The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[2aguy]

You do know that means miserly cheap.

Only when the left lies about them...since in major studies in charitable giving, conservatives give more money to charity and give more time to charity than liberals...mainly because the libs think that government should do that thing so they don't have to worry about the less fortunate...that is Big Brothers problem...

It also means freedom loving, equality loving, pro life...anti left...

 

[Rikurzhen]

Yeah, liberals/progressives are right wingers *shaking head*

Pop over to Liberal Headquarters, the Huffington Post, and read about it:

To get to the bottom of this, I set out to test whether liberals favor obedience to authority just like conservatives do. Past psychology studies had found that conservatives have the more favorable attitudes toward statements such as, "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty." Did conservatives have a good feeling about this statement because they think that people ought to obey (in general), or because they support the military and its agenda? I suspected it was the latter.

Together with my collaborators Dr. Danielle Gaucher and Nicola Schaefer, we asked both red and blue Americans to share their views about obeying liberal authorities (e.g., "obey an environmentalist"). In an article that we recent published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, we found that liberals were now the ones calling for obedience. And when the authorities were viewed as ideologically neutral (e.g., office manager), liberals and conservatives agreed. Only when people perceived the authority to be conservative (e.g., religious authority) did conservatives show a positive bias.

If the two sides equally support obedience to their own authorities, how had I come to believe that conservatives are the ones that favor obedience to authority? We wondered if the asymmetry lay not in attitudes toward obedience, but in the nature of authority. Perhaps authorities tend to be conservative, and people know it. This is what we found in a subsequent study. Americans completed a survey in which they named authorities (e.g., police officer) then indicated whether they suspected the authority figure was liberal, moderate, or conservative. People perceived authorities to be conservative. Bosses tend to vote Republican -- or at least most people suspect they do. My suspicion is that the stereotype is accurate: authorities really tend to be conservative. I wonder if this is because conservatives are especially good at or motivated to gain positions of authority. Or perhaps gaining authority over others changes our ideology, making the boss conservative.

Rather than thinking of liberals and conservatives as being fundamentally different psychological breeds, I now think of them as competing teams. Liberal versus conservative is like Yankee fans versus Red Socks fans. Each has its own flag to which it pledges allegiance. And each side has its own authorities to which it demands obedience.​

 

[Dad2three]

You do know that means miserly cheap.

Only when the left lies about them...since in major studies in charitable giving, conservatives give more money to charity and give more time to charity than liberals...mainly because the libs think that government should do that thing so they don't have to worry about the less fortunate...that is Big Brothers problem...

It also means freedom loving, equality loving, pro life...anti left...

lol

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances write:

Conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity.


What about the claim by Arthur Brooks that conservatives give more? Margolis and Sances write:

We are not the first to ask whether partisanship affects giving. In 2006, Arthur Brooks made headlines with a provocative finding from his book Who Really Cares: despite stereotypes of liberals caring more about the poor, conservatives were purported to be more generous when it comes to giving to charities. These results stirred the political pot by taking “bleeding heart liberals” to task for their stinginess when it comes to their own money. . . . we demonstrate that these results are not robust, and appear to be driven by a non-traditional question wording for identifying liberals and conservatives. After correcting for this problem, there is no statistical difference between conservative and liberal giving, conditional on observable characteristics. Further, when we use partisanship rather than ideology to measure liberalism, there is no statistical difference in giving, regardless of whether we adjust for observable characteristics.


How did Brooks screw up?​

Who Really Gives Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States The Monkey Cage

 

[hadit]

The intended consumers of that article, left wingers, are more impressed by pictures than by words.

Is that why the right is Photoshopping the picture over-and-over?

The title of the article is: Race and the Modern GOP. George Wallace IS the modern GOP.

Sorry, he's not, but don't let that stop you. "Racist" has been so overused that it means as little as "Nazi". It's nothing more than punctuation in a liberal's sentence.

 

[Rikurzhen]

How did Brooks screw up?​

​

In other words, they screwed around with the data in order to massage the result:

It is likely that this wording compels many economic liberals to identify as social conservatives, and many economic conservatives to identify as social liberals; because social liberals tend to be wealthier, this would explain why liberals in the SCCBS are wealthier. Certainly the wording affects the distribution on the ideology question. Whereas 33 and 34% of respondents in the 2000 ANES and GSS respectively identified as conservatives, the percentage jumps to 43 in the SCCBS. For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.
​

Do conservatives really constitutes only 34% of the population or do they constitute 43% of the population?

