Comments abound on the WAPO site that carries the

Quote:

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2...840d935202

Now the 'entertainment industry', almost universally reviled as the home for the liberal elites, will be on display tonight and again for the Oscars and Emmys.

Notwithstanding 'character actors' and the occasional average looking recording artists/concert performers, you'll be hard put to find an unattractive liberal, either professed or perceived, among any of them.

Other high paying professions, the law, medicine, architecture, STEM educated professionals? Hard to see how the conclusions of the 'study' would hold up.

Linda Lee

1/11/2017 3:30 PM CST

The Tea Party. Case closed.

Kfir Alexandroni Sereperedrishchenko

1/12/2017 10:12 PM CST
It's nonsense, of course. Your politics are not a product of your upbringing or your fortunes in life. Conservative vs liberal is just a political expression of conscientiousness vs optimism, and most of us are content to cherry-pick science and statistics to rationalize our natures after the fact.


Richard Carter

1/11/2017 12:12 PM CST

As a conservative, I can only wish to have benefited from this tendency. Notwithstanding, logic implies that unsuccessful people want more governmental assistance, while successful people need less of it. Good looks probably correlates somewhat with success and therefore conservatism.

rosapetalia

1/11/2017 12:17 PM CST

LOL. Is that why RED states are the biggest users of federal tax dollars collected FROM the BLUE states? If by "success" you mean the moochers, then sure, your party represents "success".

Red states more dependent on federal dollars:
www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dep...

Which states are givers and which states are takers?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/0...

Etc - just do a quick google search on "red vs. blue states taxes" or "red vs blue states welfare".

---