Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacko
Hmmm...I must say that articles like these, sometimes sound to me so over-analytical to the point of suspicion....I wonder about statements like these..
Zones of high education, in turn, produce more innovation and enjoy higher incomes, generating communities dominated by upper-middle-class tastes. Lower-educated regions, by contrast, tend to be more family-oriented and more faithful to traditional authority.
Does this intend to mean that higher educated, higher income people are less family oriented? 
While fully agreeing with the opening premise and the conclusion...as summarized here...
Because politics is a contact sport, hard-hitting partisan competition is unavoidably part of the game. A party system that differentiates sharply between alternatives has virtues, not the least being that it engages more voters, offers clearer choices and enhances accountability. But hyperpartisan politics also do damage, not least to public trust and confidence in government — and many Americans understandably yearn for less polarization. Because the underlying structure of our politics remains so deeply divided, the 2008 election may not requite their wish
........as I read the article, especially the middle part, I was thinking a great deal about Jabberwocky and horsepucky.  Too many pundits, think tanks and pollsters with too much money and not enough productive and relavent things to do.  |
Maybe.
There are more areas which vote almost one party only with a tendency to lean either further to the left or right. That is not only according to this article but others I've read. In my neighbourhood one would very seldom see a Republican yard sign. However there are a number of houses within a few blocks of me which have had anti-war signs up for years.
The suburb to the north of me is just the opposite, and may be one of the reasons I think the demographic changes in the article are relevant.
I did enjoy your criticism. Of course, liberals don't love their children or their mamas.
