If the gop win the midterms

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

red america looks a lot more like america to me, then blue america


From the guy who’s never lived in a Red state.
claiming only real Americas live in red states ( but you’ll claim you didn’t say it )


Yep you’re in the cult completely radicalized

Clearly Jim you have no idea what it means to be an American .

Ps Being Angry 24x7 isn’t it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so it’s american to want to get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the fillibuster, pack the court, and otherwise constantly change the rules when you can’t always win with the current rules. that’s what’s american. gotcha.

it’s american for me to want to share a public bathroom with girls.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so it’s american to want to get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the fillibuster, pack the court, and otherwise constantly change the rules when you can’t always win with the current rules. that’s what’s american. gotcha.

it’s american for me to want to share a public bathroom with girls.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just as American as it is to want to keep the electoral college, selectively get rid of the filibuster, pack the court as McConnell did and ignore the rules as the former administration did (well the extent of that was unprecedented by far)

As far as your fear of women seeing your “wee” wee, you’re on your own.

https://youtu.be/bXPZd0LthLc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just as American as it is to want to keep the electoral college, selectively get rid of the filibuster, pack the court as McConnell did and ignore the rules as the former administration did (well the extent of that was unprecedented by far)

As far as your fear of women seeing your “wee” wee, you’re on your own.

https://youtu.be/bXPZd0LthLc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the electoral college is in the constitution. i’d be very very interested to hear your explanation of why it’s un- american to support that which is in the constitution.

if you feel the need to expose yourself to young girls
who aren’t asking for a peek, that’s your issue Pete.

when did McConnell change the number of justices on the supreme court? i must have missed that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the electoral college is in the constitution. i’d be very very interested to hear your explanation of why it’s un- american to support that which is in the constitution.

if you feel the need to expose yourself to young girls
who aren’t asking for a peek, that’s your issue Pete.

when did McConnell change the number of justices on the supreme court? i must have missed that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Counting some people as 3/5ths of a person is in the original Constitution, are we now not allowed to amend the Constitution, or do you think Democrats have magical powers?

You don’t need to project your sick fantasies on me or anyone else. Every single human being goes to the bathroom, if you find it sexually exciting that’s on you.

McConnell played plenty of games within the rules and outside the conventional boundaries.

We have currently have two parties.

One is anti-democracy, anti-truth, and anti-rule of law.

The other is sometimes inept and foolish, with some fringe illiberal elements--but basically committed to the institutions and norms of liberal democracy and a free society.

It's not a tough choice.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so it’s american to want to get rid of the electoral college, get rid of the fillibuster, pack the court, and otherwise constantly change the rules when you can’t always win with the current rules. that’s what’s american. gotcha.

it’s american for me to want to share a public bathroom with girls.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was responding to your comment

red america looks a lot more like america to me, then blue america


Shocking nothing in your response was in your original Comments.

Ps Jim the only ones changing the rules when the don’t win are Republicans. But don’t let actually facts and Truth. Cloud your version of actual events
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I was responding to your comment

red america looks a lot more like america to me, then blue america


Shocking nothing in your response was in your original Comments.

Ps Jim the only ones changing the rules when the don’t win are Republicans. But don’t let actually facts and Truth. Cloud your version of actual events

Yep you’re in the cult completely radicalized

Clearly Jim you have no idea what it means to be an American .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fixed it...

[scottw]

The leftists are losing it….🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

The leftists are losing it….🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are, but it’s hard to not get the impression that they have all the momentum right now, unless every single speck of data is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

Only in Jim’s world these aren’t really REAL Americans. How could they be. It’s clear their against the constitution. Because they clearly see the electoral college has seen it’s time in the sun and with population growth and decades of Republicans gerrymandering it needs to get tweaked or just go into the trash bin of outdated ideas

But we know the only reason Republicans like the electoral college is it’s the only way they can win an election. It’s has nothing to do with love of the constitution

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...toral-college/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

Only in Jim’s world these aren’t really REAL Americans. How could they be. It’s clear their against the constitution. Because they clearly see the electoral college has seen it’s time in the sun and with population growth and decades of Republicans gerrymandering it needs to get tweaked or just go into the trash bin of outdated ideas

But we know the only reason Republicans like the electoral college is it’s the only way they can win an election. It’s has nothing to do with love of the constitution

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...toral-college/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then follow the prescribed steps to
amend the constitution, or live with it.

