Are We Happy Yet?

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Political Party Affiliation

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.

Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.

For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.

Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.

But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.

Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. Hmmm, what other factors might be at play? Well, there's always...

Must be all the Bush stress, heh j/k. I do find it interesting that even when controlling for income there is still a significant gap. Even more interesting is the trend over 30 years which has remained consistent. Doesn't seem as if there are any controls that really explain this trend. Of course, "the factor that makes the most difference in predicting happiness is neither being a Republican nor being wealthy - it's being in good health", which of course reinforces Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Most of us Republicans know that Democrats will simply never be happy. They just must whine! Democratic party = cluster of malcontents!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Political Party Affiliation

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.

Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.

For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.

Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.

But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.

Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. Hmmm, what other factors might be at play? Well, there's always...

Must be all the Bush stress, heh j/k. I do find it interesting that even when controlling for income there is still a significant gap. Even more interesting is the trend over 30 years which has remained consistent. Doesn't seem as if there are any controls that really explain this trend. Of course, "the factor that makes the most difference in predicting happiness is neither being a Republican nor being wealthy - it's being in good health", which of course reinforces Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Most of us Republicans know that Democrats will simply never be happy. They just must whine! Democratic party = cluster of malcontents!

Oh BS! We all know you Repugs are lying about being happy just to try and make Bush look better. :laugh:

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
Political Party Affiliation

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Pew surveys since 1991 also show a partisan gap on happiness; the current 16 percentage point gap is among the largest in Pew surveys, rivaled only by a 17 point gap in February 2003.

Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power? Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power.

For example, Republicans had up to a 10 and 11 percentage point happiness edge over Democrats in various years of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies, and as small as a three and five percentage point edge in various years of the Reagan and first Bush presidencies. Also, we should explain here a bit about how our survey questionnaire was constructed. The question about happiness was posed at the very beginning of the interview, while the question about political affiliation was posed at the back end, along with questions about demographic traits. So respondents were not cued to consider their happiness through the frame of partisan politics. This question is about happiness; it is not a question about happiness with partisan outcomes.

Of course, there's a more obvious explanation for the Republicans' happiness edge. Republicans tend to have more money than Democrats, and -- as we've already discovered -- people who have more money tend to be happier.

But even this explanation only goes so far. If one controls for household income, Republicans still hold a significant edge: that is, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats; middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.

Might ideology be the key? It's true that conservatives, who are more likely to be Republican, are happier than liberals, who are more likely to be Democrats. But even controlling for this ideological factor, a significant partisan gap remains. Conservative Republicans are happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate/liberal Republicans are happier than liberal Democrats. Hmmm, what other factors might be at play? Well, there's always...

Must be all the Bush stress, heh j/k. I do find it interesting that even when controlling for income there is still a significant gap. Even more interesting is the trend over 30 years which has remained consistent. Doesn't seem as if there are any controls that really explain this trend. Of course, "the factor that makes the most difference in predicting happiness is neither being a Republican nor being wealthy - it's being in good health", which of course reinforces Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Most of us Republicans know that Democrats will simply never be happy. They just must whine! Democratic party = cluster of malcontents!

Oh BS! We all know you Repugs are lying about being happy just to try and make Bush look better. :laugh:

Yeah, we are good at that. Actually, we shoot our malcontents. Take'em bird hunting and the rest is history.

You do know that the terrible secret the White House is hiding is that Harry Whittington is a closet PITA Officer, don't you? What really happened was that he was saving a quail.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Train
I also think a lot of this ties to the root philosophies of conservatives and liberals.

Liberals want the govt to do more for the people, conservatives want people to do more for themselves.

Well when you expect someone else to take care of you, you'll NEVER get what you want, regardless of what party is in power. But if you are of the mindset of taking matters into your own hands, you'll likely avoid a lot of frustration.

Actually, I don't want the Government to do things for me, I want them to stop doing things TO us. If that makes sense. I'm a Liberal and I own and run a business. My wife runs her own business. We own multiple real estate properties. We're not lazy.

