Upcoming Elections

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
If you turn off common sense and ignore SuperPACs. But that assumes you had common sense to turn off.

Nice move of the goalposts. I gave organizations, you claimed that doesn't apply to individuals. I give you individuals, now you want organizations.

Make up you mind, or in your vernacular, turn on some common sense.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Nice move of the goalposts. I gave organizations, you claimed that doesn't apply to individuals. I give you individuals, now you want organizations.

Make up you mind, or in your vernacular, turn on some common sense.

OK, we'll pretend that Crossroads and is not a Koch backed SuperPAC, but some random organization, just like a one representing tens of thousands of teachers. Just for you. Happy?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
OK, we'll pretend that Crossroads and is not a Koch backed SuperPAC, but some random organization, just like a one representing tens of thousands of teachers. Just for you. Happy?
Does this mean that we can pretend that Ready for Hillary is not a Soros backed SuperPAC as well? Where is your outrage?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Bottom line, regardless of what you think about the Citizens United decision, the playing field is equal. Liberals do a damn fine job raising money with SuperPACs and for them to bitch about Conservatives (who happened to use them a little more effectively in 2012) is pure hypocrisy in my book.
How can liberals do a fine job of raising money when they're all poor and on welfare?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
How can liberals do a fine job of raising money when they're all poor and on welfare?
Obviously not the case. However, I didn't see anyone here say that all liberals are poor and on welfare...and I certainly didn't say it. Perhaps you should stop listening to those voices in your head before people start thinking you have some really serious mental health issues.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Does this mean that we can pretend that Ready for Hillary is not a Soros backed SuperPAC as well? Where is your outrage?

I don't understand this argument at all. If a billionaire says something we disagree with, we aren't allowed to express our opposition because there's a different billionaire who says something we might agree with? Also, the general opposition to the Koch brothers and to SuperPACs in general is almost exclusively from rabid anti-corporatist liberals; I guarantee you, you will not find a single billionaire who is anti-corporation. George Soros isn't trying to get Citizen's United overturned. Countering "Koch" with "but Soros" is like countering "ISIS" with "but Assad"; announcing that you detest one doesn't automatically mean that you support what the other is doing. Sometimes both sides are wrong (demonstrably so when it comes to the Koch brothers and Soros, as it's virtually impossible to support what either is doing). Reducing the argument to "your side does it too!" is intellectually lazy.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Mostly False.

http://thegazette.com/subject/news/...-brothers-are-buying-ernsts-campaign-20140711

It's hilarious to see Liberals foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the Koch Brothers. Meanwhile, chuckles have been heard coming from Pavlov's grave.
:D

Yet the Koch Brothers is 59th on the list and accounts for 99% of liberal bitching.

So how is it different when organizations are trying to buy elections again?

But fine, I'll bite.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

Now Koch is 93rd on the list.....
You literally cannot inflict conflicting reality on a proggie, dude. But you're doing a hell of a job if it were possible.

How can liberals do a fine job of raising money when they're all poor and on welfare?
First they take some money from a hard-working conservative; then, whatever is left after buying drugs and abortions is donated to politicians dedicated to giving them even more of other people's money. Duh!

To anyone afflicted with HDS, the above is attempted humor only.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I don't understand this argument at all. If a billionaire says something we disagree with, we aren't allowed to express our opposition because there's a different billionaire who says something we might agree with? Also, the general opposition to the Koch brothers and to SuperPACs in general is almost exclusively from rabid anti-corporatist liberals; I guarantee you, you will not find a single billionaire who is anti-corporation. George Soros isn't trying to get Citizen's United overturned. Countering "Koch" with "but Soros" is like countering "ISIS" with "but Assad"; announcing that you detest one doesn't automatically mean that you support what the other is doing. Sometimes both sides are wrong (demonstrably so when it comes to the Koch brothers and Soros, as it's virtually impossible to support what either is doing). Reducing the argument to "your side does it too!" is intellectually lazy.
Let me help you understand....I'm not the one here making any judgements regarding SuperPACs...just pointing out senseamp's blatant hypocrisy.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
You're not pointing out anything that shouldn't be obvious to most people, and most people do not need your help understanding anything.