it’s not the only way republicans can win. but republicans have ( in the past few elections) done a better job of figuring out how to campaign effectively to reflect the realities of the electoral college. Hilary spent all
her time in NY and CA and ignored the midwest. Whose fault is that? If she’s too stupid to grasp what the electoral college does, she’s probably not smart enough to be potus

The GOP campaigns the way it does specifically because of electoral realities. democrats haven’t responded as well to electoral realities because elites don’t like the unwashed losers in flyover country.

all democrats have to do, to do better with the electoral college, is spend time in the middle of the country and make their case to those people. When all you do is hang with the swells on both coasts, you run the risk of losing because of electoral math.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

then follow the prescribed steps to
amend the constitution, or live with it.

Seems Republicans should take your advice. And stop trying to steal elections via gerrymandering restrictions on voting voting in election deniers and actually trying to steal the last election.

Ps Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

But we all ready know why republicans will all vote no
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Just saw an interview with chad wolf couldn’t admit Biden won the election fair and square

Then went on to say Americans don’t trust the election system.

No kidding thats whathappens when you and the POTUS lie 24x7 about election fraud So Republicans think the election was stolen

And Dem don’t Trust republicans as honest stewards of our national elections . Seeing their leader just actually tried to steal the election . And refuse to admit that’s what happened



He refused
To admit fraud played no part in Biden’s win

Y
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He refused
To admit fraud played no part in Biden’s win

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

81,282,916 votes for the worst candidate in American presidential history....yeah, probably nothing to see there

maybe we should waterboard him until he admits what you want him to admit....I'm sure we could justify it under "threat to democracy"

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

81,282,916 votes for the worst candidate in American presidential history....yeah, probably nothing to see there

74,223,369 for a dreadful incumbent POTUS candidate, so yea, just the choice between rock and hard place + a lot of anti-trump enthusiasm driving people to the polls....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

driving people to the polls....

.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

74,223,369 for a dreadful incumbent POTUS candidate, so yea, just the choice between rock and hard place + a lot of anti-trump enthusiasm driving people to the polls....

trump is a dreadful
human being without question.

his policies? he broke the record in the pill gallup does every 4 years during presidential elections, where they ask americans if they feel better off after 4 years of the incumbent. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, more
americans said they were better off after 4 years of trump, than for
any other president in the history of the poll.

America hated trump. But they liked his policies. This is why the left hates and is terrified of Desantis. The upside of trump without the downside ( very few have trumps downside).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trump is a dreadful
human being without question.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you think about it, it actually worked out pretty good,....if trump had won, democrats would still be burning down cities and destroying innocent people's lives in their anger....with dark brandon pulling out the most remarkable victory of all time...we just got a couple hours of mayhem at the Capitol

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trump is a dreadful
human being without question.

his policies? he broke the record in the pill gallup does every 4 years during presidential elections, where they ask americans if they feel better off after 4 years of the incumbent. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, more
americans said they were better off after 4 years of trump, than for
any other president in the history of the poll.

America hated trump. But they liked his policies. This is why the left hates and is terrified of Desantis. The upside of trump without the downside ( very few have trumps downside).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are right. That poll stated that, but the same time, Gallup had his approval rating at 44%.

Trump rode in on a wave of good stock market trends (which continued), good unemployment trends (which continued) and a host of other economic indicators. I think most Americans would say they were better off economically, but most also (correctly) probably didn't attribute to Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

trump is a dreadful
human being without question.

his policies? he broke the record in the pill gallup does every 4 years during presidential elections, where they ask americans if they feel better off after 4 years of the incumbent. In the summer of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, more
americans said they were better off after 4 years of trump, than for
any other president in the history of the poll.

America hated trump. But they liked his policies. This is why the left hates and is terrified of Desantis. The upside of trump without the downside ( very few have trumps downside).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

America hated trump. But they liked his policies.

No they didn’t just another right wing fantasy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

81,282,916 votes for the worst candidate in American presidential history....yeah, probably nothing to see there

maybe we should waterboard him until he admits what you want him to admit....I'm sure we could justify it under "threat to democracy"

Wow you are farther down the rabbit hole than I thought. Seek help
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

He’s a pathological liar, according to Republican Ted Cruz.

He’s a fake, a fraud, and a con-man, according to Republican Mitt Romney.

He convinced 81 percent of white evangelical Christian voters to throw Jesus under the bus to vote for a man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.”

