Let's STUDY This

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 10 months ago

   
   What is the psychological profile of those who are the present, modern Democrats?  What is their educational & socioeconomic backgrounds?  What type of people would vote for Harris-Biden?  What is the impetus behind their votes?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I am voting for Harris-Walz, so tell me what is my psychological profile?
      
      How would my educational and/or socioeconomic background weigh in to the "impetus"?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Well, the mental anguish and distress is quite evident, but developing an entire profile would take more than knowing your Party and the torment supporting it brings you.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            ToRment? You have to be kidding, the very existence of the other side is what I call torment

            replyreport
   2. 76

      tsmogposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Though having studied psychology in college and learning how to do a psychological assessment using the DSM-V criteria, I will hold back on a profile for all democrats. However, for interest next is . . .
      
      10 facts about Democrats in the U.S. by Pew Research (Aug 16, 2024) {A short read}
      https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … in-the-us/
      
      And, from a larger study Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation by Pew Research (Apr 9, 2024) comes subtopic #6 . . .
      
      6. Partisanship by family income, home ownership, union membership and veteran status
      https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … an-status/
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for sharing the stats! I’m a stats person myself, and I always find them interesting.

         replyreport
   3. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      People who voted for Biden have 70% of the Nation's wealth.
      
      People who voted for Trump have 30% of the Nation's wealth.
      
      Since Biden entered office, his efforts have forced a few million Americans out of that 70% and into the 30% (not that they wanted to be there, inflation has its victims, you know) while allowing in a few million more migrants to share in America's abundance.
      
      Which... tells us nothing?
      
      Never mind then.

      replyreport
   4. 83

      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Great thread, this subject offers a lot of food for thought. Grace, please consider my comment as purely view-oriented. I’ve done some research, but I’m not looking for deep rebuttals on this one. Most of what I’ve shared is just my perspective.  I hope the community will respect the subject. Because it is a very interesting one.  Trump is not a Democrat, so we can keep our fingers crossed...
      
      In my view, today’s Democrats have a mix of positive and negative traits, shaped by the current political climate. On the positive side, many are empathetic, valuing inclusivity, diversity, and social justice. They're motivated by ideologies and focus on issues like abortion, equality, healthcare, racial justice, and environmental sustainability. They generally support policies that address systemic inequalities and favor government intervention to solve societal problems.
      
      On the negative side, I see Democrats as overly idealistic and often disconnected from conservative viewpoints, which has fueled polarization. They tend to show strong moral certainty, sometimes dismissing differing perspectives as regressive or uninformed.
      
      Educationally, most modern Democrats are well-educated, with many holding college degrees, especially in fields like the humanities, social sciences, or public administration. They typically come from urban and suburban areas and represent a broad socioeconomic range, including both working-class individuals and a wealthier professional class, particularly in tech, education, media, and healthcare.
      
      The type of people who would vote for Harris-Biden are those who prioritize progressive policies on issues like climate change, healthcare reform, civil rights, and income inequality, often looking to government for social programs and support. Their votes are driven by a desire for a more inclusive, equitable society where government plays a central role in addressing social and economic disparities. They also tend to oppose Republican policies, seeing the Democratic platform as a necessary defense against perceived threats to democracy, human rights, and global stability.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Willowarborposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         "They generally support policies that address systemic inequalities and favor government intervention to solve societal problems".
         
         Just a thought spurred by your post..
         
         Both parties support government intervention.  The only difference? The targets of that intervention.   It's the age-old battle of top down or bottom / middle up  economic policy.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            My view --- It's not entirely accurate to claim that the only difference between the two parties is the targets of government intervention. While both Republicans and Democrats do endorse certain forms of intervention, the core philosophies guiding their approaches are fundamentally different. The Republican Party typically advocates for limited government, with a strong emphasis on free-market solutions and reducing regulatory oversight. Their interventions, such as tax cuts or deregulation, are generally aimed at fostering economic growth by empowering businesses and individuals to operate with fewer government constraints.
            
