NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so I was checking out the South Carolina primary results on the NYT page, and there was a little thingy at the bottom that said "See a complete profile of the voters"

Being the political nerd I am, I clicked on it. It basically confirmed what I had though about each canidates primary support group.

Except one.

Income
....................................Paul
28% Less than $50,000.....6
28% $50,000-$75,000.......3
17% $75,000-$100,000......2
18% $100,000-$150,000.....2
5% $150,000-$200,000.......1
5% More than $200,000......0

Family's financial situation
...........................................Paul
23% Getting ahead financially....2
66% Holding steady................3
11% Falling behind..................7




Ron Pauls numbers jumped out at me. Basically, hes got the support of economically disadvantaged people who are losing money. Now I may be missing something here, but isn't that the exact group of people his Paulenomics would grind even further down? Please don't give me any "It'll take this country out of a reccession because HE IS GOD" bs, paulites. One group almost always loses in someone's particular economic plan. Now, the closest frame of refrence I have (the 19th century, before most of the things he'd plan to repeal existed) I belive tends to agree with me on this matter. So either I'm missing something, or most of the people who voted for Paul in SC (and, presumabley, most of the nation - no offense to his supporters, present company excluded;)) don't understand his economic plan whatsoever and are just looking for a canidate to give them hope.

I think you misread those numbers a bit. The 11% who say they're 'falling behind,' is less than the overall percentage, not more.

A lot of young, unmarried people have incomes lower than $50,000, but are no means poorly off; that seems to be supported by the fact that 89% of the people polled are doing fine. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters that are young, which means it's pretty likely that their income level is not reflective of their actual standard of living or financial prospects.

For example, undergraduate accounting students will make around $45,000 on average as a starting salary; as a single person with no dependents, that's going to be a pretty decent amount of money, especially if I save wisely and don't waste it.

I think you misread those numbers a bit. The 11% who say they're 'falling behind,' is less than the overall percentage, not more.

I'm talking aobut this in terms of Ron Paul supporters, where that has a clear majority

A lot of young, unmarried people have incomes lower than $50,000, but are no means poorly off; that seems to be supported by the fact that 89% of the people polled are doing fine. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters that are young, which means it's pretty likely that their income level is not reflective of their actual standard of living or financial prospects.

For example, undergraduate accounting students will make around $45,000 on average as a starting salary; as a single person with no dependents, that's going to be a pretty decent amount of money, especially if I save wisely and don't waste it.

hm. Thats a pretty good point. I hadn't thought of that. And 18-29 year olds was where he got his plurality of supporters too, so yea I guess you're right.

Still, the other poll does say something

Well bringing a gold standard back would help the poor because their money is secure in value. The poor are hit hardest by inflation and gold fights inflation. So his ideas would actually work for them.