He fired the acting Attorney General in a Monday Night Massacre because she determined that the president’s executive order on immigration was constitutionally indefensible.

He’s created an environment in which a southern white man can shut down a northeastern white woman while she’s reading from the floor of the Senate the cautionary words of a heroic southern black woman about a southern white man, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who was deemed too racist to be a federal judge in 1986.

He disrespects duly-appointed, Senate-confirmed federal magistrates: “so-called judges.”

He’s offended our friends and allies, treating the Mexican and Australian governments in much the same way he’s treated John McCain and Megyn Kelly and a disabled reporter and Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz and the Gold Star Khan Family and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Rosie O’Donnell.

He hasn’t, as far as we know, paid federal income taxes in years, bragging that it’s smart on his part — meaning it’s dumb on our part to do so, thereby undermining citizen investment in shared governance. Nor has he released federal tax returns, as other presidential candidates have for the last 40 years.

His wife in New York City, his weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago, and his gallivanting children are costing us a fortune.

He’s sloppy with national security. Proof: Michael Flynn.

He’s given us a Secretary of Education who was born into and married into a billionaire family, has never attended a public school or taught in a public school, never taken out a student loan or applied for a Pell Grant, or even much supported our public schools.

He nominated a labor secretary (now withdrawn) who took advantage of an undocumented worker, pays his fast-food employees a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty wage, and wants to replace humans with robots because they don’t take vacation days.

He’s put together an administration of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

He’s not kept his campaign promise to release documents and even hold a press conference to prove that the third Mrs. Trump never worked in the US illegally. (We know she lied about having a college degree and — knowingly or not — plagiarized part of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech.)

He said he’d negotiate lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Now he says he won’t — but will give big pharma tax breaks and lift certain regulations on their industry.

He turned the nomination of a Supreme Court justice into the finale of a prime-time reality-show.

He knows little about the history of the United States, about our constitutional system, or about our institutions of government.

He has left millions of Americans who acquired health insurance via the ACA worried sick that this great benefit will be stripped from them.

His closest advisers have added to the chaos of the first weeks of the new administration: Kellyanne Conway and her universe of “alternative facts” — like the Bowling Green Massacre; Steve Bannon, who wants to play war with our military; Stephen Miller, who yells at the American people that the president’s views “will not be questioned!”; and Sean Spicer, period.

He uses Twitter to harangue and berate and demean individuals and journalists and companies that question his infallibility.

He’s rattled and incoherent, unfit and unqualified and unstable.

He uses fear and anxiety to bring out the worst impulses that lurk just beneath the surface to pimp for votes and deepen the crevasse between his America and the rest of us.

He has not drained the swamp, as he promised. It’s deeper. It’s wider. It’s even more dangerous.

The Russians. The Russians. The Russians.

Conservative Republicans would have crucified our former philosopher-president, Barack Obama, for behavior that even resembled that of our schoolyard bully president, Donald Trump. Where is their outrage now? President Turmp is not making America great again. He’s making America ugly again. But Republicans, who created this president in their laboratory of anger and resentment, will use President Trump as long as he’ll sign his John Hancock to their legislation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He’s a pathological liar, according to Republican Ted Cruz.

He’s a fake, a fraud, and a con-man, according to Republican Mitt Romney.

He convinced 81 percent of white evangelical Christian voters to throw Jesus under the bus to vote for a man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.”

He fired the acting Attorney General in a Monday Night Massacre because she determined that the president’s executive order on immigration was constitutionally indefensible.

He’s created an environment in which a southern white man can shut down a northeastern white woman while she’s reading from the floor of the Senate the cautionary words of a heroic southern black woman about a southern white man, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who was deemed too racist to be a federal judge in 1986.

He disrespects duly-appointed, Senate-confirmed federal magistrates: “so-called judges.”

He’s offended our friends and allies, treating the Mexican and Australian governments in much the same way he’s treated John McCain and Megyn Kelly and a disabled reporter and Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz and the Gold Star Khan Family and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Rosie O’Donnell.

He hasn’t, as far as we know, paid federal income taxes in years, bragging that it’s smart on his part — meaning it’s dumb on our part to do so, thereby undermining citizen investment in shared governance. Nor has he released federal tax returns, as other presidential candidates have for the last 40 years.

His wife in New York City, his weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago, and his gallivanting children are costing us a fortune.

He’s sloppy with national security. Proof: Michael Flynn.

