Democrats: the party of the rich

There’s an article in today’s NY Times about a shop in the Hamptons that sells $3 plastic cups with either Obama, Clinton, or McCain on it. So far the tally of cups sold is: “Barack Obama, 637; Hillary Rodham Clinton, 329; John McCain, 89”

The Hamptons are where rich New Yorkers summer. Clearly the Democratic Party is the party of the rich. For some reason, the Republican Party wrongly has the reputation as the party of the rich, yet actual rich people overwhelmingly support Democrats. The Republican Party is the party of the middle class.

* * *

The Hamptons has to be the whitest place in a hundred mile radius of New York City. You rarely see a minority in the Hamptons, except for nannies. Although Asians have money, they don’t go to the Hamptons. Asians don’t get it.

Anyway, this demonstrates the hypocrisy of the limousine liberals who insulate themselves from the blacks while at the same time they overwhelmingly support a black guy for president.

Comments

[SFG]

That's the Hamptons. Try any wealthy area in Texas and see how many cups they sell.

[Peter]

The Hamptons has to be the whitest place in a hundred mile radius of New York City. You rarely see a minority in the Hamptons, except for nannies. Although Asians have money, they don’t go to the Hamptons. Asians don’t get it.

According to 2000 Census figures, Southampton Town (which includes most areas colloquially known as the "Hamptons") has 3,600 blacks and 4,700 Hispanics, out of a total population of 54,000. I would not be surprised if the Hispanic figure has increased by at least 50% since then.

[Voice of Reason]

*Asians don’t get it.*

Asians are robots, not humans.

[Steve Johnson]

That's the Hamptons. Try any wealthy area in Texas and see how many cups they sell.

Try to find a wealthy area in Texas where the per capita income is 1/10 of the Hamptons (hyperbole). Good luck with that.

[New Anon]

"Southampton Town (which includes most areas colloquially known as the "Hamptons") has 3,600 blacks and 4,700 Hispanics, out of a total population of 54,000. I would not be surprised if the Hispanic figure has increased by at least 50% since then."

I pray that that liberal paradise is "raially enriched" with Mexicans, Guats, Nicaraguans and all sort of Central American refuse.

I believe "enrichment levels" should increase from 4,700, to, oh 470,000 or so.

Let them get a good whiff of diversity with 4 foot Mexican men leering at their Ivy League daughters.

Muwhahahaha!

[David Alexander]

For Sampling Purposes:

Percentage of East End (aka Peconic County) Town Residents who are Black:
Riverhead: 10.52%
Southhold: 2.91%
East Hampton: 7.39%
Southampton: 6.62%
Shelter Island: 0.72%

Percentage for Western Long Island
Hempstead: 14.78%
Babylon: 15.65%
Islip: 9.02%
Oyster Bay: 1.64%
Brookhaven: 4.33%

As far as I'm concerned, the East End's black population is unusually high for a rural area, and it's higher than certain towns in the western two-thirds of the island. Besides, why would black people move to a rural area of a high tax state where homes are expensive, employment opportunities lacking, and transport back to more populated regions somewhat limited? With the decline of agriculture on the East End and with the importation of Central American Mestizo labour, there's an increasing pressure on the black agricultural labour that's left.

BTW, the fledgling black upper class traditionally vacations in Martha's Vineyard.

Anyway, this demonstrates the hypocrisy of the limousine liberals who insulate themselves from the blacks while at the same time they overwhelmingly support a black guy for president.

They insulate themselves from *ghetto* people. As noted, even the black middle class attempts to do so from their poorer counterparts. In short, whites simply like black people who could be at a moment's notice substituted with a fellow white person from their milieu. Once I get a masters degree, I can find white friends looking for a black friend since I'll easily be exchangeable with any of their white friends.

[mnuez]

All other matters aside, your data is actually way off and that data is so easy to come by that I'm astonished that you still labor under the misconception that you so clearly suffer under. By far wealthier Americans vote Republican. By FAR.

