By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - PoliCHARTZ - Thread of U.S. Politics & the Presidential Election

fkusumot on 17 September 2008
Jackson50 said:
You want a link confirming my assertion that the college graduate and some college demographics tend to be Republican?

Well, if you can, or was that just anecdotal evidence. You notice the chart I put up, commissioned by Gallup, gives numbers for white people that are non-hispanic. Your commentary after that said:

Jackson50 said:
It disputes trends that have been observed over many elections. I say that because college graduates are the Republican's strongest voting bloc in regards to education followed by some college.

So where are you getting the data for those disputing trends overy many election (and which elections in particular?)

BTW: Streams have crossed!

 



I Blame Wii Fit!

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 17 September 2008

In light of the continued "Market Meltdown" I thought it would be worthwhile to take a flash back to May 25, 2006

John McCain Said:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

 



Jackson50 on 17 September 2008

Most of my information comes from books that I either own or borrow, but I do have some links showcasing that Republican support in regards to education is similar to a bell curve and Demcratic support is similar to an inverted bell.

This information is from the Pew Research Center and it indicates Republican support is strongest with college graduates and those with some college education .

CNN has a nice setup featuring the exit polls from the 96-04 US presidential elections. Even in 1996 when Bill Clinton soundly defeated Bob Dole, the Republicans still won the college graduate demographic. Also, the Democrats largest bloc in regards to education is almost always those with less than a high school diploma. When I take this into account, it would seem to dispute your assumption that Republicans have a "vested interest in keeping peoples academic achievement at a bare minimum."

 

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html (

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html (

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

 

 



fkusumot on 17 September 2008
Jackson50 said:

Most of my information comes from books that I either own or borrow, but I do have some links showcasing that Republican support in regards to education is similar to a bell curve and Demcratic support is similar to an inverted bell.

This information is from the Pew Research Center and it indicates Republican support is strongest with college graduates and those with some college education .

CNN has a nice setup featuring the exit polls from the 96-04 US presidential elections. Even in 1996 when Bill Clinton soundly defeated Bob Dole, the Republicans still won the college graduate demographic. Also, the Democrats largest bloc in regards to education is almost always those with less than a high school diploma. When I take this into account, it would seem to dispute your assumption that Republicans have a "vested interest in keeping peoples academic achievement at a bare minimum."

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html (

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html (

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

 

Thanks for those links! Very informative. The correlation between higher-paying jobs and higher-education looks consistent, and that demographic leans heavily to the democratic side. I think the analysis is more interesting if you compare these two charts.




I Blame Wii Fit!

The Ghost of RubangB on 18 September 2008

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/18/us/0918-nat-webPOLLB.jpg

This graph shows how voter support (by demographic) changed after each convention.



And now the New York Times has a nice interactive graphic thingie that lets you czech out polls over time or for swing states.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html#US_22



And this is from CBS (link):

"Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago."



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
Commando on 18 September 2008

I will reitterate what another poster has said in another thread that, somehow in all his years as a registered voter he has never once been polled. Nor have I.
Also with the way these polls have their results changed rapidly, and they way I tend to hear most people who have made up their mind basd on "party politics" it amazes me that anyone can believe these things are real. Especially people who would elsewise seem rather intelligent.



"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison

"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself

fkusumot on 18 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:

In light of the continued "Market Meltdown" I thought it would be worthwhile to take a flash back to May 25, 2006

...

There's also stuff like this:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bush%20deregulate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8



I Blame Wii Fit!

HappySqurriel on 18 September 2008
fkusumot said:
HappySqurriel said:

In light of the continued "Market Meltdown" I thought it would be worthwhile to take a flash back to May 25, 2006

...

There's also stuff like this:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bush%20deregulate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Are you aware that John McCain and George Bush are two seperate people?

Try this search out:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=clinton+deregulate&meta=

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.

 

Edit: or

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Community+Redevelopment+Act+&btnG=Search&meta=

The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [2] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [3] [4]



fkusumot on 18 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:
fkusumot said:
HappySqurriel said:

In light of the continued "Market Meltdown" I thought it would be worthwhile to take a flash back to May 25, 2006

...

There's also stuff like this:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bush%20deregulate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Are you aware that John McCain and George Bush are two seperate people?

Try this search out:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=clinton+deregulate&meta=

... stuff about doing away with Glass-Steagall Act ...

Edit: or

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Community+Redevelopment+Act+&btnG=Search&meta=

... stuff about CRA loans ...

Yes. I'm very familiar with that. We could go back to the Keating Five (it wasn't the Keating Four). But the problem we are talking about here manifested itself in the last year. The repeal of Glass-Steagall almost a decade ago was passed with a veto proof majority.

Paulson, and Snow before him, did nothing for the last four years when it was becoming obvious to many that there was a real problem in the sub-prime market. In the view of many, including Phil Gramm, the invisible hand would take care of the market excesses without market intervention.

According to John McCain's financial advisor at the time (Gramm), just a few month ago, America wasn't in a financial recession but just a "mental recession" and we were all a bunch of whiners. The same cast of characters that have shaped Bush's approach to the economy are the ones shaping McCain's approach. McCain himself has admitted he doesn't know much about economics. That's why I pointed out Bush's approach to the economy and contend that McCain's approach would just be more of the same.

It's an important issue. Unfortunately the McCain campaign has said this election isn't about the issues. It seems apparent to me that issues are going to be what the election is about. Which issues, and which candidate the people think has a better plan to deal with them, will hopefully be what gets people out to vote.



I Blame Wii Fit!

HappySqurriel on 18 September 2008
fkusumot said:
HappySqurriel said:
fkusumot said:
HappySqurriel said:

In light of the continued "Market Meltdown" I thought it would be worthwhile to take a flash back to May 25, 2006

...

There's also stuff like this:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bush%20deregulate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Are you aware that John McCain and George Bush are two seperate people?

Try this search out:

http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=clinton+deregulate&meta=

... stuff about doing away with Glass-Steagall Act ...

Edit: or

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+Community+Redevelopment+Act+&btnG=Search&meta=

... stuff about CRA loans ...

Yes. I'm very familiar with that. We could go back to the Keating Five (it wasn't the Keating Four). But the problem we are talking about here manifested itself in the last year. The repeal of Glass-Steagall almost a decade ago was passed with a veto proof majority.

Paulson, and Snow before him, did nothing for the last four years when it was becoming obvious to many that there was a real problem in the sub-prime market. In the view of many, including Phil Gramm, the invisible hand would take care of the market excesses without market intervention.

According to John McCain's financial advisor at the time (Gramm), just a few month ago, America wasn't in a financial recession but just a "mental recession" and we were all a bunch of whiners. The same cast of characters that have shaped Bush's approach to the economy are the ones shaping McCain's approach. McCain himself has admitted he doesn't know much about economics. That's why I pointed out Bush's approach to the economy and contend that McCain's approach would just be more of the same.

It's an important issue. Unfortunately the McCain campaign has said this election isn't about the issues. It seems apparent to me that issues are going to be what the election is about. Which issues, and which candidate the people think has a better plan to deal with them, will hopefully be what gets people out to vote.

 

I don't know what John McCain's explaination for his stance a couple of months ago is, but a recession has a very clear definition and I'm not certain it has been met yet; and John McCain has many (political) reasons why he would want people to remain very optimistic about the ecconomy.

Beyond that, pointing out the origins of the problems in the housing and mortgage markets is more about trying to get people to think of this as being a much older and larger problem than most people think it is; it is not a problem that George Bush Created, and both parties were involved in its creation and had opportunities to prevent the fall far before it happened.