            In contrast, the Democratic Party tends to favor a more active government role, particularly in areas like healthcare, social services, and environmental protection. Their interventions often focus on redistributing resources to reduce inequality and protect vulnerable populations. These policies, such as increasing the minimum wage or expanding social welfare programs, reflect a belief that the government should actively shape outcomes to promote fairness and social justice, rather than relying on market forces alone.  Which I see as a soft form of socialism, that could move into full-blown socialism.
            
            Thus, the difference isn’t merely about where intervention is directed, but also about the extent and purpose of that intervention. The Republican vision is generally about minimizing government’s role in people’s lives, whereas the Democratic vision sees a more robust government role as necessary to address societal and economic inequities. To reduce this complex debate to a simple distinction of “targets” overlooks the deeper ideological divide between the two parties. The parties differ at this point to having little to nothing in common.

            replyreport
2. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   The Democrat party of today is fighting very hard against what it deems is not fair to persecuted minorities. Kamala and the Left are very focused on righting the wrongs committed by white people and straight people against blacks and the LBGTQ community. Democrats seek to address and correct this injustice. For instance, Kamala wants to deliver an "opportunity economy," meaning economic opportunity for minorities.
   
   Q. Why do minorities not have the same economic opportunity that the majorities have if the Constitution of the United States provides equal opportunity for all?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Where does it provide equal opportunity?
      
      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         ANY PERSON!

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I don't believe it does, nor is any such thing possible.
            
            Equal Protection yes.
            
            The Right to Life, Liberty and Property yes.
            
            But you cannot provide for equal opportunity unless through forced Equity.
            
            Opportunity will never be equal, there will always be varying degrees of stronger, smarter, faster, that make one person BETTER than another person, and the more challenging physically or intellectually a ____ (position, job, scholarship award) may be, the fewer who get the Opportunity for it... so Equity is required to make it so all get the opportunity regardless of ability.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               All we can do is provide freedom. Not the opportunities themselves or the equity. The means for equity and opportunity are impossible for a government to provide for it's citizens. It is up to the citizens, individually,  to accomplish what they want and need.
               
               Repeating:
               Not. The. Government.
               
               OUR government upholds the constitution-based laws which guarantee the rights to freedom/liberty.
               Take it up with a lawyer, if you find this not to be the case.
               And many, many have, and won, throughout history here in America.
               
               "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
               
               nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
               
               nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
               
               I had said,
               " ... the Constitution of the United States provides equal opportunity for all ..."
               
               Ken disagreed and stated," Opportunity will never be equal"
               
               The word "opportunity" seems to be the difficulty:
               
               Lets define it:
               "An opportunity is a situation in which it is possible for you to do something that you want to do."
               
               Freedom for ALL is the situation which provides EQUAL opportunity. Not talents or abilities. These personal attributes are the lucks of the draw created by genetics, previous lifetimes, education, parental influence, interest, ambition and motivation.

               replyreport
3. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   Democrats talk about the importance of democracy, but it seems that democracy creates the very unfairness they abhor. Maybe they have to figure out this "unfairness/injustice" in some other way. Every person must fight for their own economic opportunity. The law provides for it, already. I'm sorry the fight is harder for some than others, but as they say, "Life is not fair."
   
   We cannot fall for totalitarian tactics and policies in addressing unfairness which just exists naturally. Sometimes you have to accept the draw, or the hand of cards you were dealt.
   
   For instance, I am white, healthy and strong, but I have always felt of a lack of confidence. I think it is genetic ... as my father had the same issue. Both of us struggled to win the battle of this particular psychological weakness.
   
   We all have our battles to fight in obtaining the opportunities a democratic republic can provide. Sometimes our problems can be psychological, sometimes physical, sometimes societal, but all these can be overcome by our individual selves determining to get what we want and need. Do we deserve them? Do we have the strength, intelligence and confidence? Only we can say, "Yes," to ourselves ... and then go for it.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      "We cannot fall for totalitarian tactics and policies in addressing unfairness which just exists naturally. Sometimes you have to accept the draw, or the hand of cards you were dealt."
      