Again - Half Sigma, you and I share many of the same views regarding the wealthy, how they got to be that way and how they (in general) aren't the haloed saints that most Americans like to imagine them as, but YOU appear to be unable to take the scary leap that I'VE already taken into the democratic camp on account of these facts. Don't get me wrong, the Democratic Elite are (again, in general) more repulsive than the people who own and run the Right, but the Democrats ARE (at this particular moment in time) the lesser of the two evils.

Oh, and I shouldn't really have to point you to data regarding how wrong your assumptions are (based on some anecdote from the Hamptons?) because you really have no intellectually acceptable excuse to be under such a major misconception, but to be kind I'll point you to a source (one of HUNDREDS of meta sources over the course of the past century).

The wealthier the population, the larger the Republican vote is and the smaller the Democratic vote is, with the result that the bottom 40th percentile (by income) of the populace voted (in 2006) OVERWHELMINGLY for Democrats and the top 5th percentile voted substantially for Republicans - with the full spectrum of incomes filling in the blanks.

mnuez

[mnuez]

I should further note that the reason why the skew among the more impoverished is greater towards the Democrats than is the skew among the wealthy toward the Republicans is on account of the fact that, as people may recall, in 2006 not too many people voted for republicans at all (despite which every group making more than 100K favored Republicans by at least 4 points). In fact, as the election of 2000 brought into sharp relief, the electoral system is such that Democrats can win the popular vote and still lose the election. Democrats need more people to vote for them in order to win than do Republicans who can win by sweeping up such worthy locales as Wyoming and South Dakota - 35 million Californians be damned.

[Mr. Mercy Vetsel]

HS,

You nailed it, as usual.

Also, the hard data backs you up. Republicans are the party of the middle class and the self-made rich. Democrats are the party of trust fund babies, gold diggers and easy-money rich people.

Republicans are more likely to own small business, the chamber of commerce types, while Democrats are more likely to be found at the top of big corporations that need special favors from the government.

It's hard to find good data, but this Slate article show that MOST people with a NW over $10 million voted for Kerry (60 to 40) while people worth $1 million to $10 million went slightly for Bush.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108136/

For someone worth $10 million income taxes are welcome because it helps keep down those grubby people who still have to work for a living.

I personally would love to see the Republicans play this up. That could start with a one time wealth tax (50% of all wealth over $25 billion) that would only fall on Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes.

Buffet is a stinking hypocrite. He made his fortune through capital gains, thereby avoiding taxes, and now he wants schlubs making $100K per year to pay higher income taxes.

-Mercy

[Andrew Yates]

I'd be interested to learn how such cups, including a Ron Paul cup, would sell at Buck's in Woodside.

[Andrew Yates]

People here in NorCal aren't voting for _any_ candidate, they are voting _against_ the status quo.

So Ron Paul was popular, though most people now support Obama. This is true for the VCs, engineers, and tech business people with whom I've discussed this.

Hilary is as faux pas as McCain.

[Andrew Yates]

"For someone worth $10 million income taxes are welcome because it helps keep down those grubby people who still have to work for a living."

Mercy,

Rich people are people too, and who abstractly wants distant others to suffer?

It's one thing to want to keep your neighborhood or university "private," it's another to abstractly wish taxes on "working people" to "keep them down.

Rich people, like all people, don't want to pay any more for what doesn't directly benefit them. End of story.

[mnuez]

Uh, hello? Why am I the only person here who's speaking to the actual DATA?!

Half Sigma can be forgiven his ignorance and perhaps even the personal bias that encouraged him to retain that ignorance, Mr. "Mercy"'s wanton stupidity and sloppy reading is harder to explain.

