The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution

Noam Lupu and Jonas Pontussen (PDF) have a piece on the relationship between inequality and distribution in the new American Political Science Review. There is a lot of debate about whether the level of economic inequality in society leads to greater or lesser distribution – what Lupu and Pontussen suggest is that the structure of inequality (that is – the more particular relationships between different segments in the income distribution, rather than some summary index) is more important. More particularly they argue that if one tries to hold racial and ethnic cleavages constant, the key factor determining redistribution is the income gap between middle income voters and lower income voters. Where this gap is low, middle class people feel some degree of solidarity with the poor and exhibit what Lupu and Pontussen describe as “parochial altruism.” That is, they are more likely to support income redistribution because they feel that the poor are in some sense, ‘like them.’ When the gap is high, middle class people will have a much weaker sense of solidarity with the poor, and hence be less supportive of redistribution. Lupu and Pontussen suggest that the US is an outlier, with weaker solidarity than the structure of US inequality would suggest. They argue that the explanation for this is straightforward – “it is clearly attributable to the high-concentration of racial-ethnic minorities in the bottom of the income distribution.” More bluntly put – middle class Americans feel less solidarity with the very poor because the very poor are more likely to be black.

 

 

[Balta1701]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/02/9...ere?via=siderec

 

LOL LOL LOL

 

What the f*** is she talking about? I'm having a hard time wading through that rambling to figure out which parts are wrong (the whole Paul Revere story is just a myth/legend anyway but that's another story)

I'm only posting this because I know you'll enjoy it. Palin doubles down and stands by her historical ramblings.

CHRIS WALLACE: I gotta ask you about that real quickly, though. You realize that you messed up about Paul Revere, don’t you?

 

PALIN: You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here’s what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that “the British were coming, the British were coming.” And they were going to try to take our arms so got to make sure that, uh, we were protecting ourselves and, uhm, shoring up all of our ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take them.

 

But remember that the British had already been there — many soldiers — for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride… And it wasn’t just one ride. He was a courier. He was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that, “Hey. You’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not gonna beat our own well-armed, uh, persons, uh, individual private militia that we have. He did warn the British.

 

And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.

[StrangeSox]

This isn't surprising if you view it from the Dunning-Kruger authoritarian viewpoint.

[bmags]

The only other people that would consider that a gotcha question would be a 2nd grader.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm only posting this because I know you'll enjoy it. Palin doubles down and stands by her historical ramblings.

 

I watched that interview with Wallace (though i must have missed that question). My favorite was when she was asked to compare/contrast Romney's support of a universal health care system in Mass. with the one Obama passed. She basically rambled about freedom of states to do what they want, and then compared it to when she was mayor and certain neighborhoods wanted to become part of the city. Pretty hilarious.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm only posting this because I know you'll enjoy it. Palin doubles down and stands by her historical ramblings.

 

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...orical_account/

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

 

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

 

Edit: She probably still overplayed his role, but the fact that there's some much hatred and anger over what she said just speaks volumes about the people that don't like her. Get over it. Geesh. If people stopped reacting that way she'd fade away and never be heard from again (something I'd like to happen).

Edited June 6, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Edit: She probably still overplayed his role, but the fact that there's some much hatred and anger over what she said just speaks volumes about the people that don't like her. Get over it. Geesh. If people stopped reacting that way she'd fade away and never be heard from again (something I'd like to happen).

I'd have agreed with you before this bus tour. Now I think she'll be running next year and not going away.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'd have agreed with you before this bus tour. Now I think she'll be running next year and not going away.

 

Right, but unfortunately the press she gets has nothing to do with her being a serious candidate to win the nomination. It has everything to do with liberals and independents wanting to see her fail and look like an idiot. She's not the brightest bulb in the box, no doubt. But she doesn't deserve half the attention she gets. This latest Revere story is a good example. She says X, the media covers it, people get all interested because it supports their belief that she's a moron (right or wrong, doesn't matter) and she stays relevant. If people would be like "Oh, she said something, who cares?" the media would stop covering her every waking move and she'd go away. Not even a bus tour across America would gather that much attention.

 

 

[bmags]

Right, but unfortunately the press she gets has nothing to do with her being a serious candidate to win the nomination. It has everything to do with liberals and independents wanting to see her fail and look like an idiot. She's not the brightest bulb in the box, no doubt. But she doesn't deserve half the attention she gets. This latest Revere story is a good example. She says X, the media covers it, people get all interested because it supports their belief that she's a moron (right or wrong, doesn't matter) and she stays relevant. If people would be like "Oh, she said something, who cares?" the media would stop covering her every waking move and she'd go away. Not even a bus tour across America would gather that much attention.

 

You know, it isn't liberals and independents going to meet her in mobs at every bus stop. And it isn't liberals and independents putting her as the 2nd highest polling candidate in the republican primaries. And if the mainstream media and liberal media stopped publishing all the stupid things she was saying, she wouldn't disappear. She'd just be living a life without scrutiny with a huge audience on fox news.

