A discussion started as friends and I were playing golf the other day. We were all agreed on this. People that drive higher end cars, ie Mercedes, BMWs, etc... and live in higher end neighborhoods, are people that have attended college for four or more years and could generally be considered very successful, are usually on the right. We started asking other people at our country club, and the end results were 95% right, 5% left. Our hypothesis was correct. The higher the annual income and education the higher chance of being on the right. It is a combination of the two. That also explains why Hollywood, although rich is not educated. Any opinion? No flames please!

Funny, I did the same thing down at the local soup kitchen; exact opposite!

You might want to pose this question to George Soros. He may quibble with your definition of "higher end" though...

First,you should define "educated".

There are many people I've met who's public education may have stopped at the high school level,yet due to their all-encompassing curiosity and thirst for knowledge,combined with a straight focus on their goals may be considered the equals in "worldly success" of any Harvard or Yale MBA>

__________________

I r knot edumacated, but doo drive a bens.

__________________
past MB rides:
'68 220D
'68 220D(another one)
'67 230
'84 SD
Current rides:
'06 Lexus RX330
'93 Ford F-250
'96 Corvette
'99 Polaris 700 RMK sled
2011 Polaris Assault
'86 Yamaha TT350(good 'ol thumper)

I'm talking "formal" education, mixed with a capitalistic attitude toward money. Typical Mercedes owner.

Folks,

OK, so the quasi rich are more right. Seems some of the REALLY rich are the liberals. The Kennedys are certainly successful, and on the left. Kerry/ Heinz... really rich and left... Rockefeller - really rich and left

On second thought, I wonder if the generation that really made the money would be more conservative. The generation that grew up with it as status quo is willing to give more away. Hmmm. Thoughts?

Chuck

Edited. Changed my mind- not getting into it.

__________________
'90 300SE 298k
-300K and it gets put into retirement.
'80 300D 255k Purchased new by family in 1980.

Had a:
1973 220 (gas)
1980 300SD
1992 400E

Maybe we can do a cross tabulation of shoe size foot size, car preference and political leanings at a future time? Maybe it’ll turn out that if you have a bigger right foot you’ll prefer a MB but lean to the left where if you have a bigger left foot you’ll just wear out your brakes more? I dunno. It might be fun

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I agree whole-heartedly. If there's one thing worth changing one's mind about it's expressing an opinion on this topic. I'm sure Mr Soros is a fine man. As are Mssrs Kennedy and Bush.

Group Hug!!

Hmmm- maybe in North America. Other parts of the world appear to be quite different. When you see news footage from the Middle East, North Africa, Greece, even Eastern Europe- take note of all of the MB's driving by the camera- granted they are older ones mostly. It may be that MB's are bought worldwide because they "go forever", whereas in our hemisphere, they are a status symbol. It would make sense in the developing world that if one can afford a car at all, it is best to get one that you will hand down to your children and grandchildren.

I get remarks since I got my '76 Mercedes like "you're moving up in the world eh?" I always reply "no- it's a 29 year old car that I paid $3500 for and if I look after it well, it'll never be worth less than that- can you say the same about your brand new Oldsmobile?".

"Give me something built to last" (from a song by the Grateful Dead)

Dave from the North Country

Be careful. You guys might get "moderated" for being smart enough to discuss the demographics of political leanings.



Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

The paradox is that you can speak of group characteristics without any real person in the group possesing that trait.

I would think that any group you pick between the second and 98th percentile would exhibit "normal" non-deviant characteristics. It's the outlyers on either end which behave weird.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Demographics are fascinating. While it's true that they do represent the Majority of people, and cannot include all fringe people. That is the purpose of a general demographic survey- To give you the majority opinion of people that are in a specific criteria profile. The results are sometimes against what we might have thought they would be. But good data supports itself. It always amazes me that many people don't actually want to know the end results, or would argue that the survey must be flawed, if it interfers with their preconcieved ideas. I welcome your thoughts, leave the insults to the "morons and idiots" please.