Red/blue and religion

James Stamey writes,

I thought about some things I have seen on your blog as I was reading through another website I keep up with, getreligion.org. (The website is run by several media members who happen to be religious with the premise that in general the media does not “get” religion.)

Anyway, the red/blue state ideas come up all the time and recently the conversation was about people who economically benifit from democrat policies voting republican and people who economically would benifit from republican policies, voting democrat. A couple of the comments were:

I am one of those people who generally fares better economically under Democrats, but generally votes Republican due to, yes, abortion. While I have certainly voted for Dems, even pro-choice Dems, under specific circumstances, the murder of unborn children trumps my bank account in the grand scheme of things.

and

I’m one of those people would generally fares better economically under Republicans, but my wife and I vote for Democrats because of social issues. . . . If you are concerned about poverty, the death penalty, just war, a foreign policy based on human rights, a humane immigration policy, and policies which promote toleance and diversity, we put our economic needs aside and vote for Democrats.

My reply: I have two thoughts on this. First, I find it interesting that these people associate economic voting with the idea of voting for personal gain. Theory and data both suggest that people vote for what they think is good for the country economically, not necessarily what they think is good for them. I’d be curious what opinions the people quoted above would have about national economic policies.

Second, when I went over to getreligion.org, I noticed this entry by Terry Mattingly, who writes,

The middle class, for the most part, continues to vote (some would say against its economic interests) for the Republican Party — primarily because of moral and social issues. Meanwhile, a rising percentage of the rich, especially along the coasts, has been voting (against its economic interests) for the Democratic Party — primarily because of moral and social issues.

He seems to be making the “red state, blue state” fallacy of associating rich coastal states with rich coastal voters. Richer people continue to support the Republicans. Yes, richer people in the coasts support the Republicans less, and richer people in the “red states” support the Republicans more, but nationwide, the correlation between income and Republican vote is still there. But I am receptive to his main point–that “social issues,” including religion, are relevant in understanding income-and-voting patterns.