He’s given us a Secretary of Education who was born into and married into a billionaire family, has never attended a public school or taught in a public school, never taken out a student loan or applied for a Pell Grant, or even much supported our public schools.

He nominated a labor secretary (now withdrawn) who took advantage of an undocumented worker, pays his fast-food employees a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty wage, and wants to replace humans with robots because they don’t take vacation days.

He’s put together an administration of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

He’s not kept his campaign promise to release documents and even hold a press conference to prove that the third Mrs. Trump never worked in the US illegally. (We know she lied about having a college degree and — knowingly or not — plagiarized part of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech.)

He said he’d negotiate lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Now he says he won’t — but will give big pharma tax breaks and lift certain regulations on their industry.

He turned the nomination of a Supreme Court justice into the finale of a prime-time reality-show.

He knows little about the history of the United States, about our constitutional system, or about our institutions of government.

He has left millions of Americans who acquired health insurance via the ACA worried sick that this great benefit will be stripped from them.

His closest advisers have added to the chaos of the first weeks of the new administration: Kellyanne Conway and her universe of “alternative facts” — like the Bowling Green Massacre; Steve Bannon, who wants to play war with our military; Stephen Miller, who yells at the American people that the president’s views “will not be questioned!”; and Sean Spicer, period.

He uses Twitter to harangue and berate and demean individuals and journalists and companies that question his infallibility.

He’s rattled and incoherent, unfit and unqualified and unstable.

He uses fear and anxiety to bring out the worst impulses that lurk just beneath the surface to pimp for votes and deepen the crevasse between his America and the rest of us.

He has not drained the swamp, as he promised. It’s deeper. It’s wider. It’s even more dangerous.

The Russians. The Russians. The Russians.

Conservative Republicans would have crucified our former philosopher-president, Barack Obama, for behavior that even resembled that of our schoolyard bully president, Donald Trump. Where is their outrage now? President Turmp is not making America great again. He’s making America ugly again. But Republicans, who created this president in their laboratory of anger and resentment, will use President Trump as long as he’ll sign his John Hancock to their legislation.

"He convinced 81 percent of white evangelical Christian voters to throw Jesus under the bus to vote for a man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.”"

(1) Trump almost single-handedly got Roe overturned. If you ignore his personal ethics and focus on his policies (which is precisely what democrats expected America to do for the 8 years Bill Clinton was president), Trump delivered more to the Christian right than any president in American history, and it's not even close. He got Roe overturned.

And your concern about vulgarity is noble, but begs the question of why Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left to this day. The left's demand for personal morality in the POTUS therefore appears to be quite selective.

"He turned the nomination of a Supreme Court justice into the finale of a prime-time reality-show."

Democrats did that with Bork. That was when it stopped being civilized. Sorry, they changed the rules when it suited them, then they expect the GOP to play by the old rules? You can't fight with brass knuckles and ask your opponent to fight with velvet gloves. That's not how it works. I mean, that worked very well for democrats for several years, Trump put a permanent stop to that.

It was then-Senator Joe Biden, who said that the opposition party in the Senate, should block a sitting president near the end of his term, from appointing a supreme court judge. They called it "the Biden Rule". Why was it OK for Biden, but awful for Mitch McConnell? Can you explain that please?

You don't like anything Trump says or does, no matter what it is, we get it. That doesn't explain why he has the all time record in Gallups poll.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett aren't serious legal minds? They're reality show freaks? But Sonya Sotomayor, who explicitly said that female latina judges make superior judges, that's OK, that's not racist and sexist? Whatever you say Paul.

"He’s rattled and incoherent"

And Trumps successor is what? ARticulate and cogent and persuasive?

"He’s a pathological liar"

Unlike Biden who drove a tractor trailer, got arrested with Nelson Mandela, never once spoke to his adult son about his business, beat up a drug kingpin named Corn Pop in a fight, even though Corn Pop had a chain, said the GOP wants to put blacks back in chains, said he has been arrested multiple times while marching for civil rights (maybe he thinks he's Rosa Parks). But honesty is really, really important to you, when it comes to POTUS.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He’s a pathological liar, according to Republican Ted Cruz.

He’s a fake, a fraud, and a con-man, according to Republican Mitt Romney.

Dark Brandon's vice president accused him of some pretty awful things....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He’s a pathological liar, according to Republican Ted Cruz.

He’s a fake, a fraud, and a con-man, according to Republican Mitt Romney.

