More intact families in Red counties than Blue counties

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,916
9,360
Lots of interesting tidbits in the NYT article as well as the research paper it's referencing... someone had referred to the state by state comparison at some point, but this new paper took it a step more granular, to the county level. That helps isolate the outliers like Austin, Tucson, and some areas of MI, WI, and IL which are anomalies and/or political islands when compared to their respective states.

If anything, the county data makes red states look even better. And while the county data does not cover the entire country, its arguably more meaningful than the state-level data. The county data treats Austin, Tex., as part of blue America and Waukesha County, Wis., as part of red America rather than the reverse.

With the county data, the overall blue-state advantage disappears: Teenagers are more likely to live with both of their parents in red counties than in blue. In the counties where Mitt Romney won at least 50 percent of the vote in 2012, 57.7 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds live with both parents. In counties where Mr. Romney won less, 54.5 percent do.
NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/upshot/intact-families-continued-the-red-county-advantage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

Research paper

http://family-studies.org/a-red-family-advantage-marriage-and-family-stability-in-red-and-blue-america/
 
I'm sure that lots of conclusions can and will be drawn from that.
Actually, I am sure that bits and fragments will be ripped violently from the whole and then cited, bible-verse-like, to justify long-held opinions, conclusions, biases and prejudices.


That's not very interesting.

What is curious is the modern republican's frequent choice of "tough-guy" symbolism to represent themselves, a la the OP's choice of a bad-boy criminal as his avatar.
A meth dealer, no less. Arguably the worst of the worst morally and ethically, amongst his drug pusher peers.

Which leads one to wonder, why are all the so-called conservatives hiding behind the modern GOP so insecure and so afraid, of everything? Do they think that these macho talismans will protect them? What are they really hiding from? What are they really afraid of?

Just an observation. I work with a wide variety of people, and it is nearly universally true that the more "Republican" they are, the more scared they are. And vice versa.

An observation that is supported by published research.

All of which I find very curious.

Any theories how and/or why this phenomenon exists?
 
Ifly2 said:
What is curious is the modern republican's frequent choice of "tough-guy" symbolism to represent themselves, a la the OP's choice of a bad-boy criminal as his avatar.
A meth dealer, no less. Arguably the worst of the worst morally and ethically, amongst his drug pusher peers.
The liberals are the one trying to legalize all drugs Ifly2. 
 
Ifly2 said:
Just an observation. I work with a wide variety of people, and it is nearly universally true that the more "Republican" they are, the more scared they are. And vice versa.
Give some examples.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #6
Clearly iFly doesn't understand Walter White. The actual story of Walter's fall is ultimately about family and sacrifice, good and evil, all wrapped up in what's probably some of the best writing I'd seen since "The Sopranos" ended. That same type of internal struggle is already surfacing in Gilligan's follow-on show, but a little less darkly.

Glenn Quagmire said:
Trying to legalize all drugs?
It will start with marijuana, but we've been told for decades that's just a gateway, so maybe it will lead to the legalization of narcotics.

That said, I find it interesting that the first reaction to the original post was to take it off topic in two different directions, rather than look at the actual context, which was an intact family vs. single parenting. We had an "discussion" on family values just a week or three ago, with liberals mocking conservatives over what they saw as hypocrisy, and yet the data really does suggest that when you get past the politicians, there really is a higher degree of intact families on the conservative side than it does on the progressive side.
 
eolesen said:
It will start with marijuana, but we've been told for decades that's just a gateway, so maybe it will lead to the legalization of narcotics.
Dangerous narcotic diet pills.
 
Alcohol is the worst legal drug, but it will never be banned as it makes too much tax revenue for the governments.
 
Dont have to tell me about nicotine, I worked for Philip Morris.
 
I did address the topic, in my first sentence.

I don't see conservatives, or even Republicans, trying to re-enact Prohibition re alcohol, or tobacco.

It is the Libertarians trying to achieve some degree of sanity and rationality in America's drug laws.

Note no one cares to explain the modern Republican fear of everything, and blatant use of tough-guy "macho" symbolism and characters as cover.

Thus the I suppose "acceptable" form and use of moral relativism and the idolazation of meth dealers, rogue cops, (Dirty Harry..) and now Mafia Dons.

Etal, etc., and ad nauseum.

All of which are fantasy creations of Hollywood, or the so-called liberal entertainment industry thst they claim to despise.

Bat chit crazy

I can tell by the top of climb on the first leg where the other pilot falls on the political spectrum, just by observing how comfortable, competent and at ease - or not - or they are.

Without fail, confirmation will come from their own mouths at some point during the remainder of the trip, unsolicited and unprovoked.
 
 
eolesen said:
Clearly iFly doesn't understand Walter White. The actual story of Walter's fall is ultimately about family and sacrifice, good and evil, all wrapped up in what's probably some of the best writing I'd seen since "The Sopranos" ended. That same type of internal struggle is already surfacing in Gilligan's follow-on show, but a little less darkly.


It will start with marijuana, but we've been told for decades that's just a gateway, so maybe it will lead to the legalization of narcotics.

That said, I find it interesting that the first reaction to the original post was to take it off topic in two different directions, rather than look at the actual context, which was an intact family vs. single parenting. We had an "discussion" on family values just a week or three ago, with liberals mocking conservatives over what they saw as hypocrisy, and yet the data really does suggest that when you get past the politicians, there really is a higher degree of intact families on the conservative side than it does on the progressive side.
 

I thought it was about a "victim" who did not plan in advance, found out he had a terminal disease and decided to manufacture a highly addictive and destructive drug for distribution to whom ever so that he could make lots of money regardless of the fact that it destroyed his family, got family members shot, ...etc. Yea, you are right .. the perfect conservative hero.

Perhaps there is little interest in the study because it was conducted by a group that has W bradford Wilcox as a "Senior Fellow" who was one of the anonymous peer reviewers of a book called "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study" which methodology was debunked and which premise was highly biased? Just a hunch on my part.

I find the fact that the study seemed to base most of the data off of people who voted interesting. That leave out nearly half of the population.


And who have we been told that by? Alcohol and nicotine have been legal for decades ... where is the concern for them?>
 
The MOST Dangerous addition in this country,..................is being a F'n........R E P U B L I C A N  !!!!
 
( Beware the uneducated......Religious FANATIC....and....BLIND Patriot )  !!
 
BewunQdCAAAtRfV.jpg
 
Back
Top