      That easy for you to say, isn't it? If you were siting in the positions of minorities, you would not be saying it. Who is and has been on the receiving end of deliberate and structural "unfairness"? It is ok as long as your and your people are not the recipient, perhaps then it would not be so "natural"?
      
      I don't like people who break the rules regarding our agreed upon principles of governance.
      
      I don't like racists, misogynists, tyrants, grifters, insurrectionists, convicted felons, cowards, superficial and shortsighted people, selfishness, pettiness, 'greed, arrogance, stubborn ignorance and stupidity, should I go on?
      
      Anyone who could accomodate such a man with these character traits at the helm are the ones that need to repose on the psychiatrist's sofa chair.
      
      So, I support Kamela Harris for many more reasons than merely the fact that I am Black, thank you....

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         You support her because she is for all the victims of "racists, misogynists, tyrants, grifters, insurrectionists, convicted felons, cowards, superficial and shortsighted people, selfishness, pettiness, 'greed, arrogance, stubborn ignorance and stupidity," one such person being TRUMPY.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, you could say that....
            
            But, I am more voting AGAINST TRUMP  rather than just voting for her.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

               ~ but you are working against your own best interests.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Hardly, what are MY own best interests.?
                  
                  Who is qualified to tell me what my own best interest are?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                     "But, I am more voting AGAINST TRUMP  rather than just voting for her."
                     
                     Just some food for thought—hopefully, this can be seen as a way to advance the conversation further and learn more about your view.
                     
                     It's an interesting way of thinking, but voting primarily against someone rather than for a candidate can lead to pitfalls. This approach might mean you're settling for a candidate who doesn’t fully align with your values or interests. It’s important to consider whether Harris truly meets your best interests and addresses the issues that matter to you. Are her policies and vision for the future what you really want, or are you simply reacting to opposition? Evaluating her agenda alongside your own priorities could provide clearer insight into whether she’s the right choice for you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                        Well, Sharlee, it is a bit of both.
                        
                        Trump in my opinion is such a dangerous and toxic candidate in a way that other GOP candidates from the past don't even come close.
                        
                        It is imperative that he be defeated.
                        
                        No candidate can ever fully align with my values and views, the reality is that we accept the lessor of two evils or the candidate that comes closest to ones ideals.
                        
                        Harris may not check every box, but no candidate can. But she checks many of them while Trump checks none.
                        
                        I prefer her vision with a tweak or two over a candidate who contradicts all of my values without question.
                        
                        She is the right choice because there is no other....

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                           Cred, I’m really pleased to see you share your true feelings and perspective with me. I didn’t sense any edge, just your honesty. This is invaluable to me—when someone can express themselves openly without anonymity getting in the way. I see so little of that in today’s climate.
                           
                           I feel like the swords can finally be laid down as we approach the election. It’s time for us to focus on what truly matters—serving our own values. Respect should guide us through these tough choices, allowing us to support one another despite our differences. That’s how I see things.
                           
                           Shar

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                              Thanks ,I agree about the principal of cordiality.
                              
                              I’m just of the idea that right and left poles Within American politics are irreconcilable right now
                              
                              Part of Focusing on my values is to make sure the other side doesn’t win

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                 Noted, and well taken...

                                 replyreport
                              2. 72

                                 Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                 It really would be a change of pace, if instead of playing the usual game of Left vs Right, Dem vs, Rep, Racism, Sexism, etc.
                                 
                                 We said... hey, we really think its time you put an end to this war and that war.
                                 
                                 And hey... we really think you need to cap how many millions of migrants you let in every year, literally put a Border Patrol that ENFORCES the border, at the border.
                                 
                                 Unless the goal is no rights, no nation, being at the mercy of a government that controls everything thru a Central Bank Digital Currency and knows of everything you do every moment of the day and judges you via a Social Credit system.
                                 