He convinced 81 percent of white evangelical Christian voters to throw Jesus under the bus to vote for a man who bragged about grabbing women “by the pussy.”

He fired the acting Attorney General in a Monday Night Massacre because she determined that the president’s executive order on immigration was constitutionally indefensible.

He’s created an environment in which a southern white man can shut down a northeastern white woman while she’s reading from the floor of the Senate the cautionary words of a heroic southern black woman about a southern white man, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who was deemed too racist to be a federal judge in 1986.

He disrespects duly-appointed, Senate-confirmed federal magistrates: “so-called judges.”

He’s offended our friends and allies, treating the Mexican and Australian governments in much the same way he’s treated John McCain and Megyn Kelly and a disabled reporter and Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz and the Gold Star Khan Family and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Rosie O’Donnell.

He hasn’t, as far as we know, paid federal income taxes in years, bragging that it’s smart on his part — meaning it’s dumb on our part to do so, thereby undermining citizen investment in shared governance. Nor has he released federal tax returns, as other presidential candidates have for the last 40 years.

His wife in New York City, his weekly trips to Mar-a-Lago, and his gallivanting children are costing us a fortune.

He’s sloppy with national security. Proof: Michael Flynn.

He’s given us a Secretary of Education who was born into and married into a billionaire family, has never attended a public school or taught in a public school, never taken out a student loan or applied for a Pell Grant, or even much supported our public schools.

He nominated a labor secretary (now withdrawn) who took advantage of an undocumented worker, pays his fast-food employees a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty wage, and wants to replace humans with robots because they don’t take vacation days.

He’s put together an administration of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy.

He’s not kept his campaign promise to release documents and even hold a press conference to prove that the third Mrs. Trump never worked in the US illegally. (We know she lied about having a college degree and — knowingly or not — plagiarized part of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech.)

He said he’d negotiate lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Now he says he won’t — but will give big pharma tax breaks and lift certain regulations on their industry.

He turned the nomination of a Supreme Court justice into the finale of a prime-time reality-show.

He knows little about the history of the United States, about our constitutional system, or about our institutions of government.

He has left millions of Americans who acquired health insurance via the ACA worried sick that this great benefit will be stripped from them.

His closest advisers have added to the chaos of the first weeks of the new administration: Kellyanne Conway and her universe of “alternative facts” — like the Bowling Green Massacre; Steve Bannon, who wants to play war with our military; Stephen Miller, who yells at the American people that the president’s views “will not be questioned!”; and Sean Spicer, period.

He uses Twitter to harangue and berate and demean individuals and journalists and companies that question his infallibility.

He’s rattled and incoherent, unfit and unqualified and unstable.

He uses fear and anxiety to bring out the worst impulses that lurk just beneath the surface to pimp for votes and deepen the crevasse between his America and the rest of us.

He has not drained the swamp, as he promised. It’s deeper. It’s wider. It’s even more dangerous.

The Russians. The Russians. The Russians.

Conservative Republicans would have crucified our former philosopher-president, Barack Obama, for behavior that even resembled that of our schoolyard bully president, Donald Trump. Where is their outrage now? President Turmp is not making America great again. He’s making America ugly again. But Republicans, who created this president in their laboratory of anger and resentment, will use President Trump as long as he’ll sign his John Hancock to their legislation.

see......hate.....

Why I Hate President Trump
Rodney Wilson
Feb 15, 2017

"Conservative Republicans would have crucified our former philosopher-president, Barack Obama, for behavior that even resembled that of our schoolyard bully president, Donald Trump. Where is their outrage now? President Turmp is not making America great again. He’s making America ugly again. But Republicans, who created this president in their laboratory of anger and resentment, will use President Trump as long as he’ll sign his John Hancock to their legislation."

[PaulS]

Quick search


Over three-quarters of US charities’ revenues come from donations by individuals, and we used these individual giving decisions to learn about differences in “apolitical” behaviour by partisans. In three surveys, we asked whether Republicans and conservatives give more or less to charity than Democrats and liberals. While political identity and giving are measured slightly differently across the surveys, the results are consistent: Republicans and conservatives report donating between $60 and $160 more per year to charity than Democrats and liberals. This result holds even when we account for socio-economic measures that are correlated both with political identity and charitable giving. The baseline difference in giving behaviour comports with what others have found: partisanship is a dividing line not only in terms of choosing candidates and policies, but also in how partisans spend their disposable income.

