The question of why poor people vote Republican is not simply an issue of income but primarily race and partly region and gender. Poor people may be more likely to vote Democrat; poor white people are not. In 2008 McCain won a slim majority (51%) of white Americans who earn less than $50,000 (this is just below the national median income which is not poor but the only figure available from exit polls that breaks down votes down by race and income), while Obama won a whopping majority of non-whites in the same category (86%). Asked in May which candidate would do more to advance their family’s economic interests middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions gave Romney a 26 point lead over Obama.
But that support is less pronounced among white women than white men and is not uniform across the country. In Mississippi 84% of whites who earn below $50,000 backed McCain: in Vermont 70% in the same category voted for Obama. Of the nine states that backed Obama in 2008 in three less affluent whites went for McCain, in five they backed Obama and one was a tie. In all of them non-whites voted Democrat.
The Guardian’s Gary Younge takes a closer look at what he believes to be the driving forces behind poor and working class Americans’ ballot decisions.
— Scott @ ShortFormBlog
Carlson is from the liberal bastion of California, according to Wikipedia. In his formative teen years, Carlson attended a boarding school on the East Coast, then went to college at a small liberal arts school in Connecticut, a state that is essentially one giant suburb of culturally subversive New York City. Carlson’s father worked for the government-subsidized Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as the government-funded propaganda outlet Voice of America. Sure, The Daily Caller is currently mocking the Obama campaign for airing an ad in defense of Big Bird, but Carlson has never renounced his father. In an interview with Salon in 2003, when given an opportunity to cut ties with his left-wing roots, Carlson said, “my dad is who I always wanted to be like.”
But that’s not all. Carlson once had his own TV show on PBS, and told Washington Post readers in 2004 that he actually liked his employer. “Everyone I’ve dealt with at PBS so far has been great,” Carlson confessed. “If they hate me for my politics, they’re keeping it secret. I’ve been really pleased.” He worked for other outlets notorious for their non-right-wing views: Esquire, for example, and New York magazine.
YOU WORKED AT PBS!?! YOU COMMIE BASTARD! We know the real reason you stopped wearing bow ties.
The union thugs, and Liberal scum are busing in people from Michigan to vote Democrat in Wisconsin. It’s the only way that liberals can win anything. They lie, and cheat. The Scum of America. I’m getting to the point of being closed minded to any liberals. It’s just that bad.
There’s this thing called evidence … Among the sources we can find reporting this are The Gateway Pundit (which once took a video I shot with my own phone and misrepresented it) and Pat Dollard, and both are sourcing something that some guy said on some radio show. Look, there’s a lot at stake tonight, but let’s stick with the truth. Evidence is not hearsay.
A dozen people in the television business were interviewed for this article, but nearly all insisted on anonymity either for legal reasons or for fear of retaliation by Mr. Olbermann or their employers.The key line from Brian Stelter’s latest piece on Keith Olbermann’s departure from Current TV, which notes that even if Olbermann himself doesn’t stick around on a network, the host has a tendency for setting the tone of the network’s coverage — and inspiring hordes of followers in the process. The piece also talks about the challenges Current TV faces in its efforts to becoming a purely liberal network, suggesting that it’s trying to take the next step from Fox News and MSNBC, which mix news and opinion. Ratings suck, though, though they improved with Olbermann and his fellow anchors.
National Post front page for May 3, 2011
Harper proves his doubters wrong again
Quebec takes the plunge with the NDP; Duceppe quits
After Bin Laden: The manhunt, the raid, the reaction and what comes next
To give you an idea of what happened with the Canadian elections last night.
Stephen Harper has some pretty huge problems right now. The Canadian Prime Minister’s government was found in contempt by the House of Commons — the first time that’s happened in the country’s history. The situation, pushed by a coalition led by the minority Liberal party, promises to add an interesting twist to Canadian politics over the next six weeks. “The principle at stake in this debate goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy: the obligation of a government to provide members of this House with the information they need in order to hold the government accountable to the people of Canada,” said Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff. Now, we understand that many of our readers may not know much about Canadian politics, so here’s a quick explanation of what’s going on:
» Other frustrations: The minority parties also have shared frustrations in Harper’s corporate tax cuts and push for increased defense spending on military jets — allowing for the opposition parties to find common ground. If they were to gain control, expect these things to be targets.
A plurality government with no majority: The House of Commons — the main voter-elected body in the Canadian government — has led with a plurality government for a few years, strengthening their hold in 2008, but with the 308 seats up for grabs a little over four weeks, the body could change significantly. While polls suggest Harper’s Conservatives could gain a majority this time out, if they don’t, it’s possibile that the three main minority parties (along, possibly, with the Greens, who currently don’t have a seat in the House of Commons) could form their own coalition, forcing Harper off his perch entirely. Here’s what the House of Commons looks like now:
» Minor members and the Senate: On top of the parties here, two of House of Commons seats are held by independent candidates, and three seats are currently empty. Also of note: The Canadian parliament also has a Senate, but it isn’t directly elected, is kind of a messy situation of its own, and holds no say over the situation with Harper or the government. Harper’s job lies in the hands of the confidence of the House of Commons — which he just lost. (By the way, our boy Ilya Gerner has a pretty interesting take on the whole Canadian plurality system worth checking out.)
Unfortunately, Mr. Ignatieff and his coalition partners in the NDP and Bloc Quebecois made abundantly clear that they had already decided they wanted an election instead, Canada’s fourth election in seven years, an election Canadians had told them clearly that they did not want. Thus the vote today, which obviously disappoints me, and will, I suspect, disappoint most Canadians.Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper • Discussing his frustrations with the current contempt vote. The polls seem to suggest that many back Harper’s take on the situation — the party still holds a strong plurality in two recent polls, and in one holds over 40 percent — enough for the Conservatives to hold a technical majority. Other parties say that, either way, Harper’s uncooperative leadership style made his bed. “He made a choice,” said NDP leader Jack Layton “and that choice was to take us into an election.” source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