                                 If you want that... if you want that NWO... International Overlordship that is being brought into existence throughout the Western world, then sit back and let the Democrats/DC have at it.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                    Sure, as long as also say hey, we need to accept the validity of elections.  We need to give women equal body autonomy protections as men.  And we need to accept the outcomes of jury trials.
                                    
                                    And we already tried to give a bipartisan change to asylum laws that are being abused, but that wasn't acceptable to one of the candidates because he needs the issue to campaign on.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                       Extraction:
                                       
                                       1. Accept the validity of elections. 
                                       2. Give women equal body autonomy protections as men. 
                                       3  Accept the outcomes of jury trials.
                                       4. Give a bipartisan change to asylum laws that are being abused.

                                       report
                                 2. 82

                                    Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                    "It really would be a change of pace, if instead of playing the usual game of Left vs Right, Dem vs, Rep, Racism, Sexism, etc."
                                    
                                    After the stupidity with the Haitian immigrants as just one example, it doesn't seem so much of a game for me. Trump is an idiot, so your endless attempts at diversion can do nothing but fail.
                                    
                                    Over Trump tyranny and authoritarian tendencies, I will accept the Democrats any day.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                       Trump is an idiot, who has tyrannic and authoritarian tendencies.
                                       
                                       How so?

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                                          This tells the story and it is good enough for me.
                                          
                                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … oritarian/
                                          
                                          Seven warnings as to the ascension of a tyrant. It all fits Trump to a T. I will do everything I can to keep Trump out.
                                          
                                          https://www.americamagazine.org/politic … ump-248440

                                          report
                  2. 72

                     Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                     Certainly not you, you are not thinking correctly if you support Harris.
                     
                     You need some re-education... we need to clean out all that misinformation.
                     
                     Turn you into a Patriotic American that puts America 1st always and forever.
                     
                     Now I want you to type 10,000 times "Trump is Great and he will make America great again." and then we will move to your next lesson.
                     
                     Just type it at home, and not here in the forum section, if you would.
                     
                     Reply back when you're done.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                        "Certainly not you, you are not thinking correctly if you support Harris"
                        
                        Is that so? Now,the Rightwinger thinks that they know more about matters concerning my own backyard? Quite arrogant I would think. Arrogance is one of the several negative traits that I despise Donald Trump regarding.
                        
                        As I see it Ken, I have two choices in this election one being a man who is
                        racist,  misogynist  tyrannical, a grifter, insurrectionist, a convicted felon,  coward, superficial and shortsighted, selfish, petty, 'greedy, arrogant, stubbornly ignorant and stupid. And there is much more.....
                        
                        So, I can support such a man in Donald Trump or take a chance with his opponent, Kamela Harris, a qualified politician without all the negative baggage. The choice is clear for me.
                        
                        I will type Trump is a jerk 1000 times......
                        
                        I cannot be turned around as I loathe rightwing politics, attitudes and values and as they say, if the shoe fits.....

                        replyreport
4. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   From
   https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads … in-the-us/
   "Democrats continue to favor an active federal government. Americans are evenly divided in their preferences for the size of government.
   
   Around half (49%) say they favor a smaller government that provides fewer services,
   
   while about as many (48%) favor a bigger government with more services."
   
   Really ! ?

   replyreport
5. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   Are the Kamala-brand of Democrats for bigger government?
   
   Wondering.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      To stay on topic, Harris identifies as a Democrat, but I believe her ideologies and agenda reveal a more socialist approach.
      
      Yes, the Kamala Harris brand of Democrats generally advocates for a larger role of government in addressing societal issues. Her support for policies like Medicare for All and nationwide abortion protections, along with the desire to regulate businesses perceived as price gouging, reflects a belief in government intervention to promote social equity and regulate economic practices. Additionally, Harris wants to extend policies like the expanded child tax credit, which provides financial assistance to families. These types of policies suggest a preference for a more expansive government that plays a central role in ensuring healthcare access, regulating business practices, and protecting individual rights, aligning with the broader socialist agenda.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Willowarborposted 10 months agoin reply to this

         "Yes, the Kamala Harris brand of Democrats generally advocates for a larger role of government in addressing societal issues."
         
