Poor conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain.

[lowtech redneck]

For the exact same reasons many upper-income people vote Democrat:

1.) 'Values voting' is not restricted to social issues, so they are not voting purely on the basis of self-interest (remember Obama supporting a higher tax on capital gains even if it resulted in less revenues, for the sake of 'fairness'?).

2.) They believe in the concept of class mobility (upwards or downwards), so they don't want to support policies that may adversely affect themselves in the future).

3.) They believe its in their enlightened self-interests to support policies based on percieved systemic consequences and outcomes, and are convinced that the policies they support are in the best interests of the country, and therefore in the best interests for themselves in the long-term.

[lowtech redneck]

I also think the more liberals complain about "poor people voting against their best interests", the more some poor people will vote Republican.

And the same goes for assuming nefarious motives instead of considering the issue from another's point of view (not that I've never done the same thing).

The whole 'what's the matter with Kansas' arguement is fallacious, anyway; if social issues were so unimportant, then the Democrats would have no reason not to adopt the social issues of those voting against them in order to try and advance their fiscal agenda.  The truth is, the Democratic and Republican coalitions simply appeal to different 'social issues' voters.

[lowtech redneck]

 The growing Republican influence was due to LBJ (a Democrat) signing into law civil rights legislation.  It's as simply as that.  You take racism out of the equation and you have a very differnt picture.

Enough of this bull, the facts fail to support your case:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-leave-southern-republicans-out-it_594542.html

At worst, the 'Southern Strategy' was a peripheral and sporadic effort that had little actual influence on white Southern voting patterns.

[lowtech redneck]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

[lowtech redneck]

Was my very general accounting of the history of party influence in the South erroneous?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Read the article I posted.

The article you posted from the Weekly Standard?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't thinks so.

I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.  I never use them as a basis for any of my arguments for left leaning or Democratic ideas.  There is a difference between entertainment and news.  A lot of Faux Noise and Rush Limbaugh addicts don't get the distinction.  Everyone is allowed their guilty pleasures.  But eventually you have to come back to planet earth.

Whatever; here's a New York Times article (not that I consider that any better or less partisan of a source) that supports the information contained in the Weekly Standard article: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html