Mercy - Most people will (for reasons I can hardly imagine) take you at your word, sigh a Hosanna over your proclamations and move onward with their silly whole-hearted belief that the wealthy elite who spend more on a weekend than you or I do in a year are Democratic voting folk. Of course the facts hardly bear you out. The "hard data" that "show that MOST people with a NW over $10 million voted for Kerry (60 to 40) while people worth $1 million to $10 million went slightly for Bush" is actually a silly little poll done for a magazine. Or, as the article you linked to itself put it "the Prince survey is unscientific and small".

Then of course there's the tiny problem of the "survey" having hardly any 10Maires to speak with which is why these TenMillionaires could support Kerry 59:41 while the overall survey of millionaires found Bush TROUNCING Kerry 58:42.

Seriously, it's sloppy reading, sloppier writing and willfully-obtuse thinking like this that fills the print media and that needs to be shunned in favor of actual data and critical thought.

God it sucks to speak into the void.

[Anon]

Hilary is as faux pas as McCain.

Oh and what exactly sets Obama apart? His claim that he is different? Because this politician really means it this time?

He has a history of either voting lib or skipping out on votes that are controversial. His ability to pass new bills is below average. The fact that so many people are falling for his "uniter" crap makes me sick. Weren't liberals complaining about Bush's empty slogans?

I'll take the bitch or the vet. Obama's level of rhetoric should only exist as a parody.

[Jason]

I wonder if geography has more to do with this than household income? Almost the entire Northeast is extremely liberal, to the point where the rich don't vote their economic interests.

The cultural differences between red and blue states now drive politics more than income.

[Anon]

The "hard data" that "show that MOST people with a NW over $10 million voted for Kerry (60 to 40) while people worth $1 million to $10 million went slightly for Bush" is actually a silly little poll done for a magazine. Or, as the article you linked to itself put it "the Prince survey is unscientific and small".

And yet you provided no link of any kind.

God it sucks to speak into the void.

Until the void speaks back I suppose.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fat_cats_washington_times.guest.html
...
So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.
...
But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million.
...

From the World Socialist Website:
Democrats bow to Wall Street, saving tax break for billionaires
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/hedg-o10.shtml
...The Center for Responsive Politics reported that employees of funds belonging to the Private Equity Council, a Wall Street trade group, gave 69 percent of their $3.4 million in campaign donations last year to Democratic candidates.

[mnuez]

Anon, I'll certainly concede that the thrice-married drug-addled Rush Limbaugh is a Void, I'll go even further and say that folk such as yourself who are taken in by his word-plays that have no relevance to the question of whether more millionaires vote Republican or Democrat are even Larger Voids.

As for my having "provided no link of any kind" I'll remind you of the basic point of all that I'm saying here today: Just because you say something that doesn't make it true. This applies equally to the matter of the "hard data" supposedly supporting the claim that the Wealthy vote Democrat while the Working Class and the Middle Class vote Republican as well as to your rebuke for my supposedly having "provided no link of any kind" (despite the fact that I devoted two whole comments to the data from just such a link). For your edification however, I'll provide it again.

Note the dividing line's home at incomes of over 100K per annum. To spell it out in small words:

People making up to 100K a year voted predominantly Democrat while people making more than 100K a year voted predominantly Republican.

No doubt there are plenty of Limbaugh types out there who will rush in with irrelevant data that seeks to confuse the softer minds and to lull them back into Faith in Jesus And O'Reilly. Data can be cut and spliced any which way to come up with a truthful sentence that will sound pleasing to your preconceived errors, but the simple truth of the matter is that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy. Yes, plenty of broke Christians in the Appalachians vote for Republicans too ("Praise the Lord and pass the snakes, Amen"), but that hardly relates to the central question of whether the Privileged Elite tend to vote Right or Left.

Oh, and that "question", isn't actually a question. The data has been steadily similar over the course of a century and is voluminous.

mnuez

[Anon]

They insulate themselves from *ghetto* people.

Perhaps, but if they love diversity as they profess then why do they vacation in the hamptons? It has to be one of the whitest places in the U.S. We're talking about where Martha Stewart likes to vacation. If liberals actually valued diversity as they claim then their vacation choices would be much more varied.

