Why Poor People Vote Republican

[salex]

Note: I'd really like to change the thread title to "why people vote republican" because it seems like we might have moved on to a general topic of "why people vote." YMMV, of course.

Does anyone have any solid numbers as to the number of "single issue voters"? I know it's a thing, but is it REALLY a thing? or it is just another polarizing fact?

2014 Election

According to the Sept. 24-27 Gallup poll, another 45% of voters say abortion will be one of many important factors they consider in voting, whereas 34% don't see abortion as a major issue.

The impact of the abortion issue on this year's presidential election will depend, more specifically, on the nature of the abortion views held by voters who say they will factor the issue into their vote choice. Gallup finds slightly more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters saying they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views, 21% vs. 15%. That represents 9% and 7%, respectively, of all voters -- a slight pro-life tilt, albeit one that could potentially benefit pro-life Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Additionally, by 49% to 43%, pro-life voters are a bit more likely than pro-choice voters to say they will consider a candidate's position on abortion as one of many important factors in arriving at their vote choice. That means pro-choice voters are more likely than pro-life voters to say abortion is not a major issue to them.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abort ... oters.aspx

A lot of anti-choice groups encourage using abortion as a litmus test. Other groups seem to bundle the morality/social issues and use them all as a litmus test. When you have half a dozen candiates who are all anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and think religious freedom means not filling "evil" prescriptions, or selling a hotdog to a gay couple, then the money men can come in and do their own vetting, find the candidate who is willing to go with their financial goals and back them. And money wins elections.

I personally am more than half sick of politicians who call their political career their ministry.

[Imrlgoddess]

I can only speculate as to why others do it...but I know why my parents always did.

My father lost his ability to work in 1981. Permanently disabled due to heart attacks. My mother picked up the ball and worked 22 years as a teachers aid in the lowest paid county in our state. Yes we had food stamps for a while, we got handouts from the church and family members. They did declare bankruptcy by the time I hit high school, my sister was almost in college at this point. She and I both went to college on the states money...our parents could do nothing for us in that regard. We never had medical insurance. Ever. We went to the free clinic to get yearly shots, and any bills that came were paid $20 a month until they were done. My sister and I have both been on food stamps and WIC ourselves.

The frustration with wanting to cut public funds comes from witnessing other families exploit it. When you've got someone working, pulling a check that only covers rent/mortgage, utilities, and fuel, you turn to assistance. But not everyone works for that little bit and then gets the fill in money. I can't begin to count the number of families I knew personally where one would quit a job to drop the house income, and then have a child held back in school or fail a comprehension test so they could get a "crazy check" (SSI) for that child being put into Special Education. Because there is no way to weed out the ones who misuse the system, those who need it often will give it up in order to keep it from being bastardized. Not saying it's right...just saying that's the general idea.

Raised below the poverty level. Lived lower middle class ever since. I don't identify with any group besides the working class--I'm former military turned oilfield trash....I've made what I consider decent money. We have enough. I do believe people can live a decent life on a lower middle class income....and I also believe that hard work can make someone a fair amount of money--call it rich if you want. My income is no more than it ever has been...but I have more now to show for it. It's been applied in different ways....we LOOK like we have something....reality is....he and I barely break $75k a year. I don't want anyone else's wealth....it's a pride thing. I don't want to owe anyone or have them look at me and say "I did this for you, remember that."

I'm one of 7 Marines in my family, there are countless Airmen, Sailors, and Soldiers as well. I am utterly terrified of the government. I don't consider myself, nor am I registered Republican but I do support small fed and states rights. I became more wary of it all once I was enlisted and saw the corruption. I have borne witness to heinous things both socially and politically. (It doesn't help that I live in one of the most corrupt states there is)

This is just me and mine. I understand it's not a popular opinion, and I respect that others living in different situations won't see it the way I/we do.

[Childless]

I can only speculate as to why others do it...but I know why my parents always did.

My father lost his ability to work in 1981. Permanently disabled due to heart attacks. My mother picked up the ball and worked 22 years as a teachers aid in the lowest paid county in our state. Yes we had food stamps for a while, we got handouts from the church and family members. They did declare bankruptcy by the time I hit high school, my sister was almost in college at this point. She and I both went to college on the states money...our parents could do nothing for us in that regard. We never had medical insurance. Ever. We went to the free clinic to get yearly shots, and any bills that came were paid $20 a month until they were done. My sister and I have both been on food stamps and WIC ourselves.

The frustration with wanting to cut public funds comes from witnessing other families exploit it. When you've got someone working, pulling a check that only covers rent/mortgage, utilities, and fuel, you turn to assistance. But not everyone works for that little bit and then gets the fill in money. I can't begin to count the number of families I knew personally where one would quit a job to drop the house income, and then have a child held back in school or fail a comprehension test so they could get a "crazy check" (SSI) for that child being put into Special Education. Because there is no way to weed out the ones who misuse the system, those who need it often will give it up in order to keep it from being bastardized. Not saying it's right...just saying that's the general idea.