[southsider2k5]

You know, it isn't liberals and independents going to meet her in mobs at every bus stop. And it isn't liberals and independents putting her as the 2nd highest polling candidate in the republican primaries. And if the mainstream media and liberal media stopped publishing all the stupid things she was saying, she wouldn't disappear. She'd just be living a life without scrutiny with a huge audience on fox news.

 

I see waaaaaaaaaaaay more lefties talking about Sarah Palin than righties. It isn't even close.

[Balta1701]

I see waaaaaaaaaaaay more lefties talking about Sarah Palin than righties. It isn't even close.

That's because you count everyone on TV who's not on Fox as a "lefty".

 

The people on TV won't shut up about her.

[southsider2k5]

That's because you count everyone on TV who's not on Fox as a "lefty".

 

The people on TV won't shut up about her.

 

So how about counting her mentions in the relative threads here? Or amongst facebook friends? Also, I never watch Fox news. I won't any network news honestly. It is all biased garbage there to sell a viewpoint. I'm going by the people I see personally talking about her. Believe me, I know plenty of people I consider right-wing, and she hardly gets talked about.

[Jenksismyhero]

You know, it isn't liberals and independents going to meet her in mobs at every bus stop. And it isn't liberals and independents putting her as the 2nd highest polling candidate in the republican primaries. And if the mainstream media and liberal media stopped publishing all the stupid things she was saying, she wouldn't disappear. She'd just be living a life without scrutiny with a huge audience on fox news.

 

Actually she would. She'd have her little following, no doubt, but so does every other candidate. What the anti-Palin people don't understand is that by hating on her so much (by continually talking about her, blogging about her, reading everything written about her to support their opinions that she's an idiot, etc.) they just create more of a following for her. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that most of her "followers" don't truly believe she's a viable candidate. But she's the "anti-left or anti-establishment" candidate, which is enough for them to at least listen to what she has to say. And the more the left is anti-Palin, the more she's anti-left/establishment back.

[NorthSideSox72]

Palin is the worst nightmare for the GOP. She is effective enough riling up the anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-freedom crowd that is pulling the GOP to the right, that could maybe get the nomination. But since she will alienate anyone remotely moderate or independent, she is fully unelectable in the general.

 

[bmags]

Her little following is pretty substantial and hardcore. It may be around 30% when all is said and done which can TOTALLY win primaries.

[southsider2k5]

Her little following is pretty substantial and hardcore. It may be around 30% when all is said and done which can TOTALLY win primaries.

 

LOL, that is a liberals dream. Palin is Ron Paul with big boobs. She has a crazy cult-like following, and totally repulses the vast majority of her party. She doesn't have a chance.

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL, that is a liberals dream. Palin is Ron Paul with big boobs. She has a crazy cult-like following, and totally repulses the vast majority of her party. She doesn't have a chance.

I sincerely hope you are right.

 

Ron Paul, despite his crazy, has an actual discipline and thought process to his policies. Palin is just a wave-rider.

 

[bmags]

Palin's following is considerably larger than ron paul's and has her own propoganda network. I don't think Iowa will like her. But unless Romney gets Mccain like support from independents, then Palin continues to be a real threat, especially terrifying considering anyone the republicans throw for 2012 has a good chance to win the election.

[NorthSideSox72]

Palin's following is considerably larger than ron paul's and has her own propoganda network. I don't think Iowa will like her. But unless Romney gets Mccain like support from independents, then Palin continues to be a real threat, especially terrifying considering anyone the republicans throw for 2012 has a good chance to win the election.

People seem to continuously forget this... you can't win the general without getting a pretty significant portion of the moderates and non-gutter independents. Can't be done. And Palin cannot do that.

 

Other GOP candidates might be able to though, especially if the economy is still this bad at election time.

 

[bmags]

If unemployment is still hovering around 9-10% this time next year, the independents and moderates will vote anything but obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

If unemployment is still hovering around 9-10% this time next year, the independents and moderates will vote anything but obama.

I'd say that applies to roughly half of the GOP field, but everyone has their limits. Palin is a very known commodity, and look what those middle of the road people think of her. She's past the line for that crowd.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If unemployment is still hovering around 9-10% this time next year, the independents and moderates will vote anything but obama.

 

I think you've bought into the Dem message that Palin will win unless Dems get out and vote. It won't happen. She's too polarizing, even for the majority of the GOP.

[bmags]

I think you've bought into the Dem message that Palin will win unless Dems get out and vote. It won't happen. She's too polarizing, even for the majority of the GOP.

 

No, I've bought into the message that has existed for United States history that says s***ty economies aren't good for the incumbent. Alan Keyes could grab 45% of the vote in this economy.

[Balta1701]

No, I've bought into the message that has existed for United States history that says s***ty economies aren't good for the incumbent. Alan Keyes could grab 45% of the vote in this economy.

Alan Keyes could have grabbed 45% of the vote in 2004. "Democrat" and "Republican" in a Presidential race will get 45-55 if one of the candidates is revealed to be a mass murderer.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, I've bought into the message that has existed for United States history that says s***ty economies aren't good for the incumbent. Alan Keyes could grab 45% of the vote in this economy.

And yet you've ignored the single most key component in the general elections in recent history - where the independents go.