Liberals want to live in minority-free gated communities and send their own kids to private schools. Note that they will bash religion but will send their kids to Catholic schools over public schools without hesitation.

The fact that liberals are against school vouchers yet would never send their kids to public schools speaks volumes.

In Texas I was told that locals will often refer to liberals as "only house on the hill people" which seems quite fitting.

[Anon]

mnuez,

The link I provided shows that the Democrats are receiving more donations from the wealthiest 1%. Do you dispute this?

Your link shows that people who make over 200k are voting for Republicans but only by a slight margin: 45% 53%

You didn't provide a link for your original claim that there is hard data that shows people with a net worth of over 10 million voted for Bush, yet according to you mercy engaged in "wanton stupidity" for providing a link that, unlike yours, exists.

It wouldn't matter if you had the link anyways because you could still claim that the Democrats are the party of the rich based upon donations by the wealthiest.

but the simple truth of the matter is that the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy.
But your own link shows that most people who vote for the Republicans aren't wealthy.

The data has been steadily similar over the course of a century and is voluminous.
From USA TODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-15-zip-code-donors_N.htm
...
Democrats seeking the White House have received more than four times as much money from some of the nation's wealthiest enclaves as party contenders did in 2003, an analysis of campaign-finance records shows.
...

Would you agree at least that Wall Street favors the Democrats?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1

At the very least you have to admit that the Democrats have a very large wealthy base that they cater to. So calling Sigma "ignorant" was misguided to say the least.

I also don't understand why you were ranting about Limbaugh when the other link I provided was from the World Socialist Website. Are the Socialists on the same side as Limbaugh? Have I been taken in by the Socialists as well? My poor soft mind has been taken over by the right and the left!

[Andrew Yates]

DA: "In short, whites simply like black people who could be at a moment's notice substituted with a fellow white person from their milieu."

What? So people prefer to associate with people who share the same culture? This is true for everyone, everywhere.

Anon: "Oh and what exactly sets Obama apart?"

Because not he's the wife of a President or (effectively) George W. Bush #2. Duh. A vote for Obama is the most plausible "against the status quo" vote.

Mnuez: 45% of the vote over $200M/an in is plenty people from which liberals can form a pervasive culture of its own. Such would feasibly fit in a higher tier of wealth lost in the sampling of this data.

Also, "income" isn't the only measure of wealth, and "has money" isn't the same as "has class."

What about education? For example:
Postgraduate (18%) D:58% R:41%

Further, note that sets ($150M, $200M) and ($200M, +) each represent 5% rather than neatly fitting the distribution curve. This suggests higher tiers are lumped into the ($200M, +).

But you're not really trying to be intelligent, you just want to rail on republicans with nonsense about Rush Limbaugh and Jesus.

HS: what the fuck? "party of the rich?" You know that to be imprecise enough to be incorrect. You're just rabble-rousing and your comments have been rabbly as consequence.

[mnuez]

Anon,

I see no reason to take the time to spell this matter out for you over and over again in different words. You claim that I claim things that I never claimed and you quote Limbaughean flatulence on unrelated subjects. Sweet Jesus, if Bill Gates gave eighty BILLION dollars to the Democratic party that would still not assist anyone in knowing whether more wealthy people vote Republican or Democrat. Whatever. Again, I'm not sure why I bother, the democratic medium of the internet has its advantages but allowing for asked-and-answereds to be asked again and again and again simply because some people don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the original response is not one of the charms of this pseudo-intellectual setting.

I realize of course that in pointing this out I'm not acting all too charming myself, but there's a time for truth one would suppose, and that may as well be now.

[superdestroyer]

If you look at the list of richest counties in the U.S., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States,
the top 23 vote Democratic.

It is hard to argue that rich people are Republicans when Manhattan goes 80% Democratic. Why do the 20% in Manhattan who vote for Republicans even bother to vote?