PS, depending on how this study was conducted ( I do have a lot of respect for Pew), the findings are interesting. There's a distinction between personal happiness, and happiness with the political situation in the country though. As far as the former goes, I'm happy! The latter, not happy at all.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
...We're not lazy.

Did I say you/dems were? (in this thread at least, lol)

PS, depending on how this study was conducted ( I do have a lot of respect for Pew), the findings are interesting.

There's a distinction between personal happiness, and happiness with the political situation in the country though....

good point, but as the OP states, the political affiliation questions were asked last, to prevent framing the question.

As far as the former goes, I'm happy! The latter, not happy at all.

I can drink to that :beer: (just remembered its friday, anyone else feeling like a beer after work?)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're causation theory is retarded,

don't you know whay this forum was started? The explosion of political threads in OT is exactly why.

Indeed, but I was talking about your theory that being a Republican makes you happier somehow.

but even if it was true, it's not really a valid comparison. After all, the Republicans had a lot less to be pissed about under Clinton than the Dems do under Bush.

thats an opinion

Bonus points for our local Marine Indeed it is an opinion, but like so much of this thread, I'm simply offering alternative explanations to your explanation of the results. It is my opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

At the very least, Republicans under Clinton had at least some control of congress, Dems today have virtually no control over any part of the government process.

regardless, see my post above, this ties to wether or not you want the govt to take care of you.

You make an interesting point, but two questions I have. First, the study was not (as far as I can tell) done about stereotypical liberals and conservatives, it was about Republicans and Democrats, two groups that I submit have identical expectations of what the government will do for them in terms of quantity, their opinions only diverge when WHAT kind of intervention they expect. After all, there is very strong support for the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, etc, from the Republicans, things a real conservative of the type you describe would never support. And even if that wasn't true, I think most people (even the tough, self-reliant conservative breed of hearty men such as yourself ) are less independent than they think. In a country where gay people getting married is such as explosive issue, and peopel get their panties in a twist over what their kids are exposed to on TV, I'm not sure how self-reliant anyone really is.

But I think the biggest factor here is the one nobody is talking about, Independents are much closer to the Dems than the Republicans. While there are a lot of stereotypes about whiney liberals that you guys can dress up like reasonable analysis, I think getting the independents is somewhat more difficult and less easially explained by the typical talking points.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train
...
I can drink to that :beer: (just remembered its friday, anyone else feeling like a beer after work?)

Beer sounds excellent, I could use a few cold ones after a long week of working hard (slovenly, whiney liberal though I may be)

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: arsbanned
...We're not lazy.

Did I say you/dems were? (in this thread at least, lol)

PS, depending on how this study was conducted ( I do have a lot of respect for Pew), the findings are interesting.

There's a distinction between personal happiness, and happiness with the political situation in the country though....

good point, but as the OP states, the political affiliation questions were asked last, to prevent framing the question.

As far as the former goes, I'm happy! The latter, not happy at all.

I can drink to that :beer: (just remembered its friday, anyone else feeling like a beer after work?)

Yeah man, having one right now. Here's to ya. :beer:

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: arsbanned
...We're not lazy.

Did I say you/dems were? (in this thread at least, lol)

PS, depending on how this study was conducted ( I do have a lot of respect for Pew), the findings are interesting.

There's a distinction between personal happiness, and happiness with the political situation in the country though....

good point, but as the OP states, the political affiliation questions were asked last, to prevent framing the question.

As far as the former goes, I'm happy! The latter, not happy at all.

I can drink to that :beer: (just remembered its friday, anyone else feeling like a beer after work?)

Yeah man, having one right now. Here's to ya. :beer:

Same, enjoy.

:beer:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: trevinom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think we are living in the only heaven there is, this magnificent, fantastic, infinitely beautiful universe, that which we become when duality ceases and the I disappears. What we call happiness is, then, are feelings that approximate that state, times when we are not focused on self. Money and good health, for example can buy this illusion, as can thinking of the welfare of others.

There are then, I think, two paths to happiness. One is to become one with the will of God by trying to walk the walk that the emissaries of God have provided. This is the way of the Saint. Such people work to surrender their will to what is, they accept what is as given by God and find peace, a kind of happiness, I think. This form of happiness can also be had by the indifferent, those who care about nothing as long as they are ok.