Raised below the poverty level. Lived lower middle class ever since. I don't identify with any group besides the working class--I'm former military turned oilfield trash....I've made what I consider decent money. We have enough. I do believe people can live a decent life on a lower middle class income....and I also believe that hard work can make someone a fair amount of money--call it rich if you want. My income is no more than it ever has been...but I have more now to show for it. It's been applied in different ways....we LOOK like we have something....reality is....he and I barely break $75k a year. I don't want anyone else's wealth....it's a pride thing. I don't want to owe anyone or have them look at me and say "I did this for you, remember that."

I'm one of 7 Marines in my family, there are countless Airmen, Sailors, and Soldiers as well. I am utterly terrified of the government. I don't consider myself, nor am I registered Republican but I do support small fed and states rights. I became more wary of it all once I was enlisted and saw the corruption. I have borne witness to heinous things both socially and politically. (It doesn't help that I live in one of the most corrupt states there is)

This is just me and mine. I understand it's not a popular opinion, and I respect that others living in different situations won't see it the way I/we do.

Over 90% of people/families on government assistance work at least one job. Many work more than that. Of the 10% that do not work, some of the can't due to medical issues and some of them are looking for employment. So, the percentage of people who cheat the system is very low. There will always be bad seeds. You can't get rid of them all, but its not the huge problem some people make out to be. I wonder why people (and most of them in this instance are Republican) can stand there and say that gun control is wrong and that we shouldn't base laws on the few bad seeds out there, but can't apply that same mind set to government assistance. Seems like a huge disconnect to me and yet another reason I scoff at them when they go on a rant against welfare/medicaid/unemployment/WIC/food stamps/etc.

[Childless]

The problem I have with Republicans is their selfishness and closed mindedness. They have what 15 candidates running now? The shit that comes out of their mouths regarding rape, women, birth control, poor people. Ben Carson a black man who grew up poor and was on food stamps compares Obama care to slavery. He also wants to cut food stamps because people are too dependent on them. Jeb bush said we should shame single mothers. Obama said the N word in an interview, yet they've been calling him that for the pass 7 years and defend the stupid racist flag.

My other problem is Congress who sit on their asses and do nothing, yet they still get paid. They even want to pass a bill because they feel like they don't get paid enough. Wtf? An average American works year round and some don't even make as much as the average congressman does. They're all selfish people.

Yes! Thank you.

[karen77]

Yep. In my town a person can make decisions that are horrible for the local economy, but still get elected again as long as they say that they are against abortion, believes being gay is a sin, and then make vague statements about "family values" and "voting the Bible".

yet they are the next ones you see in a bathroom stall hooking up with some dude..

[Cartmann99]

yet they are the next ones you see in a bathroom stall hooking up with some dude..

In my experience, the louder a person preaches about "family values", the higher the odds are that they have a skeleton or three just waiting to be discovered.

[Geechee Girl]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot. Outside of voting by ideology, social issues, etc, what are more potential motivators? I do wonder if there's something to the notion of poor POC, who align with the GOP, do so in an effort to be viewed as a model minority. If this theory has truth, are the roots based in internalized self-hatred or merely exceptionalism?

[salex]

In my experience, the louder a person preaches about "family values", the higher the odds are that they have a skeleton or three just waiting to be discovered.

There are also the holier than thous who have latched on to the mix of religion and politics mix because they want to control people and they know that it is far easier to get people to do what they want and demand others do the same if they can convince people God wants this, and the country will suffer if God doesn't get it. (Sometimes I think we are about 2 steps at most from tossing the virgin daughters of our enemies into the volcano to appease the volcano god)

[2xx1xy1JD]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot. Outside of voting by ideology, social issues, etc, what are more potential motivators? I do wonder if there's something to the notion of poor POC, who align with the GOP, do so in an effort to be viewed as a model minority. If this theory has truth, are the roots based in internalized self-hatred or merely exceptionalism?

It doesn't talk about voting patterns, but I found this article by Malcolm Gladwell about the different perceptions of Jamaicans to be really interesting, especially since he got to know first-hand the differences between how Jamaicans were viewed in New York and Toronto. His conclusion is that Jamaicans in New York were able to benefit from being seen as slightly different and better than American-born blacks, while Jamaicans in Toronto - who are basically the same group with the same background as their New York cousins - didn't have American or Canadian born blacks to absorb any racism.

http://gladwell.com/black-like-them/

So yes, being seen as a "model minority" does seem to provide some advantages.

[Geechee Girl]

That was a great essay, 2x. I wish there were more writers willing to broach such a sensitive topics as colorism and racism within the African-American community.

[PracticeMakesProgress]

Oof. I wrote a big long comment but I'm currently so deep in Red America that my Internet reception is having a hard time. But to summarize some thoughts I've developed doing political organizing in a red state:

1) I'm tired of Democrats scapegoating poor people for the actions of a party that in all truth is driven by wealthy and middle-class voters. Yes, it's troubling when the truly poor side with the super-rich. But the poor don't actually up a huge chunk of the Republican base, and many poor people either don't vote or are very marginally engaged in the political process.

