guns, and Gay killing with these holy conservatives.

The Democratic party is sure spending a lot of money on this election to be the party of the little guy. I don't see any medium income candidates on the liberal end of the spectrum.

Who wants to elect people who promise to raise everyone's taxes?

I guess we will see in a few weeks how much people love their income.

Judging by that graph, the non-religious are more likely to vote Republican than religious African-Americans. That somewhat shoots a hole in Bill O'Reilly's theory of the "secular progressive." (Doesn't demolish it, just blows a hole -- not that he's that much of a theorist to begin with.)

Let us assume the Democrats win this election. A safe assumption in my opinion, but an assumption none the less. What do you, not the elected Democrats, but you, intend to do to make sure the Democrats don't fall into the same trap of hubris as the Republicans (and the Democrats before them.) In short, what do you intend to do to demand a higher level of performance from newly elected Democrats?

Hummmmmm?

Grew up attending a Baptist church in the heartland. Vividly remember the more affluent who always sat in front, while the poorer sat towards the rear. There was very little association between the two groups.

In addition, the ladies of the Missionary Group, who tatted little things and collected for the missionarys doing the Lords work among the locals in Africa were incensed when the pastor invited a local African-American church to attend one of our Sunday morning services.

They would not even pass by and shake hands with any of the guests.

It was not long after this that a schism developed in the church and the more conservative affluent types broke off to form a new Southern Baptist church of their own.

However, I do think that the Democratic Party should spend more time in "Walk in the Water" and "Stay on the sunny side" settings. Believe it or not, there are still some good people there.

Come back LWPhil, where ever you are.

Andrew Greeley is a sociologist and Jesuit Priest at Notre Dame. His academic work is usually pretty solid. On the other hand, he’s a “Spirit of Vatican II” refugee. A lot of his analysis may be Axe Grinding in the internal Catholic debate. As a liberal he has a stake in confronting the idea that religious voters have abandoned the Democratic Party across income lines. This idea (fact?) has been used by the right in representing conservatism/republicans as the authentic party for the moral minded.

"The Truth . . ." is one of the year's more informative political books. Kevin Drum zeroes in on its most important point, but it has many others. However, while I agree that its sparsity of charts and graphs is a mistake, "worst and most frustratingly-written" is an overstatement. It's stodgy and somewhat repetitious, but really not that bad. It would be a shame if Drum's hyperbole discouraged potential readers.

Wealthy conservative Christians think that God blessed them personally with wealth, because of their righteousness. NO WAY to counter that BS. They will NEVER vote for a party that does not hate gay people and women.

The poorer Christians actually remember the message of Jesus, don't store up treasures on earth, give all away and follow me, etc...

While poor conservative Christians hate gays too, I think they might understand that getting decent health care and education for their families might be more important that marginalizing gay people.

"While poor conservative Christians hate gays too"

I guess this makes you feel like a helpless victim or helpless victim supporter?

Vanity is the Devils favorite sin.

I though there was something about loving the sinner and hating the sin?

Dear God,
Thank you for this day, thank you for the happiness and work and play. Thank you for the angels bright, and keep me safe from bin Laden and mushroom clouds.

And God bless the Unitary Executive.

Another point is the bump at the second from the right side of the chart at about $80-90,000. That seems to be where a lot of people change their perspective.

If the Democratic Party ever does have a "Walk in the water" moment with christians, could they please do so at some length in 2007, 09, 11, 13, etc. Please stop the September to the first week in November moments in election years.

Of course, the Pubs seem to promise them much during the same election time frame with very little follow through in the off years.

Could lead to someone wanting to start a Holy Christian Empire of their own.

Did I just see Left Wing Phil? Be still my heart! I have missed you so!

If you take basic day to day racism in this country and then add in the various Catholic Archbishops and evangelicals calling it a sin to vote for prochoice politicians, what you have is a toxic starting base.

Add in the billionaire money laundering operation spreading money around the Republican media machine and the brew is complete. The middle class will not hear about the economic warfare being waged against them and will stay confused about the carefully constructed economic illusions thrown at them every day. Until the system collapes entirely.

Is it not correct that Clinton signed (and promoted) NAFTA.

What ever dislocation is occuring amoung the middle class is a result of cheap third world labor beget by the modernazation of countries like China & India.

I have yet to see any actual Democratic plan that addresses this. Its just more class resentment, bilk the rich- that never works for them.

fritz...

"It's class warfare, all right. And my class is winning." - Billionaire Warren Buffet

his buddy billionaire bill gates agrees...

How many jobs have those two created?

And both have gotten together and given billions to charity. (you think the government would spend it better?)

Rich in democratic parlance doesn’t mean Billionaire it means 60 K or above in a family with two earners.

orwell...The Democratic party is sure spending a lot of money on this election to be the party of the little guy.

according to an article read on cspan's washington journal this morning...(don't remember the paper)

gop has raised and outspent the dems...2-to-1

gop has spent 200-million so far...this cycle.

dems are no where near that..

Maybe this is the point of the book, but it looks like we're berating working-class red staters a little too much for voting stupidly, "contrary to their interests." In fact, conservative Protestants who aren't rich seem to be voting for Democrats in large numbers.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

That really does explain it all.

EJ Dionne gave an interesting paper at Brookings on this and related issues (PDF):

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060926.pdf

I think you'll find that pound-for-pound rich evangelicals tend to have a much higher asshole index.

Take Thomas Kinkade, Billionaire cheesey painter conservative Christian who likes to scam his employees: "Most of my clients got involved with Kinkade because it was presented as a religious opportunity," Yatooma said in a phone interview. "Being defrauded is awful enough, but doing it in the name of God is really despicable." http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/092006/09212006/220020

Or ultra pugnacious conservative Christian Paul Weyrich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

Or gold, diamond and racehorse loving Pat Robertson.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Robertson#Gold_and_Diamonds_and_Mr._Pat

Or the pyramid scheme scamming Christian billionaire Mary Kay of Mary Kay Cosmetics.
http://marykaysucks.wordpress.com/

Or - well you get the picture.

Who wants 'em?

All this talk makes me pine for Amy Sullivan's terrible political / basketball commentary. Where is our favorite little bible thumper, anyway? She left to "write a book" but I haven't seen anything. Looking forward gleefully to the poor reviews, actually. Anyone know what up?

I think it's missing a little something. Maybe you could overlay this with an IQ vs. income graph.
http://zzui.info/sitemap.htm
Maybe this is the point of the book, but it looks like we're berating working-class red staters a little too much for voting stupidly, "contrary to their interests." In fact, conservative Protestants who aren't rich seem to be voting for Democrats in large numbers.