The other way is to become the will of God by acting in the world to manifest God's will. Such people want to create the heaven on earth that is already here. People like this are called Masters. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Such people are happy because they have no guilt. They manifest the will of God. This form of happiness can also be had by the delusional who think their own illness is the will of God.

So if I don't believe in your God, I'm not going to be happy?

Goodness no, you don't have to believe in God. The road of selfishness and delusion are open to all.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're causation theory is retarded,

don't you know whay this forum was started? The explosion of political threads in OT is exactly why.

Indeed, but I was talking about your theory that being a Republican makes you happier somehow.

I never said that, I was only offering an explanation of why republicans are happier, it could be that happier people tend to be republicans. Like I stated before, i think the dems attract the pessimists.

but even if it was true, it's not really a valid comparison. After all, the Republicans had a lot less to be pissed about under Clinton than the Dems do under Bush.

thats an opinion

Bonus points for our local Marine Indeed it is an opinion, but like so much of this thread, I'm simply offering alternative explanations to your explanation of the results. It is my opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

I've got enough alcohol in me to let this one slide

At the very least, Republicans under Clinton had at least some control of congress, Dems today have virtually no control over any part of the government process.

regardless, see my post above, this ties to wether or not you want the govt to take care of you.

You make an interesting point, but two questions I have. First, the study was not (as far as I can tell) done about stereotypical liberals and conservatives, it was about Republicans and Democrats,

That is correct, the article stated they controlled for that as well, and the results were still the same, liberal reps were happier than liberal dems and consv reps were happier than consv dems

two groups that I submit have identical expectations of what the government will do for them in terms of quantity,

I totally disagree here. While some of the societal goals can be very similar, I believe what each party believes the govt will do or be to get society there is very different.

their opinions only diverge when WHAT kind of intervention they expect. After all, there is very strong support for the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, etc, from the Republicans, things a real conservative of the type you describe would never support.

I disagree here as well, none of what you mention affects me, or many other republicans daily lives, therefore I dont consider it intervention. If I were making phone calls to Syrians each month, to be honest I'd feel better knowing the govt may drop in to see if anything is up.

And even if that wasn't true, I think most people (even the tough, self-reliant conservative breed of hearty men such as yourself ) are less independent than they think.

what part of independence am I missing?

In a country where gay people getting married is such as explosive issue, and peopel get their panties in a twist over what their kids are exposed to on TV, I'm not sure how self-reliant anyone really is.

not everyone toes the party line on every issue. Because some republicans are nanny staters (as are plenty of dems) And some are individualists, doesnt mean you can just generalize everyone into one and call them hypocrits. Thats like me saying all socialists are homosexuals, because all democrats are the same.

But I think the biggest factor here is the one nobody is talking about, Independents are much closer to the Dems than the Republicans.

uhhh c'mon, I think the last 6 or 7 elections would disagree. The reps took congress in 94 and have been maintaining or adding to thier lead ever since, even with all the dirt the dems have been able to sling, the reps still added seats in congress in 04.

While there are a lot of stereotypes about whiney liberals that you guys can dress up like reasonable analysis, I think getting the independents is somewhat more difficult and less easially explained by the typical talking points.

how did we get to this? Who's trying to get independents with talking points? i thought we were talking about a survey of dems and reps. I think you've had more beers than me and have wandered off the yellow line a tad.

 

[imported_Condor]

I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're causation theory is retarded,

don't you know whay this forum was started? The explosion of political threads in OT is exactly why.

Indeed, but I was talking about your theory that being a Republican makes you happier somehow.

I never said that, I was only offering an explanation of why republicans are happier, it could be that happier people tend to be republicans. Like I stated before, i think the dems attract the pessimists.

Fair enough, I might have been mistaken in what you were suggesting. However, the general point of this thread does seem to be be that some sort of political link exists in defining happiness. Not so much that happier people tend to be Republican, but that they tend to be happy because of some of the characterstics that people believe defines the typical Republican.

but even if it was true, it's not really a valid comparison. After all, the Republicans had a lot less to be pissed about under Clinton than the Dems do under Bush.

thats an opinion

Bonus points for our local Marine Indeed it is an opinion, but like so much of this thread, I'm simply offering alternative explanations to your explanation of the results. It is my opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

I've got enough alcohol in me to let this one slide

What was wrong with that? I must have missed something there...