2) I'm tired of liberals who think it's just obvious that our policies are better for the poor. It may be true but that doesn't mean it's obvious. Many places that are now very conservative were once controlled by centrist democrats, and many people couldn't name a program or policy that came of that. In a really distressed and isolated community where government institutions don't have a big daily presence, it's hard to see how some proposed policy is ever going to reach you. Not everyone reads political commentary every day; not everyone has taken a class in civics or economics.

3) Everything louisa05 said, basically. The liberal commentariat needs to stop cracking jokes about stupid rednecks and it needs to stop using voting patterns as an excuse to divide people into us and them or into the deserving and undeserving. It's insulting to voters and it reflects badly on the whole party. It's also mean-spirited and not at all in line with progressive values.

This has been pretty well studied/confirmed throughout the latter half of the 20th century. I believe what the original poster was getting at was why do high concentrations of poor states (the South) always go "red" in the elections...This, IMO, was hit on by another poster. Those turning out in "red" states to vote tend to be slightly more educated, higher income individuals, and this usually means middle, or lower middle class families that yes, grow up, exist, work in the same communities as the notorious group of social program "abusers."

This contingent does exist, it's very well-known and loathed by everyone except those trapped in this, what I like to call, cultural poverty. My experience working with these families in a healthcare environment, they tend to be connected, multi-generational, and have a fairly sophisticated understanding of "the system" in order to exploit its generosities. This does anger many working poor families because our social welfare programs do not taper well, they tend to cut off in cliffs, which is devastating, and frankly punishing to those who are legitimately trying to get back on their feet. In reality, those receiving public assistance-and almost everyone in the U.S. will, at some point in their lives, receive benefits from a safety net program-fall along a highly varied spectrum. There are not simply "good" poor people and "bad" poor people, as we often like to generalize and toss around in discussions on the interwebz.

In my decades of living, working, and voting in the South, I feel we go "red" as much for economic policy as we ever have for social issues. In the paragraph above, economic policies directly affect several social issues, and many Southerners are actually smart enough to make that connection. Make no mistake, when network news figured out they could generate ratings and buzz by fueling culture wars, and political strategists realize they could conjure up a large, and previously dormat voting base by focusing on a one-off polar issue, yes, all of a sudden, us poor Southern folk are only clinging to our guns and our religion...but keep in mind, it's debatable that those interviewed for subjective A/V snippets are the ones actually casting a vote come election day, every election day.

[zebra #13]

These are both very good articles on the subject. . . .

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/16/i_was_p ... _of_shame/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/o ... republican

[NachosFlandersStyle]

Good points, PracticeMakesProgress. You know, the more I think about it, I wish we could reframe the discussion about the social safety net to emphasize how it benefits even people who aren't on any particular program. Because I mean, when you live in a neighborhood where people around you are in unmediated poverty, even if you yourself are getting by, what YOU get is:

-Local businesses struggling because people can't afford to shop

-Petty crime and homelessness

-Evictions and foreclosures bringing down home values and quality of life on your street

-Local school system strained because of said low property values and high needs of students

-Local emergency rooms strained/ medical costs going up because of uninsured coming to the ER with preventable illnesses

-Watching neighborhood children grow up in crappy situations with their future options limited, only to repeat the whole cycle

In that sense, government assistance is a buffer between you and the effects of poverty. It doesn't matter if the recipient is your best friend or your shitty good-for-nothing brother-in-law, because assistance isn't a reward or a stamp of approval. It's a containment strategy.

That sounds sort of cold, but the right thing to say morally is not always the right thing to say politically.

Also-- I think a lot of the perceptions of "waste, fraud, and abuse" are linked to the fact that many states have cut their social programs to the bone and mismanaged the agencies that run them. In the state where I used to work, the Medicaid eligibility level was set wayyyy below the national average, to the point that it was basically unheard of for an adult to receive services. Getting into programs required jumping through a whole lot of hoops (Republicans love to say they're cutting red tape even as they pile it onto the poor). Budgets were beyond tight across the board and state employees were (still are) seriously underpaid and understaffed. The system just didn't work-- not because government inherently doesn't work, but because a Republican administration had decided to starve these programs Grover Norquist style. And then they wonder why people try to game the system.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Cut-off "cliffs" for benefits are a program, and they actually create a cycle of poverty and misery. Who wants to risk losing essential benefits the moment they earn too much? In exchange, though, the benefits demand that recipients continue to live at a pretty dismal level.

In Canada right now, there's a debate about a new enhanced child benefit, where the government is basically sending checks to every family with children. The critics say it's buying votes (a certain amount of truth to that, election is in October), and also say that it's benefiting rich families as well as poor ones. In practice, though, the money will actually get through to every family with kids, and the richer families will ultimately be taxed on the benefit and receive less net benefit. Meanwhile, it reduces that "cliff". Single parents won't lose the benefit if they obtain child or spousal support. You don't lose the benefit if you go back to school and get student aid. You don't lose the benefit if you go back to work after staying home with a baby.

[So Many Lies]

As a non-American I feel perplexed as to why it is considered "progressive" to trust the government? Why is it "redneck" to distrust the government?

Wasn't the counter culture 60s movement about questioning the government, education and entrenched government programs?

I'm genuinely confused.