Are social issues really more important than economic/security issues?

[Reaganfan]

I've noticed something quite obvious. Many people vote against their own economic and or security interests. You might have rich Hollywood celebrities in California or rich Wall Street folks in New York. They would seem to fit the bill for a typical "rich Republican" voter. Yet they are overwhelmingly liberal due to social issues. Same is true with blue collar working class people in Indiana or Kentucky or Mississippi. They might well benefit quite well from liberal Democratic programs, yet they vote overwhelmingly Republican due to social issues.

You also might have people who vote based on emotion and social issues, solely. For example, a 30 year old female small business owner who hates the IRS, is pro-death penalty, and overwhelmingly pro-Military might be a typical Republican voter, but she'll vote Democratic out of concern for political rhetoric. Almost like the ultimate litmus test voting.

Look at the 2012 exit polls: http://pos.org/2012/11/the-new-electoral-math-and-what-it-means-for-polling/
Best vision for America's future - Romney
Best values for America's future - Romney
Strongest leadership for America - Romney
Best for the economy - Romney
Cares about people like me - Obama

Now doesn't that look like a decisive Mitt Romney victory?  But that single category. Caring about me...overruled everything. Everything about healthcare, the economy, security, ect. This seems rather new to me. I highly doubt we heard people say, "Well I agree with Humphrey but Nixon cares about people like me".

It leads me to an interesting discussion topic. Do people in America only vote now based upon empathy and emotion? In other words, do we who have grown up following politics now have to look through a whole different perspective?

OR a bit more controversial school of thought. Men in general, particularly white men, tend to be way more analytical rather than empathetic and emotional. Hence you used to get the swings. "Yeah sure, Joe...I'll vote for Jimmy" then just four years later, "He ain't doing it well enough, time for Reagan."

Men pretty much did the same thing in 1996 and 2012...it was well documented that both Clinton and Obama would have won with only men in their first elections but then both would have lost their re-elections. So is it that there are just more empathetic minorities voting off-setting the classic electoral trends. Hence why leaders like Obama win elections that men like Carter '80 and Bush '92 lost?

[Intell]

Cares about people like, also probably means polices that will help the said person, so not just based on empathy, but their own financial situation. People that say cares about people like me, might mean which candidate will have policies, that will help me, that will make life better for me.

[Knives]

What's the point of having money if you live in a country that doesn't respect you as a person?

[Reaganfan]

What's the point of having money if you live in a country that doesn't respect you as a person?

Oh I'm not arguing either side of the issue, I'm trying to figure out what changed to cause the sudden...ehh...as I type this it's hard to articulate what I'm trying to say. Let me say it out-loud instead of typing so that maybe my question could come across as intended:::

https://clyp.it/jdupu2ow

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The vast majority of people vote for emotional reasons. Thank God.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, the questions you are asking are different.

Voting a certain way because of social issues is not the same as just voting out of emotion. It may be difficult for a straight white man to understand, because social issues don't actually affect you in any way at all so emotional concerns are all that matter, but to everyone else, "social issues" come down, in many ways, to the core of who they are.

A straight white man hears chatter about abortion, gays, etc. and has an armchair reaction but can pretty much go to sleep at night no matter what happens with these issues at the end of the day.

A gay person hears chatter about laws that will permit businesses to discriminate against her and has to struggle with the idea that her quality of life is actually on the line.

Why have things changed? In the 1970s, fewer of these people felt like they had the social capital to stand up for themselves and their causes didn't really gain traction. Today there's been a snowball effect: The people whose lives hang in the balance as a result of "social issues" have organized into strong activist communities and voting blocs and have actually managed to insert themselves into a more inclusive modern pop culture. So even the normies feel the moral prerogative to be allies... as anyone with any decency should.

[DINGO Joe]

Temperament is probably the overriding characteristic I consider in who should be President, of course, that ties into policy as I expect their policy positions to be reasonable (both social and economic).  I'd be more willing to vote for a rabblerouser for Congress.

In the specific case of Romney, he had such a history of being a crook on his taxes (including his IRA manipulation) that he wasn't even worthy of consideration.

[Mr. Smith]

According to Kentucky 2015 gubernatorial, yes.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I highly doubt we heard people say, "Well I agree with Humphrey but Nixon cares about people like me".

Uh, a ton of people thought like this.

[RINO Tom]

Depends on the person...?

In the most despicably stereotypical moderate Republican fashion, I usually find myself choosing my primary candidate based on his or her relative "liberalism" on social issues compared to the rest of the field but usually vote in the general based on my economic views.  I'd say in the South, West Coast and New England, social issues predict your vote a lot more than in the Midwest.

[Comrade Funk]

Depends on the person I guess...

Blame Nixon for making social issues the issue for some people after he went after the Wallace voter. Now its come back to haunt the GOP.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

No, economic issues are far more important, but social issues can get me riled up enough to vote Republican if the scenario permits thanks to a Democratic candidate who is effectively intolerable.

[SWE]

There's no real meaningful distinction between social and economic issues.

[Crumpets]

Nowadays, probably. Since the vast majority of modern conflicts are intra-state rather than inter-state, and the source of most of these is inherent social inequalities and a popular sense of injustice by one group or another, one can make a great deal of headway toward addressing security issues through social reforms. Economics kind of play into both sides of this, and I don't really know if one can reasonably separate them from social issues while grouping them in with security issues.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

To me, social issues are the most important.  But, take it with a grain of salt coming from an upper-class white straight male because a lot of these things don't affect me directly (actually, except for economic issues and perhaps national security stuff).  I guess I mean that I'm lucky in that one party represents my interests across the board.  But, my work on social causes like life is the absolute thing I am most proud of.

[Kingpoleon]

A gay person hears chatter about laws that will permit businesses to discriminate against her and has to struggle with the idea that her quality of life is actually on the line.

What about those who honestly would prefer for that to be OK? As one in the South, the supposed bastion of bigotry, I would rather not be served by someone who disagrees enough with me to not want me and my money. Those in other regions are at lower risk of being discriminated against, or so I have often been told. Yet the typical non-Southern gay seems a lot more concerned about discrimination than I should be, as I am also mixed-race. Quite frankly, I think most people far overestimate the number of people who would discriminate, or the left does at least.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

A gay person hears chatter about laws that will permit businesses to discriminate against her and has to struggle with the idea that her quality of life is actually on the line.

What about those who honestly would prefer for that to be OK? As one in the South, the supposed bastion of bigotry, I would rather not be served by someone who disagrees enough with me to not want me and my money. Those in other regions are at lower risk of being discriminated against, or so I have often been told. Yet the typical non-Southern gay seems a lot more concerned about discrimination than I should be, as I am also mixed-race. Quite frankly, I think most people far overestimate the number of people who would discriminate, or the left does at least.

Of course they do because they literally believe more than 50% of the country is pure evil for not thinking from their mindset.