I doubt you even interpret your Einstein byline correctly from most things I've read.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Don't have the patience to argue with the Koch apologists today. Maybe next time.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
You're not pointing out anything that shouldn't be obvious to most people, and most people do not need your help understanding anything.
Apparently Atomic Playboy was having a little trouble understanding what I thought was painfully obvious. Did you not read his post...or do you need help understanding it?
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Don't have the patience to argue with the Koch apologists today. Maybe next time.

It's not really that.....it's just that you know you're wrong and don't have the balls to defend your position, you dumb ass hypocrite.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
What position would that be, and where is it wrong?

That you refuse to be equally outraged when a democrat does it. Soros.....where is your outrage with that. If the Koch brothers are so terrible, how can you not admonish someone like GS? What exactly does Soros produce in this country? How many jobs does he provide? He supports socialist / marxist causes. He'll throw money behind what is bad for America. And lapdogs like you love it.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So I am "wrong" because I "refuse to be outraged" at Soros, who you probably also think is "wrong" for some similarly "valid" reason?
I guess I can live with that. Continue on.
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
266
126
It's not so much intellectually lazy as calling out hypocrisy. I don't see libs blowing a gasket over Soros and other rich libs dumping money and influence into candidates. Pretty much all I've seen is lame excuses. If libs are going to go off in a head-spinning, shrieking rage over the Koch brothers, they need to clean up their own house. But I don't see them rushing to do that.


I don't understand this argument at all. If a billionaire says something we disagree with, we aren't allowed to express our opposition because there's a different billionaire who says something we might agree with? Also, the general opposition to the Koch brothers and to SuperPACs in general is almost exclusively from rabid anti-corporatist liberals; I guarantee you, you will not find a single billionaire who is anti-corporation. George Soros isn't trying to get Citizen's United overturned. Countering "Koch" with "but Soros" is like countering "ISIS" with "but Assad"; announcing that you detest one doesn't automatically mean that you support what the other is doing. Sometimes both sides are wrong (demonstrably so when it comes to the Koch brothers and Soros, as it's virtually impossible to support what either is doing). Reducing the argument to "your side does it too!" is intellectually lazy.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
So I am "wrong" because I "refuse to be outraged" at Soros, who you probably also think is "wrong" for some similarly "valid" reason?
I guess I can live with that. Continue on.

Folks, this is what is referred to as "common sense."

When called out on your hypocrisy all you can do is hide rather than man up and admit to the silliness.

Damn, you are a riot. :D
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
How can liberals do a fine job of raising money when they're all poor and on welfare?

Because there are two type of liberals. The ignorant masses and the liberals who feel it is their duty to rule the ignorant masses because they know what is best for them.

There is a lot of money in ruling the ignorant masses so many rich liberal donors happily contribute to the cause. Just ask the obama pal who is reaping a windfall from the expansion of the free phone program. Need votes? expand the free cell phone program so much that in some states the number of phones handed out exceed the number of eligible people. The ignorant masses are happy, the CEO of Tracphone is happy and sends in money to the democratic cause through his wife, meanwhile I have a surcharge on my bill to cover the cost.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Because there are two type of liberals. The ignorant masses and the liberals who feel it is their duty to rule the ignorant masses because they know what is best for them.

There is a lot of money in ruling the ignorant masses so many rich liberal donors happily contribute to the cause. Just ask the obama pal who is reaping a windfall from the expansion of the free phone program. Need votes? expand the free cell phone program so much that in some states the number of phones handed out exceed the number of eligible people. The ignorant masses are happy, the CEO of Tracphone is happy and sends in money to the democratic cause through his wife, meanwhile I have a surcharge on my bill to cover the cost.

Yes, and chemtrails are real too!
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
http://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/
Economic Demographics of Democrats

The U.S. economy has been on the forefront of Americans’ minds for several years, and the state of the economy played a pivotal role in the 2012 election season. The major parties tackled economic issues from different perspectives, highlighting the divergence between Democrats and Republicans.

But who are the people who actually vote Democrat? Where do they live, what do they look like, and more importantly, what do their finances look like?