[Markku]

And the Chinese are the Borg!

Fortunately their one weakness is their extremely small male organs, so they will have to invade militarily to get our blondes, harhar!

They don't want blondes because they're not Chinese and because they look nothing like Chinese. The Chinese generally want to marry within their own ethnic group. When forced to because of a girl shortage Chinese parents might accept a girl of another East Asian ethnicity for their son but whites fiances are a no-no. They hardly consider blacks even human.

Posted by: Anon | May 12, 2008 at 03:04 AM

Essentially liberals are for segregation. But somehow, that is OK. If the KKK, Skins, burning crosses and gunfire were used to segregate blacks and other minorities from whites, that is evil. It is even worse racism if regular, working class whites don't want to live around minorities or have their kids attend school with them either. Those regular working/middle class whites are nothing but vile, hateful bigots. But if the segregation is done through private schools, gentrification and expensive towns, then that is just fine(see NYC and neighborhoods in DC for this pattern).

[Andrew Yates]

This is asinine. Many rich people are Democrats, but obviously, many rich people are also Republicans.

HS is right, though: the richest centers are strongly democrat. However:

"Upper East Side is one of few areas of Manhattan where Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate. In the southwestern part of the neighborhood Republican voters equal Democratic voters (only such area in Manhattan), whereas in the rest of the neighborhood Republicans are between 20 and 40% of the registered voters."

20% to 40% of .25MM is not 0 people.

"The top ZIP Code, 10021, is on the Upper East Side and generated the most money for the 2004 presidential campaigns of both George W. Bush and John Kerry"

BOTH Bush AND Kerry.

The only notably-sized rich Republican strongholds I found was silicon valley, the the DEFINITION of new money. (Atherton, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Woodside... Portola Valley barely voted for Gore)

Source: http://www.sen.ca.gov

What's interesting is the shift from Republican to Democrat in the past few decades in newly rich counties. Marin County (norcal, pop 250M, highest per capita income 2000) voted Republican before 1980. Santa Clara County (silicon valley, pop 1.5MM, highest median household income in CA) voted Republican in the 70s and 80s.

Source: wikipedia

[Andrew Yates]

This is asinine. Many rich people are Democrats, but obviously, many rich people are also Republicans.

HS is right, though: the richest centers are strongly democrat. However:

"Upper East Side is one of few areas of Manhattan where Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate. In the southwestern part of the neighborhood Republican voters equal Democratic voters (only such area in Manhattan), whereas in the rest of the neighborhood Republicans are between 20 and 40% of the registered voters."

20% to 40% of .25MM is not 0 people.

"The top ZIP Code, 10021, is on the Upper East Side and generated the most money for the 2004 presidential campaigns of both George W. Bush and John Kerry"

BOTH Bush AND Kerry.

The only notably-sized rich Republican strongholds I found was silicon valley, the the DEFINITION of new money. (Atherton, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Woodside... Portola Valley barely voted for Gore)

Source: http://www.sen.ca.gov

What's interesting is the shift from Republican to Democrat in the past few decades in newly rich counties. Marin County (norcal, pop 250M, highest per capita income 2000) voted Republican before 1980. Santa Clara County (silicon valley, pop 1.5MM, highest median household income in CA) voted Republican in the 70s and 80s.

Source: wikipedia

[Andrew Yates]

"The Chinese generally want to marry within their own ethnic group."

Again: exactly like every other ethnic group.

"When forced to because of a girl shortage Chinese parents might accept a girl of another East Asian ethnicity for their son but whites fiances are a no-no. They hardly consider blacks even human."

Oh, you mean _Japanese_? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, backwards hicks and isolated elderly of all cultures are radically xenophobic.

They hardly consider blacks even human."

Oh, you mean _Japanese_? You have no idea what you are talking about.

You sure you guys aren't talking about Koreans? They loathe black people(not that I can blame them).

[Markku]

""The Chinese generally want to marry within their own ethnic group."

