On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-11, at 8:06 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> You're saying that those who are "poor and powerless, non-white, or
> have liberal rather
>>
>> than conservative social values" are most likely to see "large
>> effects" in
>> alleged differences between the two parties, correct?
> Yes. That's a fact, not a judgement. These constituencies are
> strongly Democratic. It's not a congenital condition. If they cease
> seeing differences between the two parties, they would move towards
> a third.
>> Unless I'vemisunderstood you completely, I can only repeat that,
>> with the exception of
>> your last category (which makes the whole set seem a bit random),
>> actual
>> historical turnout at the polls would seem to indicate the opposite.
>
> You do seem to have misunderstood me completely. What historical
> turnout are you alluding to?
The fact that less than half the people (or, in the presidential, slightly more) vote in US elections. That majority of the electorate, who see so little choice that they have no reason to take the time to vote, are preponderantly the "poor and powerless," whether "white" or "nonwhite."
Shane Mage
"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to"