Generally, Democrats live closer to a coast than not; tend to have more women in their groups than Republicans; are much more likely to be gay or lesbian; have more of an attachment to organized labor; are slightly younger than Republicans; and are increasingly less religious.

A demographic breakdown of the economics of Democrats includes location, married status, income, age, education and race.

Location

The strongest Democratic areas of the country are along the East and West Coasts, whereas Republicans tend to be more concentrated in the South and Midwest. Within each state, trends are fairly consistent. Democrats dominate the more populated, urban centers, while suburbs lean Republican, and rural areas are almost exclusively Republican. This trend is nearly universal, even in deep-red states like Texas and dark blue states like Massachusetts.

If an area has more than 500,000 people, it will go Democrat about 60 percent of the time. The political balance is even in areas with 50,000 to 500,000 people, and then turns decidedly in the Republicans’ favor at population levels below 50,000.

Populated areas tend to have a higher concentration of minorities — who overwhelmingly vote Democrat — and often have large universities, where Democrats also hold a commanding majority.

Gender and Marital Status

The Democratic Party has a significant advantage with women. Thirty-seven percent of women affiliate with the Democratic Party, giving them a sizable advantage over the 24 percent who identify as Republicans. Marriage tends to have a significant impact on how a woman votes. Unmarried women vote Democrat about 62 percent of the time, while married women tend to be evenly split between the parties.

Exactly 27 percent of men affiliate with each party, with 43 percent declaring themselves Independent. Gays, lesbians and bisexuals support Democratic candidates around 70 percent of the time.

Income

An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.

Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over.

About half of Democrats express satisfaction with their personal financial situation, compared with 61 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Independents.

Ultra-Wealthy

While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.

Labor

Democrats support labor unions in my higher numbers than Republicans. Two-thirds of Americans overall agree with the statement that labor unions are necessary to protect the working person.

In all, 82 percent of Democrats believe this, compared with just 43 percent of Republicans.

Education

There are two distinct levels of education among Democrats: those without a high school diploma and those with post-graduate degrees. Republicans gain a majority of support from high school graduates, individuals with some college experience, and college graduates.

Recent trends have seen an erosion of support in the Republican advantage among college graduates, but they still receive a slim majority of the vote in this category.

Age

Democrats tend to be slightly younger than Republicans, with an average age of 47, compared with 50.

Recent trends have shown large growth in Democratic support among the younger generation, which is a turnaround from the young conservative movement of the 1980s. In 2000, 48 percent of young voters went Democratic. In 2008, the number climbed to 66 percent. The young voting bloc (46 million strong) will increase to 90 million in 2020. Their increasing Democratic leaning may be caused by increasing diversity, or be an anti-establishment reaction.

Race

Democrats have a tremendous amount of diversity in their ranks, especially when compared with the 87 percent white Republican Party. The most loyal bloc of Democratic supporters are African-Americans, with women supporting Democrats a staggering 90 percent of the time and men slightly less.

This support is engrained in the culture and cuts across age, income and regional divisions. This support has been longstanding for many decades, but has increased in intensity since Democrats chose Barack Obama as the party’s standard-bearer.

Hispanics, the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, also tend to support Democrats — voting for them 60 to 70 percent of the time. Unlike African-American support, a Hispanic voter’s support is more likely to be affected by income or location than by race.

The Hispanic population makes up 16 percent of the country, and is expected to nearly double by 2050.

Religion


Democrats are becoming increasingly less religious. Between 1987 and the late 1990s, Republicans and Democrats polled as equally religious. Since then, Democrats have seen a significant decrease in their level of religious participation, while Republican numbers have remained consistent.

The one major religious bloc of voters that Democrats can still rely on is the Jewish community, from which they receive 80 percent of the votes.

Social Welfare

One of the clearest policy differences between the parties is the view on government assistance programs and social safety nets. There is a 35-point difference between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats far more likely to support government assistance programs.

Republicans tend to give more to charity, while Democrats support publicly funded assistance programs. This could also be explained, in part, by Democrats’ lack of religious devotion, as a large percentage of Republican charitable donations support religious programs and institutions.