 

[Dad2three]

How did Brooks screw up?​

​

In other words, they screwed around with the data in order to massage the result:

It is likely that this wording compels many economic liberals to identify as social conservatives, and many economic conservatives to identify as social liberals; because social liberals tend to be wealthier, this would explain why liberals in the SCCBS are wealthier. Certainly the wording affects the distribution on the ideology question. Whereas 33 and 34% of respondents in the 2000 ANES and GSS respectively identified as conservatives, the percentage jumps to 43 in the SCCBS. For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.
​

Do conservatives really constitutes only 34% of the population or do they constitute 43% of the population?

For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.



Where do liberals and conservatives give their money?

While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to do- nate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.
And when do they give?

Charitable contributions fluctuate based on the political landscape: Democrats (Republicans) donate less money when a Republican (Democrat) occupies the White House. Conversely, having a co-partisan in the White House increases the average and total donations to nonprofits at the state level.
I’m impressed by this work, partly because a few years ago when I saw Brooks’s claim, I contacted him and asked for details on what he did, and then I threw the problem to some students to replicate it. They got tired and never did it.

P.S. Recently, Arthur Brooks has been having some trouble with the General Social Survey. Working with data can be difficult!

Who Really Gives Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States The Monkey Cage
​

 

[Rikurzhen]

For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.

This paper didn't pass peer review nor was it published by a journal. The likely reason that this paper couldn't be published was because it was conclusion-focused - it was written to achieve a predetermined conclusion, to report that there was no different in charitable giving.

Quoting from the paper we see their first steps do show a difference even with significant controls employed:

While the magnitude of the effect decreases once we control for income and then church attendance in the second and third columns, Republicans still give 85% and 110% more than Democrats, respectively. In the fourth model where we control for both income and church attendance, Republicans donate approximately 34% more than Democrats. Although the giving gap between Republicans and Democrats shrinks substantially, we continue to find a significant difference. While the substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans in the final model is similar to the previous model that controls only for income and church attendance, the result is not statistically significant. Thus, using partisanship instead of ideology provides suggestive evidence that right-wing attitudes are associated with charitable giving.​

A peer reviewer is going to be put off by all of the hoop jumping that is going on in this paper in order to find ways to drive down the difference to zero between Republicans and Democrats. They've controlled for the actual significant variables of income and church attendance and still found Republicans more generous.

It's sickening to read such politicized research. Thankfully the peer review system works and this paper never made it to a journal.

 

[Dad2three]

For these reasons, it seems reasonable to ask whether these findings can be replicated using another dataset.

This paper didn't pass peer review nor was it published by a journal. The likely reason that this paper couldn't be published was because it was conclusion-focused - it was written to achieve a predetermined conclusion, to report that there was no different in charitable giving.

Quoting from the paper we see their first steps do show a difference even with significant controls employed:

While the magnitude of the effect decreases once we control for income and then church attendance in the second and third columns, Republicans still give 85% and 110% more than Democrats, respectively. In the fourth model where we control for both income and church attendance, Republicans donate approximately 34% more than Democrats. Although the giving gap between Republicans and Democrats shrinks substantially, we continue to find a significant difference. While the substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans in the final model is similar to the previous model that controls only for income and church attendance, the result is not statistically significant. Thus, using partisanship instead of ideology provides suggestive evidence that right-wing attitudes are associated with charitable giving.​

A peer reviewer is going to be put off by all of the hoop jumping that is going on in this paper in order to find ways to drive down the difference to zero between Republicans and Democrats. They've controlled for the actual significant variables of income and church attendance and still found Republicans more generous.

It's sickening to read such politicized research. Thankfully the peer review system works and this paper never made it to a journal.

YOU MEANT REFUTING BROOKS GARBAGE? LOL WHERE WAS IT REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED?


While there was much debate about these findings in the press and on political blogs, we are unaware of any attempt to replicate the basic results of Brooks’ analysis. In addition, we are unaware of any systematic consideration of the statistical issues involved with estimating the relationship between conservatism and giving to charity.

http://www.michelemargolis.com/uploads/2/0/2/0/20207607/pe_charitable_giving.pdf




"While levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.”

Much of donating to one’s own congregation or even a denomination hierarchy is “charitable” only in a legal sense. Care and feeding of a pastor and facility from which one derives a personal “benefit” is hardly charitable.