Having established the difference, we next wanted to know why a partisan gap in giving appears. We tested three potential explanations – religious identity, political beliefs, and economic status.

We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations.

We find no support for the claim that political beliefs drive differences in giving. It is possible that Republicans donate more to charity due to their ideological beliefs – indeed, conservative politicians in the US often claim that the government should get out of the way and let the charitable sector provide services. Republicans on our surveys might signal their opposition to income redistribution and support for private service provision by donating to charitable causes, substituting donation behaviour for support for government redistribution. Borrowing from Ellis and Stimson’s distinction between symbolic conservatives – those who merely call themselves conservative, but do not oppose government redistribution – and operational conservatives – those who hold conservative beliefs about the role of government – we find no evidence that political beliefs explain why Republicans donate more than Democrats. Republicans who are strong operational conservatives, and therefore oppose government redistribution the most, do not give any more or less to charity than Republicans who support government redistribution. Thus, Republicans do not donate more to express their preference for private service provision over large government social service programmes.

Third, we tested whether Republicans donate more than Democrats due to a differing desire to signal high economic status, which is one of the explanations for the differences in baby names cited above. But we find little evidence that changing economic evaluations cause changes in levels of anticipated giving in the short term. Using the 2012 presidential election as a natural experiment, we show that Republicans’ perceptions of their economic status, as well as their reported spending on vacations, declined following the re-election of Democrat Barack Obama. However, giving behaviour was unaffected by the election, reinforcing our conclusion that differences in giving come from differences in religiosity, not politics or economics.

Our findings have important implications for how we think about politics and charitable giving. It is a fact that there are differences in giving patterns between Democrats and Republicans. However, these differences stem from underlying differences in the social compositions of the parties, rather than from differences in ideological beliefs or a desire to signal status. In particular, the partisan gap appears because of a difference in a very specific type of giving, donating to one’s own congregation or house of worship. We find no conservative advantage when it comes to non-religious charities, or even religious charities beyond one’s own congregation. The large religiosity gap that exists in American politics today, coupled with the tendency of religious Americans to donate to their own churches, helps explain the overall partisan difference in charitable giving. To the extent that Republicans and Democrats are culturally divided, these divisions appear to have little, if anything to do with disagreements about public policy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Quick search


Over three-quarters of US charities’ revenues come from donations by individuals, and we used these individual giving decisions to learn about differences in “apolitical” behaviour by partisans. In three surveys, we asked whether Republicans and conservatives give more or less to charity than Democrats and liberals. While political identity and giving are measured slightly differently across the surveys, the results are consistent: Republicans and conservatives report donating between $60 and $160 more per year to charity than Democrats and liberals. This result holds even when we account for socio-economic measures that are correlated both with political identity and charitable giving. The baseline difference in giving behaviour comports with what others have found: partisanship is a dividing line not only in terms of choosing candidates and policies, but also in how partisans spend their disposable income.

Having established the difference, we next wanted to know why a partisan gap in giving appears. We tested three potential explanations – religious identity, political beliefs, and economic status.

We found the strongest support for the religious explanation. Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations.

We find no support for the claim that political beliefs drive differences in giving. It is possible that Republicans donate more to charity due to their ideological beliefs – indeed, conservative politicians in the US often claim that the government should get out of the way and let the charitable sector provide services. Republicans on our surveys might signal their opposition to income redistribution and support for private service provision by donating to charitable causes, substituting donation behaviour for support for government redistribution. Borrowing from Ellis and Stimson’s distinction between symbolic conservatives – those who merely call themselves conservative, but do not oppose government redistribution – and operational conservatives – those who hold conservative beliefs about the role of government – we find no evidence that political beliefs explain why Republicans donate more than Democrats. Republicans who are strong operational conservatives, and therefore oppose government redistribution the most, do not give any more or less to charity than Republicans who support government redistribution. Thus, Republicans do not donate more to express their preference for private service provision over large government social service programmes.

Third, we tested whether Republicans donate more than Democrats due to a differing desire to signal high economic status, which is one of the explanations for the differences in baby names cited above. But we find little evidence that changing economic evaluations cause changes in levels of anticipated giving in the short term. Using the 2012 presidential election as a natural experiment, we show that Republicans’ perceptions of their economic status, as well as their reported spending on vacations, declined following the re-election of Democrat Barack Obama. However, giving behaviour was unaffected by the election, reinforcing our conclusion that differences in giving come from differences in religiosity, not politics or economics.

