Why do Americans vote for Democrats?

I think that people buy into stereotypes. They include that the Demorcats are for the work'in man or the Democrats are the only ones that are not racists or the Democrats are the only ones not wanting to go to war. I think the later can safely be put to rest due to recent events and the others are equally easily debunked.

From what I have seen, many simply vote on social issues such as gay marriage or abortion. When it comes to fiscal policy most gravitate towards the right, unless when it comes to free entitlements. When it comes to "free" entitlements, then the fiscal aspect gets drown in the desire for the programs.

 

Empathy, sympathy, dependency, guilt, ignorance, envy or greed...

all negative, all the time.

 

Many of the same reasons why Americans vote for Republicans. The only difference is that the empathy, sympathy, dependency, guilt, ignorance, envy, and greed that defines the Republican Party and its voter base is directed towards different institutions, and different people.

 

No, not those things. It's common sense and reasonableness actually.

 

Because Republicans appear too be Christian boogeymen.

Democrats while loveable will steal the money right out of you're purse to "redistribute"

Democrats do have the moral high ground they value life more.

Republicans have a better sense of economics.

And anyone who says Democrats are pro middle class you have got to be kidding me? Higher Taxes on YOU. Any small business owner would tell you that his profit margins took a significant dive when Obama took office.

 

Actually, it's nitwits on the right that have said that republicans will eliminate medicare if possible.

I disbelieve. Nobody talks like that.

 

Well, the obvious answer is that they hold several assumptions on how the world, government, and man work that differ from that of conservatives.

They simply know so many things that are not so.

Take the Zimmerman/Martin story. Progressives just have decided that some racist white guy chased down and assassinated some innocent black child in cold blood. Despite a police report, 911 call, and eye witness accounts that show Zimmerman was being bloodied on the ground and shot his attacker in self defense.

 

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.
- Alexander Fraser Tyler,'The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic'.

That's the essence of the Democratic Party right now. So while I may agree in the short-term that Democratic Policies may be more "in line" with my best interests, it leads to long-term issues of fiscal insolvency that would definitely NOT be in my own best interest. It is cutting off one's nose to spite his face.

This is a very good quote, note that he was Athenian (Greek), and they are about as far left as you can go. Their people have had life comparatively easy, yet they are on the brink of financial collapse because the electorate realized they could vote in those that promised the most short-term benefits, at the later cost of their society.

I don't vote for what's best for me personally, I vote for what is best for everyone collectively LONG-TERM.

Quit looking at the ground and see the road ahead of you.

 

I like your retort, it puts a much more realistic spin on the metaphor, BUT let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Republican ideologies definitely have some serious flaws (which your retort points out), but it is based on sound fiscal policy, which is MUCH needed right now. If we don't have the money to fund government functions, we must cut said functions. Its that simple. If you spend more money than you make you'll go bankrupt eventually, and taxation cannot solve all problems.

 

I think it would be more appropriately stated that when people don't feel they need to be responsible (because others will take care of them), then they don't act responsibly. The inverse would also be true.

Oh yeah, and Barry Goldwater may not roll over quite so much if he realized the "needy" had A/Cs, refridgerators, Internet, automobiles, electricity, heat, free food (WIC/Food Stamps) and shelter (Section eight housing), cell phones, home phones, clothing, free cash (welfare), more free cash the more irresponsible you are (having addtl babies you cannot afford to raise=more money), and an undocumented live-in boyfriend who gets paid "under the table" so you can get a little more on the side if you feel like working, while at the same time receiving just as much money from other people's wallets. Interesting side note: Before the invention of many of the said above items, people somehow still survived (some even luxuriously by that days standards). Barry might puke if you told him that.

Bottom Line: Irresponsible citizens have become soft and dependent, with few ramifications for their actions, and a nasty sense of entitlement for help from strangers.

If Barry Goldwater heard some of the reasons people complain about their life being too hard today he would laugh. (after puking of course).

Vote for that.

 

Prepare to believe:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI"]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]

That's the link to the "I'm not gonna have to worry about putting gas in my car, or pay my mortgage" woman.

Do you see what you're dealing with now?

 

I disagree. Democrats are pretty clearly the conservative party at this point.

 

guess repubs want a nanny government

 

I will agree Obama should of stayed out of it... but libs want that case to be investigated, guilt or innocence we want to know what really happened

 

the economy is improving, another 4 years of Bush and we all would of been worrying about putting gas in our cars or paying our mortgage

the rich repubs must never have to worry about that, so they do not understand what that means....

still aways to go, but at least we are going the right direction

 

What she said was that she wasn't going to have to worry about those things, not that ...

There's a huge difference between saying that you think that Obama's gonna pay for the gas in your car and saying that it's not going to be a worry.

 

I thought in the Republican world education was bad, a waste of time, a waste of money, and a tool of leftist indoctrination??? Now I am confused!! No more accurately, the left-wing parent will promote academics, but allow their child freedom to pursue their own course. The Republican parents will send their child out to work at a sweat shop at 11, so they can learn the value of hard work!!

 

Rent seekers, the poor, and crony capitalists vote for Republican as well!! Just the rural poor, instead of the urban poor, and otherwise really there is no difference!!