         Protecting reproductive rights, is getting government OUT of women's lives.    We have all clearly seen what government abortion bans are doing to women in Republican controlled state legislatures. 
         
         Medicare for all is not on her agenda. 
         
         "the desire to regulate businesses perceived as price gouging,"
         
         I don't think the plan is to "perceive "
         but to prove. 
         
         If there is evidence of price gouging, why wouldn't we want that to be addressed?   I'm not fond of the idea that large corporations can take advantage of me, unchecked. 
         
         The expanded child tax credit?   What about the benefits of such?  Where is the evidence that such hurts the economy?
         
         New Data and Studies Confirm the Enormous Economic
         Benefits Provided by the Expanded Child Tax Credit.
         
         https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cach … -final.pdf

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            In my own view, I find Kamala Harris hard to believe due to her long history of advocating for a more socialist-leaning agenda, as she did during the 2020 campaign. Her significant shift in stance on several issues, including healthcare and immigration, is disturbing to me. It gives the impression of someone who changes her values not out of genuine conviction but based on what might win votes at the moment. This inconsistency makes her appear untrustworthy in my eyes.
            
            For instance, she was once a vocal proponent of "Medicare for All" but has since pivoted toward supporting incremental reforms to the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, she has expressed shifting views on law enforcement, criminal justice reform, and immigration policy. To me, this suggests a lack of stable principles and a tendency to follow political winds rather than a clear, consistent vision.
            
            I respect that others may feel differently, but when it comes to leadership, I believe it's crucial to have confidence in someone’s ability to hold firm to their values. In Harris’s case, I just don’t see that stability, and it makes it difficult for me to trust her. That said, I’m happy to agree to disagree on this matter.
            
            I have come to trust Trump because he hasn’t really flip-flopped on key issues. While he has reassessed a few topics, he has explained his reasoning behind those changes. I focus more on statements that seem rehearsed to mislead rather than on occasional misstatements. I believe his values have remained consistent and have only grown stronger. I respect his transparency and drive to continue to fight for all Americans.
            
            Trump has some rough edges, but he possesses strengths that few others have.

            replyreport
6. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   Are Democrats, in general, for a bigger government?
   Or do they realize the need to keep it from being too big/over reaching, as Republicans generally do.

   replyreport
7. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   Modern day Democrat issues:
   Women's abortion rights.
   LBGTQ+ rights.
   Minority rights.
   
   Kamala is technically going after votes from:
   
   Promiscuous women
   Unhappily Pregnant Women
   Blacks
   Gays
   Trans-people (maybe thats why they need to create many trans-people),
   Immigrants.
   Very educated people with advanced degrees
   Teachers and Professors
   Single mothers
   Prisoners
   Criminals

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Criminals would be the GOP.

      replyreport
8. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 months ago

   Hot off the press:
   Sep 18, 2024 6:23 PM EDT
   "The St. Louis NAACP is asking the federal government to help mitigate the “literacy crisis” Black students are facing in the classroom.
   
   The organization filed a federal civil rights complaint against 34 public school districts and charter networks earlier this month over the low literacy rates in Missouri schools. The complaint, aimed at schools in St. Louis city and county, follows years of troubling data showing stark disparities between Black and white students’ reading scores.
   
   Forty percent of Missouri’s fourth graders tested in reading were below a basic level of skill in 2022, according to the NAEP.
   
   A 2022 report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows white students scoring 34 points higher in reading than Black students. That performance gap is largely unchanged from more than 20 years ago, amounting to 33 points in 1998.
   
   This data is unacceptable to Adolphus M. Pruitt, president of the St. Louis chapter of the NAACP. He wants the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to take a close look at the longstanding problem, which the NAACP calls a civil rights issue."
   
   --------> A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE for the federal government to address!
   
   https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/ … k-students

   replyreport