Our findings have important implications for how we think about politics and charitable giving. It is a fact that there are differences in giving patterns between Democrats and Republicans. However, these differences stem from underlying differences in the social compositions of the parties, rather than from differences in ideological beliefs or a desire to signal status. In particular, the partisan gap appears because of a difference in a very specific type of giving, donating to one’s own congregation or house of worship. We find no conservative advantage when it comes to non-religious charities, or even religious charities beyond one’s own congregation. The large religiosity gap that exists in American politics today, coupled with the tendency of religious Americans to donate to their own churches, helps explain the overall partisan difference in charitable giving. To the extent that Republicans and Democrats are culturally divided, these divisions appear to have little, if anything to do with disagreements about public policy.

Paul, YOU are the one saying that republicans care less about the poor. There's no evidence that's true, other than your desperate wish for it to be true. The study I posted shows the 2 sides give about the same, so no big difference.

"Conserv. always look down at the poor"

Then please explain the stance taken by each side, regarding school choice. I'll wait.

"Tell me where I ever said that.
Your (for Scott) a liar."

You're claiming , that you have never dismissed the results of the "Who Really Cares" study, on the basis that the difference is largely due to giving to churches. You've never once said that? Is that what you're saying I made up? Because every single time I bring up that study, you say something like "that's only because republicans give more to their church..."

I can't read that yellow font., sorry...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, YOU are the one saying that republicans care less about the poor.and it is reflected in their being more concerned w/low taxes There's no evidence that's true, other than your desperate wish for it to be true. The study I posted shows the 2 sides give about the same, so no big difference.But yet you are the one always saying that cons. give more to charity than liberals! I don't bring up charity - you do!!!

"Conserv. always look down at the poor"

Then please explain the stance taken by each side, regarding school choice. I'll wait.Liberals want to make the public schools stronger. Cons. want the ability to go to private schools and want the cities to subsidize their tuition.

"Tell me where I ever said that.
Your (for Scott) a liar."

You're claiming , that you have never dismissed the results of the "Who Really Cares" study, on the basis that the difference is largely due to giving to churches. You've never once said that? Is that what you're saying I made up? Because every single time I bring up that study, you say something like "that's only because republicans give more to their church..."

You said "since you like to dismiss that because you don't think donating to churches qualifies as charity" I have never said it doesn't count as charity - just that the difference between lib/cons. giving is that cons. give to their church. Some of the studies I posted show that. One thing I learned is that the giving is not to the national church but to the local congregation.

I can't read that yellow font., sorry...

Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow

ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?

the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?

Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable.

The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?

And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?

the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?

Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable. What is irrefutable is that you want me to help subsidize your kids going to private school.

The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?

And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As soon as you subsidize my ability to join a private country club instead of the local town owned course I might change my mind.

[PaulS]

Another article

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/repub...er-story-here/

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

One could conclude this shows the Republican party is, despite the conventional wisdom, the party that cares about those in need and puts its money where its mouth is. But the true picture is more complex, reflecting at best a real difference between the parties in the best way to approach the challenge of human need. Because the range of organizations and activities that are supported by tax deductible giving is very wide, it is not clear how these funds are actually used or what motives they reflect.

Republicans do give more, but where that money ends up is not yet clear. One of the study’s authors, Rebecca Nesbit, associate professor of public administration and policy at the University of Georgia, told the New York Times that Republicans prefer to “provide for the collective good through private institutions. But we don’t know what type of institutions they’re giving to.” It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.

While red counties may be more philanthropic, tax rates are higher in blue counties, reflecting stronger support for collective action and for a social safety net of services and organizations. “The county you live in and the political ideology of that county affects the tax burden of the community,” Dr. Nesbit said. “That in turn has an effect on charitable contributions. If you leave tax burden out of the equation, you’re not getting the full story.”

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.

“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”

Most concerning in this moment of high political strife is the finding that everyone pulls back in areas where political division is high: “When counties are split evenly between the political parties, both donations and the tax burden go down. Or in the study’s terms: Political competition decreases giving.” This does not bode well for organizations whose work is holding up a part of the social safety net, nor for the people they serve.

As we see very graphically on a national level, split electorates and the split governments they elect have difficulty enacting polices and laws to support democratic approaches to collective action. The publicly funded portion of the safety net weakens. If Republicans, who may be more individually ready than their Democratic neighbors, do not make growing charitable donations for these same purposes, philanthropy will not provide the solution, either.—Marty Levine