Again: exactly like every other ethnic group.

The degree of endogamic preference varies considerably among different ethnic groups. So, not exactly.

I've never heard of Finnish parents opposing their children living abroad marrying non Finns. I read a blog written by a young Finnish living in Finland engaged to a young Chinese man who also lives in Finland and whose parents live in Finland. The parents are adamantly opposed to their son marrying a non-Chinese, despite the fact that they have permantent residency in Finland.

"When forced to because of a girl shortage Chinese parents might accept a girl of another East Asian ethnicity for their son but whites fiances are a no-no. They hardly consider blacks even human."

Oh, you mean _Japanese_? You have no idea what you are talking about.

What do you mean? That the Chinese hardly consider the Japanese human or that the Japanese hardly consider blacks human?

Also, backwards hicks and isolated elderly of all cultures are radically xenophobic."

It varies. Xenophobia has a been a huge taboo in the West for many decades whereas in China there is no such taboo.

[Andrew Yates]

Why are people here so confused about what it means to be rich? Rich people don't care about money because they are rich. It's like how smart people don't care about grades because they are smart. So if YOU are smart, translate your complex obsession / disdain / apathetic relationship with grades and school and that's about how rich people feel about money and work.

Rich people don't want to associate with working classes (anyone who feels obligated to earn a paycheck) for the same reason smart people (like professors) don't want to associate with students: because students are trapped in some miserable, artificial game of achievement, and that's depressing, obnoxious, and scary.

Yet, abstractly, you're outraged because "education today" is so terrible. You're frustrated because people either seem willfully stupid, obsequiously pedantic, or hopelessly uninspired. And you're worried, because everything seems to be "dumming down."

So what do you do?

You form isolated exclusive intellectual discussion groups on the Internet to discuss why people are so stupid, why education is so bad, and why it's everyone else's fault.

And that's why rich people are Democrats.

I'm going to make this a blog post myself.

[Andrew Yates]

"What do you mean? That the Chinese hardly consider the Japanese human or that the Japanese hardly consider blacks human?"

I mean the irritating fallacy that "east Asian" cultures mesh freely.

"I mean the irritating fallacy that "east Asian" cultures mesh freely."

When they aren't slaughtering each other, that is.

[Markku]

I mean the irritating fallacy that "east Asian" cultures mesh freely.

Who committed that fallacy?

I only said that Chinese parents might rather accept an East Asian than a White daughter-in-law if they were forced to accept a foreign one because racially the Chinese are very much closer to the Japanese than to whites.

[loki on the run]

mnuez sez:

In fact, as the election of 2000 brought into sharp relief, the electoral system is such that Democrats can win the popular vote and still lose the election. Democrats need more people to vote for them in order to win than do Republicans who can win by sweeping up such worthy locales as Wyoming and South Dakota - 35 million Californians be damned.

This smells like the old "Women have to be twice as good as men in order to achieve in science" saw.

Of course, the two Scandinavian women who published a paper purporting to prove this with data somehow lost their data so we can never reanalyze it.

[Jim Beam]

The Republican Party is the party of the middle class.

The "middle class" are generally considered the most reactionary of all classes. And it's no suprise the the Republicans are the party of the "middle-class".

The German middle-classes adored Hitler far more than the capitalists and the working class...fascist discipline is the ultimate pleasure of the middle-class.

So everyone here that is a devout Conservative Republican, is also a potential Fascist who would no doubt "carry out their orders" for the betterment of a "safe and secure" society.

Thanks for reporting the obvious.

[Following Orders]

The German middle-classes adored Hitler far more than the capitalists and the working class...fascist discipline is the ultimate pleasure of the middle-class. So everyone here that is a devout Conservative Republican, is also a potential Fascist who would no doubt "carry out their orders" for the betterment of a "safe and secure" society.

Do we get to wear fancy uniforms and have torch-lit rallies?