At the very least, Republicans under Clinton had at least some control of congress, Dems today have virtually no control over any part of the government process.

regardless, see my post above, this ties to wether or not you want the govt to take care of you.

You make an interesting point, but two questions I have. First, the study was not (as far as I can tell) done about stereotypical liberals and conservatives, it was about Republicans and Democrats,

That is correct, the article stated they controlled for that as well, and the results were still the same, liberal reps were happier than liberal dems and consv reps were happier than consv dems

Doesn't that DISPROVE some of the political link. Many people, including yourself, have suggested this is about liberals vs conservatives, but the results seem to indicate that it is really about party affiliation. The stereotyical traits of liberals and conservatives have largely been used in this thread to "explain" why Republicand are happier than Dems, but if ideology is controlled for, that seems to make the argument much less sound.

two groups that I submit have identical expectations of what the government will do for them in terms of quantity,

I totally disagree here. While some of the societal goals can be very similar, I believe what each party believes the govt will do or be to get society there is very different.

their opinions only diverge when WHAT kind of intervention they expect. After all, there is very strong support for the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, etc, from the Republicans, things a real conservative of the type you describe would never support.

I disagree here as well, none of what you mention affects me, or many other republicans daily lives, therefore I dont consider it intervention. If I were making phone calls to Syrians each month, to be honest I'd feel better knowing the govt may drop in to see if anything is up.

Perhaps my "no true conservative" argument doesn't always work here, but that wasn't really my point. I was suggesting that conservatives and liberals both expect the government to do a rather large number of things. Both sides have good reasons, but the fact is that I'm not really sure either side can claim that they are the champions of small government. I'm sure you have a good reason for supporting the things I mentioned, but that isn't the same thing as supporting limited government.

And even if that wasn't true, I think most people (even the tough, self-reliant conservative breed of hearty men such as yourself ) are less independent than they think.

what part of independence am I missing?

In a country where gay people getting married is such as explosive issue, and peopel get their panties in a twist over what their kids are exposed to on TV, I'm not sure how self-reliant anyone really is.

not everyone toes the party line on every issue. Because some republicans are nanny staters (as are plenty of dems) And some are individualists, doesnt mean you can just generalize everyone into one and call them hypocrits. Thats like me saying all socialists are homosexuals, because all democrats are the same.

You're right, I shouldn't suggest that everyone fits a stereotype on either side, but my point was that the truly independent people seem to be pretty few and far between. My appologies if you fit into that catagory (how well do we really know people who we only see posting on the internet?), but I'm not sure the stereotype of the strong, independent Republicans and the nanny-state Democrats is really all that accurate. I only bring it up because that seemed to be your theory on why Republicans are happier than Dems, because they are more independent. I'm not saying NO Republicans are independent, I'm just saying I don't find them to be any more independent and self-reliant as a party than the Dems are. Individuals, certainly, on both sides...but taken as a group, I don't see a huge difference.

But I think the biggest factor here is the one nobody is talking about, Independents are much closer to the Dems than the Republicans.

uhhh c'mon, I think the last 6 or 7 elections would disagree. The reps took congress in 94 and have been maintaining or adding to thier lead ever since, even with all the dirt the dems have been able to sling, the reps still added seats in congress in 04.

While there are a lot of stereotypes about whiney liberals that you guys can dress up like reasonable analysis, I think getting the independents is somewhat more difficult and less easially explained by the typical talking points.

how did we get to this? Who's trying to get independents with talking points? i thought we were talking about a survey of dems and reps. I think you've had more beers than me and have wandered off the yellow line a tad.