The Brooks study was full of red flags

I never understood why anyone outside the conservative movement ever took it seriously.

Who Really Gives Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States The Monkey Cage

 

[AntiParty]

This is rich. Lefwing hacksite Politico has a bit of racialist propaganda aimed at Low Info types. They are attempting to gin up the GOP Racism canard...with a photo of George Wallace.

Race and the Modern GOP - Doug McAdam and Karina Kloos - POLITICO Magazine

Too funny by half.

View attachment 32421

I love your post!

But I'm curious why Left States have the best education and the Right States have the lowest education........and why does the Right Wing Consider education as an "Entitlement". Look it up.

As far as re-writing history.....Let's have that debate!

Should we note that Christopher Columbus DID NOT discover America in textbooks? Or just keep ignoring what we did to the Indians that formerly occupied the land?

Or let's even get more complicated........did Thomas Edison invent the Lightbulb? Or did he just have the $$$ to make someone elses idea happen. Did Bill Gates invent window?

Pretty basic stuff..........and let me elaborate on the Tesla vs. Edison topic.........Few of you know they had a recent "rap battle".


Ahem........in short.......history was re-written a long time ago. The only question is, should we correct it today with the ample amount of information we have..........

 

[Rikurzhen]

While there was much debate about these findings in the press and on political blogs, we are unaware of any attempt to replicate the basic results of Brooks’ analysis.

And when they lowered the proportion of conservatives found by Pew and Gallup and SCCBS by searching for a database with a lower representation, even when they massaged the data, this is what THEY REPLICATED:

While the magnitude of the effect decreases once we control for income and then church attendance in the second and third columns, Republicans still give 85% and 110% more than Democrats, respectively. In the fourth model where we control for both income and church attendance, Republicans donate approximately 34% more than Democrats. Although the giving gap between Republicans and Democrats shrinks substantially, we continue to find a significant difference. While the substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans in the final model is similar to the previous model that controls only for income and church attendance, the result is not statistically significant. Thus, using partisanship instead of ideology provides suggestive evidence that right-wing attitudes are associated with charitable giving.​

 

[Dad2three]

While there was much debate about these findings in the press and on political blogs, we are unaware of any attempt to replicate the basic results of Brooks’ analysis.

And when they lowered the proportion of conservatives found by Pew and Gallup and SCCBS by searching for a database with a lower representation, even when they massaged the data, this is what THEY REPLICATED:

While the magnitude of the effect decreases once we control for income and then church attendance in the second and third columns, Republicans still give 85% and 110% more than Democrats, respectively. In the fourth model where we control for both income and church attendance, Republicans donate approximately 34% more than Democrats. Although the giving gap between Republicans and Democrats shrinks substantially, we continue to find a significant difference. While the substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans in the final model is similar to the previous model that controls only for income and church attendance, the result is not statistically significant. Thus, using partisanship instead of ideology provides suggestive evidence that right-wing attitudes are associated with charitable giving.​

You Klowns can NEVER be honest. I'm shocked

First you say the study was 'politicized' THEN you use it? lol


The earlier finding that Republicans donate more than Democrats is not only
driven by Republicans donating more to religious organizations, but more specifically totheir own religious congregation. While we lack the data to disaggregate religious giving this way in the SCCBS, the collection plate is a likely explanation for any general trend ofRepublicans donating more than Democrats

http://www.michelemargolis.com/uploads/2/0/2/0/20207607/pe_charitable_giving.pdf

GIVE IT UP, CONS ARE NOT MORE, NOR ARE THE GOP MORE GENEROUS, YES BOTH GIVE MORE TO 'RELIGIOUS' CRAP, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT, OF COURSE IF YOU BELIEVE THAT NONSENSE, YOU'D BELIEVE CONS ARE MORE GENEROUS I SUPPOSE!

 

[Rikurzhen]

But I'm curious why Left States have the best education and the Right States have the lowest education.

Not so fast partner. Here's a data table I have on hand which shed some light on the issue. The big 3 State - Liberal California and New York versus Conservative Texas. Also included is the National mean. Notice the gap between the states for the category "all students" and then notice the gap between the states when the "all students" is disaggregated into race and gender categories.

A lot of those Red States are carrying a lot of baggage from under-performing black populations.

