Alexis de Tocqueville once prophesied "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." The Left vehemently denies that their social spending is anything but altruistic. Any correlation between federal spending on individual aid and voting behavior would reveal this altruism to be politically self-serving. The Left's denial (e.g., Klein, Matthews, Altman, Ponnuru) is often based on state-level observations and Moran has claimed that red states receive greater benefit from federal spending than blue states.The Right (e.g., Bauer and Romney) innately believes that federal largesse buys votes, but has provided little empirical data to back up their belief. Rayne has astutely countered claims of red state welfare, but has not addressed the issue of the influence of social spending on voting behavior.
The 2012 election results have been data mined to determine if a measurable correlation exists between social spending and voting behavior and demonstrate why state-level correlations are misleading. Accurate accounting of the influence of socioeconomic factors on voting behavior will be critical for the 2014 midterm and 2016 election strategies, as well as understanding the political dynamics of current issues including:the fight over federal spending; the expanding welfare, food stamp, and/or disability recipients; immigration reform/amnesty; and ObamaCare.
One key element of obtaining meaningful information from statistical analysis is the determination of the proper sample size. Large sample sizes can obscure trends that are obvious in smaller, more homogeneous subsets. Thus, it should not be unexpected that observations drawn from a statewide basis could mask correlations that exist on a much more local precinct basis. As Tip O'Neill once said "all politics is local."
Via: American Thinker
Continue Reading.....
