“Trickle Down” economics is a term that’s been villified & bandied about without being defined. If by trickle down one means giving the super-rich money & hoping some crumbs fall to the floor for the poor, that’s not workable. When I think trickle down economics, I think of the business owner expanding his or her business, creating jobs & opportunity for others. My definition of trickle down is that – an expanding economy creating jobs, opportunity for advancement & to start other businesses. Most people heard Obama say he was going to cut taxes for 95% of people – Joe the Plumber put some kink in that meme. If Obama gets his way & tax rates are raised on those who make $XXXX (because the # kept changing) & especially on businesses that make over whatever amount, that will punish them for succeeding & expanding. We need an expanding economy, creating new jobs & opportunity as businesses succeed & expand.

Religion is by nature a mindset that says perfection was created and as we evolve we get further and further from an “all is one” consciousness, so in a strange way ,to me, they are trying to reach the same collective happiness that you seem to believe in. Which I have to deny both views because I don’t want to drink the grape kool-aid.

Carry On.
T

Speaking on Louisiana, I can’t understand how a devastated area becomes more attractive to any demographic that trends strongly Republican, be it conservative whites, evangelical Christians, or the upper-middle class. I don’t think factoring the perception of Rep energy policy as favoring Big Oil into the equation is too farfetched or giving one side too much credence.

:: More to the polls of course they didn’t like Obama’s politics … if you are going to call it racism do it, if not then it was politics.

I just am trying to better understand why the difference is so disproportionate across the country. There are plenty of people in plenty of states who didn’t agree with the politics. I won’t say race isn’t a contending issue (on either side), but I also have to consider the impact of religion.

:::: “What is the MOST different thing about Obama….”
:: A slogan … “CHANGE”

Which, the question was (not deferring to the original story but the graphic data), why does this resonate with such a narrow band of people.

I think you gave your answer—that some of us are resistant to change. That does little to convince me Southern conservatives aren’t apathetic about anything outside the walls of their homes. That gives me little hope we aren’t still just backwoods and backwards decades later (just with bigger cars and strip malls).

Which drills back to the core contention—concern for (or even belief in) a greater good. Can we really survive as a country by being stagnant?

Look again at the music model. As much as they fight it, can old-world industry survive in a new-world market? Why will we never see the multi-platinum superstars again? And is it good sense, morals, OR politics to stay stubborn and fight inevitable change?

Is there such thing as good change?

” In response, did Southern whites feel they also had to come out in numbers?”
It looks that way, because they did.

“Was there a campaign or urgent feeling to turn conservative or get more of them to the polls? ”
More to the polls of course they didn’t like Obama’s politics … if you are going to call it racism do it, if not then it was politics.

“Would the trend have been so dramatic (either way) if John Edwards or Chris Dodd had instead been the candidate?”
If this scenario were true would there have been so many liberal voters? This IS a 2 way street you are going down. Actually if Edwards would have been the nominee I think more areas would have been “red” on the map in question, due to marital issues and less voters going democrat.

“What is the MOST different thing about Obama that is only so dramatically apparent to the people of the Bible Belt?”
A slogan … “CHANGE”

Carry On.
T

I agree Arizona and Alaska can be explained for the obvious reason. Not sure how Katrina explains the trend in Louisiana; I think the Rep posture on offshore drilling makes more sense and explains the trend across the whole Gulf coast.

That also speaks to the Wyoming opinion. Not sure that Texas could get “more red” either, but in places it did. Conversely, places like New York, Massachussetts, and California COULD have gone more red but didn’t.

As for blacks coming out in numbers, it doesn’t explain the geographic trend. It’s introducing a whole other data set that is sort of evasive. In response, did Southern whites feel they also had to come out in numbers? Was there a campaign or urgent feeling to turn conservative or get more of them to the polls? Why the disparity across the nation? Why didn’t this happen in Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Ohio?

I agree with your answer that the geographic stretch of counties swinging MORE red than usual may indicate people reluctant to change. Could we equate “change” to “different” things? Would the trend have been so dramatic (either way) if John Edwards or Chris Dodd had instead been the candidate?

What is the MOST different thing about Obama that is only so dramatically apparent to the people of the Bible Belt? Do only southerners have a reactionary paranoia of looming Marxism?

On a side note: I find it amusing that liberals mention the notion of Republican greed while this red stripe on the map is from one of the poorest regions in our nation.

The NY Times claims it was racism…here is a stat that the NY Times will not place in their paper.
Blacks voting 95% for a black candidate — if whites voted in that percentage with a black candidate in the running it would be the headline as racism.

Dear NY Times,
How about a color coded map showing 1st time black voters in the states that banned gay marriage yet voted Obama. I find it interesting that after 200 years of oppression a group of people get their 1st President but choose 70% to 30%, to oppress another group from reaching their dreams….unless voting liberal is as self serving as any other vote… which it IS!
HHHHmmmm … Religion, prejudice….

Carry On.
T

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html

Carry On.
T

People wouldn’t actually have a choice. People were paying over $4 a gallon just a couple of months ago whetherb they were willing to or not. I meant more willing “politically”. Would they forgive a politician who’s policies cost them more at the pump but eleviated the burden of staying in the middle east militarilly and politically.

JGusty had asked earlier (paraphrasing) “is it vital to US interest to keep Kuwait and the region stable” and I think that it was a great question. I’ve actually given it some thought over period of time. Obviously the answer right now is “yes”. Because the market dictates to US and not the other way around.I just think that as the consumers we should be dictating to them.