<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" 

	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Political Donations: The Name on the Check</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/</link>
	<description>Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Elsajeni</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562852</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Elsajeni]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How did you determine which names were the most partisan (Ellen/Ashley)? Were names under a certain frequency excluded? I ask because putting in my own name, Liz, popped up a dot with a split of 89-11 -- but it&#039;s a very small dot, just over 200 donors total, probably because most Lizzes have &quot;Elizabeth&quot; on their credit cards and bank accounts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How did you determine which names were the most partisan (Ellen/Ashley)? Were names under a certain frequency excluded? I ask because putting in my own name, Liz, popped up a dot with a split of 89-11 &#8212; but it&#8217;s a very small dot, just over 200 donors total, probably because most Lizzes have &#8220;Elizabeth&#8221; on their credit cards and bank accounts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yrro Simyarin</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562827</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yrro Simyarin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That would push things the other way. Women already tend to vote Democrat. Leaving out the women who are more likely to vote Democrat would push the ratio closer to the center, not farther away.

My own guess would be that Republican women are more likely to be socially conservative and include their donation under their husband&#039;s name.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would push things the other way. Women already tend to vote Democrat. Leaving out the women who are more likely to vote Democrat would push the ratio closer to the center, not farther away.</p>
<p>My own guess would be that Republican women are more likely to be socially conservative and include their donation under their husband&#8217;s name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cleveland Evans</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562821</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cleveland Evans]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back at that original article, it&#039;s pointed out the Willie (for men) and Gwendolyn (for women) are the most &quot;Democratic&quot; names. This shouldn&#039;t suprise anyone, because as official birth cerfiticate names they are both overwhelmingly African-American in the USA. Gwendolyn was especially popular with highly-educated African-American parents because of Gwendolyn Brooks, so Gwendolyns would both be likely to be Black and well-off enough to be donors. 
Some of this is also geographical. Ashley (for women) and Tyler (for men) were first popular in the South before they &quot;hit&quot; big nationally, so the Ashleys and Tylers who are a bit older than average and therefore more likely to be donors would have a higher proportion of white Southerners and therefore more Republican donors. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back at that original article, it&#8217;s pointed out the Willie (for men) and Gwendolyn (for women) are the most &#8220;Democratic&#8221; names. This shouldn&#8217;t suprise anyone, because as official birth cerfiticate names they are both overwhelmingly African-American in the USA. Gwendolyn was especially popular with highly-educated African-American parents because of Gwendolyn Brooks, so Gwendolyns would both be likely to be Black and well-off enough to be donors.<br />
Some of this is also geographical. Ashley (for women) and Tyler (for men) were first popular in the South before they &#8220;hit&#8221; big nationally, so the Ashleys and Tylers who are a bit older than average and therefore more likely to be donors would have a higher proportion of white Southerners and therefore more Republican donors. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lunad</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562819</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lunad]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I suspect this is a function of race - less common names, especially among women, aren&#039;t included in this chart.  Minorities are more likely to have uncommon names, especially women.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect this is a function of race &#8211; less common names, especially among women, aren&#8217;t included in this chart.  Minorities are more likely to have uncommon names, especially women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EMB</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562809</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EMB]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562809</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Isn&#039;t Ashley a (somewhat uncommon) male name too?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Isn&#8217;t Ashley a (somewhat uncommon) male name too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James McRitchie</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562803</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James McRitchie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 01:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like I&#039;d better switch from James to my nickname Jim if I want to show my true colors.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like I&#8217;d better switch from James to my nickname Jim if I want to show my true colors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yrro Simyarin</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/17/political-donations-the-name-on-the-check/comment-page-1/#comment-562787</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yrro Simyarin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=51683#comment-562787</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Something I thought was interesting - the gender split for donations is much higher than the gender split in most polls. Most polls I found saw women splitting between the parties at 60/40 or close, not the 70/30 % that seems to show up in the name analysis.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something I thought was interesting &#8211; the gender split for donations is much higher than the gender split in most polls. Most polls I found saw women splitting between the parties at 60/40 or close, not the 70/30 % that seems to show up in the name analysis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