Just enough beers to not explain things very well . I wasn't talking about elections, I was talking about the survey of Dems and Reps. The various explanations about why the Reps are happier than the Dems seem to come from the typical stereotypes about each party. But the people who weren't in either catagory, the independents, had a happiness level somewhat closer to the Dems than the Reps. This tends to suggest there is something else at work than the explanations put forward so far would suggest. Independent voters are generally different from both Dems and Reps, so they don't really fit into the explanations put forward by some of the Republicans around here. If the Dems unhappiness is caused by them "wanting the government to do more for people", and the Reps happiness is caused by them "wanting people to do more for themselves" (your words), how do the Independents fit in? They have similar happiness results to the Dems, but probably don't fit the nanny-state stereotype.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Condor
I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

I would level that accusation at the Repubs any day. Look at how many people trust George W. Bush with his illegal wiretaps. They just trust their leaders to "keep them safe."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor
I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

I'm sorry, is your criticism of the Democrats that they place too much trust in their leader to make things ok? I mean, you may have a point, but coming from a Bush supporter, that statement is rather ironic.

 

[arsbanned]

Heh. Ironic in the extreme. Ridiculous even.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor
I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

I'm sorry, is your criticism of the Democrats that they place too much trust in their leader to make things ok? I mean, you may have a point, but coming from a Bush supporter, that statement is rather ironic.

Well, Condor fell on the easy button when he made that post. He simply regurgitated all the mush that has been deposited in his brain.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

I would level that accusation at the Repubs any day. Look at how many people trust George W. Bush with his illegal wiretaps. They just trust their leaders to "keep them safe."

You been attacked since 9/11? I guess he must be doing a pretty good job! The wiretaps work! Ell, the Dims would still be trying to figure out how to get the first cell into court while the rest would have killed thousands.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor
I think people become Dims because they really believe there is an easy button. Once they discover that promise can't be fulfilled, they cross over. Course some of them never learn. I think Reps are happier because they know where they stand and feel that they have a little control. Dims just trust their leaders to make it good for them. I would be pretty unhappy if I had to trust the leaders that they have aligned themselves with. Look at the sign. If it don't say "Staples", there ain't no easy button. If the sign says "Staples" the easy button don't work!

I would level that accusation at the Repubs any day. Look at how many people trust George W. Bush with his illegal wiretaps. They just trust their leaders to "keep them safe."

You been attacked since 9/11? I guess he must be doing a pretty good job! The wiretaps work! Ell, the Dims would still be trying to figure out how to get the first cell into court while the rest would have killed thousands.

My anti-tiger rock must be working!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...The various explanations about why the Reps are happier than the Dems seem to come from the typical stereotypes about each party....

Forgive me for not touching every point weve been debating on, I just dont have the time or energy to go into that much detail.

As for the stereotypes, yes, Ive used them. And while I will agree that there are many exceptions to stereotypes in both parties, the stereotypes are still based somewhat on truth. Would you concede that even a small portion (say 10%) of each party fit some of each parties long standing stereotypes?

Keep in mind that it wasnt 100% happiness for Reps and 0% for dems. It was only a 10% average difference. I think stereotypes can be a plausible explanation for that 10%

But anyways, thanks for the civil debate. You've made the shortlist of posters on here (of Dems and Reps) I'd have a beer with.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...The various explanations about why the Reps are happier than the Dems seem to come from the typical stereotypes about each party....

Forgive me for not touching every point weve been debating on, I just dont have the time or energy to go into that much detail.

As for the stereotypes, yes, Ive used them. And while I will agree that there are many exceptions to stereotypes in both parties, the stereotypes are still based somewhat on truth. Would you concede that even a small portion (say 10%) of each party fit some of each parties long standing stereotypes?

Keep in mind that it wasnt 100% happiness for Reps and 0% for dems. It was only a 10% average difference. I think stereotypes can be a plausible explanation for that 10%

But anyways, thanks for the civil debate. You've made the shortlist of posters on here (of Dems and Reps) I'd have a beer with.

Hmm, I guess I was reasoning like the difference was much larger...and certainly there is SOME reason for the difference. And certainly the stereotypes do fit at least some part of each party, there is usually a small nugget of truth in some stereotypes. Really, we don't know enough to really say one way or another, but it's certainly interesting to think about.

Oh yes, and :beer: