the paragraph below,from the article you linked, is what i have been saying for a long time, that:
rich people vote dimocrat in appeasement,
encouraging goodie dispersal to select classes,
fearful the rabble may else rise to storm their nob hill or park avenue apartments or beverly hills palaces, where sign after warning sign declares, "proceed beyond this point and you will be met with armed personnel" ...
they use government as a sort of revetment, a tactic of delay, until its time to head to the reinforced bunkers in Idaho or new zealand
poor people vote dim, in hopeful anticipation of goodies
and government workers vote dim, again in hopeful anticipation of goodies
while those who work to improve their lot, small business people and the working middle class, flee
from the article:
A variety of trends, then, have left California with a deeply unequal demographic and economic state of play that is ideally suited to the Democratic Party. The working and middle-class exodus has left California with a large and disproportionately white upper and upper-middle class concentrated in the metropolitan areas surrounding San Francisco and Los Angeles; urban, educated populations tend to be cosmopolitan and culturally liberal. (This is especially true in the two industries California is known for—technology and entertainment; the dramatic decline of Southern California’s Cold War-era defense and aerospace industry also deprived Republicans of a once-significant business-class constituency in the Golden State.) California also has among the highest poverty rates in the country; poor people of all races tend to support the Democrats for economic reasons. Meanwhile, one of the few middle-income occupational categories that is still robust is the public sector. And public sector unions support Democratic politicians because they are dependent on them for continued state-sponsored benefits and patronage.
|