[Laughing at Jim Bean's Logic]

Do we get to wear fancy uniforms and have torch-lit rallies?

Wow...haven't had a good torch-lit rally in a LONG time. Gotta let the local Republican office know that we need to put more of those on the calendar. No women or minorities allowed of course. The women should be home cooking any way since all the screaming, yelling, and waving of pitch forks makes us men hungry. But then good Republican women KNOW that.

Well, I have to go help an oil company plan next quarter's rape of the average consumer, then it's off to burn some crosses. Yeah...gotta put the EVIL in EEEVIL REPUBLICANS! You know us REACTIONARY middle class types. HEIL RUSH!

[Captain Beefheart]

This fact about the Democrats tells us a lot about why this party takes the positions it does regarding race and so called "multiculturalism."

It shouldn't surprise us that the people who support affirmative action, racial quotas, forced busing, hate-crimes laws, "hate-speech" laws, and "Diversity in general, happen to be the same people who are least likely to have the opportunity to enjoy the joys of multiculturalism.

I'm pretty sure that students from the Hampton's are not forced bused to Harlem? Instead, its the white working and middle classes who are the lucky ones whose children get to experience these joys. So its easy to call people "racists" while their children are "kickin it" in the Hampton's.

It's no mistake that Obama won the states that are the most white. Obama won states like the Dakotas, Iowa, and Vermont while Hilary won the South. This appears to prove to us that people "like" diversity more when they don't live around diversity. Isn't that strange? I was always told that people who live in diverse areas are the most "tolerant."

This is why the South was always more "racist" than the very "tolerant" North. Us poor Northerners don't get to learn about diversity first hand. We only get to learn about diversity in sociology class.

Then again, maybe the liberals support affirmative action so their own kids don't feel as dumb in Ivy League schools when they get accepted due to legacy affirmative action?

Of course, its not just Democrats. The Republican elite are no different when it comes to open borders. Their claim that open borders are "good for business" is largely correct. I just wish that Bill Kristol's or John McCain's kids got to experience the joys of multiculturalism in the South Central LA school district.

This disconnect between the elites and the white working and middle classes is probably going to result in a party realignment in the next 20 years?

The Democrats will be the party of "diversity," the economic elite, academia, globalists, and college aged white "revolutionaries" from the Hampton's. While the Republicans (or whatever they'll be called) will be the party of the white working and middle classes.

Some may ask "why would big business support the Democrats?" Its very simple, a company like Wal-Mart would be more than happy to see the federal government pick up its health care costs. Big business also happens to support an increase in H1B visas so they can import high skilled immigrants in order to increase the labor pool thereby decreasing the wages it has to pay. And despite what they claim, the elites of all stripes love gun control.

The Right wing will be the party of white people with small business owners making up its financial support.

[Asher]

It seems pretty clear that what we loosely define as "racism" is hard-wired into human DNA. In other words, human beings evolved over 100s of thousands of years procreating with somewhat distant cousins, probably somewhere between 5th and 7th on average. It seems reasonable to assume that this ended up getting hardwired as a mating preference into human DNA. Now it's entirely possible to socialize people out of this hardwired preference but it will always be there and is always lurking beneath the surface.

Jim Crow laws were about one thing: keeping black males away from white females. This was intended for the benefit of poor and working-class white men to avoid having them compete with black men for mating opportunities. Economist Gunnar Myrdal, a leftist/socialist, found that Southern whites knew that such laws hurt them economically but also realized it was necessary to maximize the mating opportunities for their young men. Of course, richer white didn't care because most black men wouldn't be competing for upper-class white girls anyway.

The rationale for Jim Crow laws has been born out: black men marry (about 3:1) and date (between 6:1 and 10:1) white women far more than the reverse. This is not a call for a return to Jim Crow but simply acknowledging the reasoning behind those types of laws.

www.gnxp.com is a great website that is run by two Pakistanis, so no white nationalism, that covers all of the up-to-date genetics-related news.