Look at Texas, for instance, in "all students" it is only 3 points above the national mean, however is 7 points above for white males, 5 points above for white females, 10 points above for black males, 8 points above for black females, 8 points above for Hispanic males, 11 points above for Hispanic females, 12 points above for Asian males, and 12 points above for Asian females.

All of that exemplary performance is swamped out by the high minority population in Texas.

 

[Rikurzhen]

GIVE IT UP, CONS ARE NOT MORE, NOR ARE THE GOP MORE GENEROUS, YES BOTH GIVE MORE TO 'RELIGIOUS' CRAP, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT, OF COURSE IF YOU BELIEVE THAT NONSENSE, YOU'D BELIEVE CONS ARE MORE GENEROUS I SUPPOSE!

Hey, Democrats go to church too, so it's unlikely that they attend and don't contribute.

 

[The Rabbi]

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, [as a segregationist in 1948] we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either” - Trent Lott, Proud GOP, Majority Leader, back, oh then...whistling Dixie...

Hmmmm...really...you are quoting something said at the old man's birthday party, off the cuff, without meaning...

Something modern conservatives need to learn...and burn into their brains for the coming fight against the lib/prog/democrat/socialist/statists....

Republicans play politics, they win some they lose some, they wait for the next election...the democrats fight complete and total political war to destroy their enemies and they take no prisoners...

Learn this or lose every election...

That's a pile of shit.

Old man my ass.

He meant every word of it

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, [as a segregationist in 1948] we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either” - Trent Lott, Proud GOP, Majority Leader, back, oh then...whistling Dixie...

Lott ties to the white collarKKK, that is the Council of Conservative Citizens, the CCC, (CCC, get it?) a White Supremacist organization, say otherwise.

And Strom Thurmond had made an entire career out of holding racist positions. Right till the end. You think people are stupid like you or something?

Thurmond was 100 years old. If that isnt an old man, I dont know what is.
What kinds of honors did the Democrats heap on Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd? Your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts say that Southern segregationists were liberals, the Nazis were liberals, Stalin was a liberal...

...and it's the Democrats who are trying to rewrite history?

lol

 

[The Rabbi]

The RWnuts say that Southern segregationists were liberals, the Nazis were liberals, Stalin was a liberal...

...and it's the Democrats who are trying to rewrite history?

lol

Wallace was a progressive. Faubus was a leftist. Strip away the racism bit and they sound like Elizabeth Warren. The National Socialists were today's Democrat Party. There was nothing conservative about Stalin.
Liberals are ignorant of history and bad at math.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The RWnuts say that Southern segregationists were liberals, the Nazis were liberals, Stalin was a liberal...

...and it's the Democrats who are trying to rewrite history?

lol

Wallace was a progressive. Faubus was a leftist. Strip away the racism bit and they sound like Elizabeth Warren. The National Socialists were today's Democrat Party. There was nothing conservative about Stalin.
Liberals are ignorant of history and bad at math.

So George Wallace won 5 states in the South because he was a liberal?

 

[The Rabbi]

The RWnuts say that Southern segregationists were liberals, the Nazis were liberals, Stalin was a liberal...

...and it's the Democrats who are trying to rewrite history?

lol

Wallace was a progressive. Faubus was a leftist. Strip away the racism bit and they sound like Elizabeth Warren. The National Socialists were today's Democrat Party. There was nothing conservative about Stalin.
Liberals are ignorant of history and bad at math.

So George Wallace won 5 states in the South because he was a liberal?

Was Jimmy Carter a liberal?

 

[The Rabbi]

The RWnuts say that Southern segregationists were liberals, the Nazis were liberals, Stalin was a liberal...

...and it's the Democrats who are trying to rewrite history?

lol

Wallace was a progressive. Faubus was a leftist. Strip away the racism bit and they sound like Elizabeth Warren. The National Socialists were today's Democrat Party. There was nothing conservative about Stalin.
Liberals are ignorant of history and bad at math.

So George Wallace won 5 states in the South because he was a liberal?

Is that supposed to be some kind of refutation of anything I wrote? Because it wasnt.

 

[OnePercenter]

You do know that means miserly cheap.

Only when the left lies about them...since in major studies in charitable giving, conservatives give more money to charity and give more time to charity than liberals...mainly because the libs think that government should do that thing so they don't have to worry about the less fortunate...that is Big Brothers problem...

It also means freedom loving, equality loving, pro life...anti left...

When you lump yourself with the rich, sure, more money.