 

You're right its not the same, but I'll say this: When Obama was voted into office it never crossed my mind that I wouldn't have to worry about paying mortgage. There is a lot to be said about that thought process. How does one believe they won't have to worry about paying their mortgage due to the policies of a President? Try to answer that question with a response that doesn't involve irresponsibility. It will be harder than you think.

 

A common criticism of the Republican Party is attacking Bush Jr. as being fiscally irresponsible and making poor leadership decisions post 2003. AGREED. Bush was not a good President for most of his reign, both economically and in foreign policy. He did not behave according to Republican Ideology. You can't fault an entire ideological following for the mistakes of a Presidency. If you think you can, than I guess Jimmy Carter sums up what it means to be a Democrat, and all future Democratic Candidates can expect to do no better than him.

 

Sound economic policy that fosters prosperity across the nation.

That's what we all hope for when we elect someone, isn't it? It's not irresponsibility, it's just optimism. We all want the government to have good economic policy that will help us all be better off. It's one of the basic reasons we formed a government in the first place, at least ostensibly.

I've seen right-wingers starting up threads accusing Obama of making the price of gas go up -- there even seems to be a theory that he's doing it on purpose so as to wean people off of gas, or usher in the global domination of the U.N., or something. Regardless, if Obama's policies have the power to affect the price of gas, then he can be a help or he can be hindrance. He's been accused of being a hindrance by those who oppose him, so it's reasonable to expect people who support him to claim that he's a help.

She didn't say what she was accused of saying, and liberals are not the caricatures that they're accused of being. We're actually pretty smart ... and slightly crazy ... and the constant accusation that we're just bad people is silly.

 

That is about the only way you can think that in a responsible manner, but if you listen to the beginning, it's doubtful that is what she meant. She directly prefaces the statement with "I never thought I'd see the day ...". She doesn't finish the statement, but she obviously isn't referencing instituting Democratic Party economic policy because she has already seen that day (assuming she was alive in 1999). One could reasonably conclude she is making a reference to Obama being the 1st black President (as she nor anyone else had yet seen that day). Thus, she is concluding that since he is black (not necessarily Democratic) he will institute policies that will lessen her worries, because he (like she) is black and will take care of his own. Even if one believes that certain minorities need more help than they already receive (which I don't), it is still a cry of how the government will help ME and not US, because everyone is not black.

I've bolded your many uses of the words we and us in your quote because I do not think her sentiment is referencing America collectively as is evidenced above.

On your second point, I don't buy into any of the conspiracy theories about Obama (or Bush), its cheap shot rhetoric that far too many people buy into because they read it in an email. And if I thought her sentiment was that he would help us ALL I would respect her opinion much more. Notice how many times she uses the word "my" instead of "our" or "I" instead of "us", how can you take her statement any other way?

Lastly, while I agree she definitely didn't say "Obama's gonna pay my house mortgage", she also was definitely not saying "Obama's sound fiscal policies will reduce the burden on us all". Can we agree on that? Your last point is one I'd like to intensely agree with and debunk (at least for myself). I don't think Democrats are silly or stupid, quite the contrary. I think they are smart and have big hearts. On a philosophical level I agree with a lot of their mantra, but I think they are short-sighted. We can't do everything for everyone. People will not get everything they want. If you try, you'll only bankrupt the country and make things worse in the long-run. Lofty goals and high morals mean nothing if there is no money to fund them.

 

Republicans are the people who buy dogs, then chain them up in the back yard forever and neglect them till they go crazy and bite the kids.

Honestly, if you don't want to like under a dictatorship or theocracy then you have to vote democrat.

 

I went back and counted the woman's word usage, here are the results:

She used the words:

I: 6 times
My: 3 times
Me: 1 time
Him: 1 time

She used the words:

Us: 0 times
Our: 0 times
We: 0 times
Them: 0 times

That would be I, I, I, I, I, I, My, My, My, Me, Him or you could substitute ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, because of HIM in 30 seconds. It's angering.

 

Quite a high number of Americans vote Democrat. I'd guess that some of the reasons are:
(a) they are educated
(b) they have adequate emotional maturity to recognise that other people have feelings
(c) they have somehow escaped fundamentalist brainwashing
(d) they have been abroad and realise not everyone has to act like the good ol' boys down at Lynchers' Landing
(e) they realise that civilized people can manage to live together without behaving like Martins and McCoys and threatening to shoot one another all the time
(f) they have avoided racist brainwashing
(g) they can count
(h) they have been taught some basic science
(i) they understand that large-scale plots require organisation and motive
(j) they have some notion what is meant by words like 'conservative, 'liberal', 'socialist', 'communist' and so on
(k) they have had it explained to them that the world has changed since the Eighteenth Century
(l) they have some notion of what 'Muslim' might mean, understand that the Palestinians have always been there and have read the Sermon on the Mount
(m) they can work out what it costs to keep vast numbers in prison and keep running crusades against Muslim Countries
(n) they can find at least five Countries on a map, particularly the USA ......

I could complete the alphabet easily, but the Republican attention span is not that great, is it?