Some questions for its management, and its new owner:
Jeff Bezos, this is for you: I have no idea what your political views are, but I assume you are a Democrat, like most rich people. Maybe you knew, when you bought the Washington Post, that it is nothing but a corrupt mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. If so, nothing about the Post/Keystone scandal will surprise you; on the contrary, you will probably applaud the Post’s latest effort to fool its readers so as to promote the Democratic Party’s interests.
But on the off chance that you thought you were buying a real newspaper, you should be shocked to learn that the Post cannot respond to a simple question: does the Post coordinate its reporting with Congressional Democrats, or does it not? If the Post were an honest paper–a real newspaper, part of an actual free and independent press–that would be an easy question to answer. That the Post is unable to respond speaks volumes. If this isn’t what you thought you were buying, you should clean house.
Democrat operatives with bylines.
I assume you are a Democrat, like most rich people
In fact, the higher your income, the more likely you are to vote Republican, and the GOP has a huge advantage among people earning more than $200k.
Where does this mistaken notion of rich people as Democrats come from? Maybe it’s because there are a lot of famous rich people (e.g. entertainers) who are Democrats, while the vast majority of rich people aren’t nearly as high-profile.
Oh, maybe it’s articles like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/wall-street-democrats_b_3333408.html
Yes, there are prominent Democrats who’ve worked on Wall Street, and Democrats who’ve received big contributions from Wall Street. But since Dodd-Frank passed most Wall Street political contributions have gone to Republicans, and most rich people (in all fields) vote Republican. The GOP’s vote share is positively correlated with income, and the very top of the income ladder is no exception.
To say rich people vote republican is such a broad statement it should be ignored.
For example, most under-25 voters vote democrat and they are just starting out in life. Many will turn conservative. This is just one small factoid that shapes that monstrously wrong graph that you linked to.
Republicans also get the share of married women. Many single women are in their twenties and are, again, just starting their economic lives or are still in college. This is not reflected in that graph.
To say rich people vote republican is such a broad statement it should be ignored.
For example, most under-25 voters vote democrat
I love this quick segue from condemning “broad statements” to making one!
It’s a simple fact that the higher your income, the more likely it is that you vote for the GOP.
“It’s a simple fact that the higher your income, the more likely it is that you vote for the GOP.”
Your link said this was only true in red states and that other factors were more important in determining voter affiliation.
And what do you mean by after Dodd-Frank passed? What is the relevance of that? Here’s another link I found within seconds of typing Democrats and Wall St. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/democrats-derivatives-financial-reform-dodd-frank
I wish you’d for once get off your partisan bottom and see this is a statist issue, not a party issue. If you weren’t so beholden to the dems for free stuff, maybe you’d see it.
“Where does this mistaken notion of rich people as Democrats come from? ”
Maybe it’s time for you to enter the 21st century……
If you think most rich people are Democrats, then offer some evidence.
$200K is a nice income for professionals, but is your argument that Jeff Bezos rich is like those earning $200K? From where I sit, Jeff Bezos is rich like the Obama’s, Biden’s, Kerry’s, Pelosi’s, Reid’s, Clinton’s. Multi-millionaires.
No, he’s rich like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers — multi-billionaires.
“In fact, the higher your income, the more likely you are to vote Republican”
This isn’t precisely true according to your link.
“In other words, incomes are a much better predictor of voting preferences in deeply red states. In swing states, they are a moderately accurate predictor, and in rich states like Connecticut, practically everybody is equally (un)likely to vote Republican.”
It is only in red states that the rich are more likely to vote Republican.
The link goes on to say that,
“The upshot is that just because there is a strong relationship between income and voting preferences doesn’t mean that it’s income itself — or, certainly, income alone — that shifts our preference. Geography, education, race, and marital status all influence both our earning potential and our vote.”
But why the focus on rich people? Democrats are by far the biggest recipients of big money from corporations, PACs, and special interest groups dwarfing any donations any individual can make. The rich people in blue states have benefited greatly from their, and their corporations, support of Democrats.
It is only in red states that the rich are more likely to vote Republican.
No, it showed a positive correlation between income and the GOP vote in Ohio and Virginia as well. And, of course, nationally.
Democrats are by far the biggest recipients of big money from corporations, PACs, and special interest groups dwarfing any donations any individual can make.
Evidence, please?
“Evidence, please?”
I gave you that link a week or two ago. It was a report from open secrets.
“No, it showed a positive correlation between income and the GOP vote in Ohio and Virginia as well. And, of course, nationally.”
Your statement is contradicted by the quote I provided from your link.
Here’s my “broad statement” Jim: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html
Unlike you, I have statistics to back up my claims.
So tell me, why is “rich people vote republican” not a broad statement?
In fact, I pointed out to you why that graph was irrelevant. It had about as much information as, say, “the average American has slightly less than one testicle.”
Your response was that I was making a broad statement. But my point was to show you that demographics had a role to play in determining voters decisions. Instead you made a very stupid and irrelevant response.
But that is what you do best, isn’t it? Ignore my questions and then make a quibbling, off topic remark.