The Horning Mennonites I work with don't even know that fun fact.Ken wrote:Honestly the car color thing seems like a 100 year old anachronism left over from the time of the Model T when you could get your car in any color you wanted as long as it was black. And then GM started to compete with Ford by making cars in flashier colors.
The only one I picked was women wearing pants.... and I even have second thoughts on that one.joshuabgood wrote:I just can't bring myself to vote for any of these options. I don't like the word liberal in this context and I don't see any of the things listed as "necessarily" liberal.
It would be interesting to see what is considered conservative given this poll. If it could target other then the traditional garb anyway...steve-in-kville wrote:The only one I picked was women wearing pants.... and I even have second thoughts on that one.joshuabgood wrote:I just can't bring myself to vote for any of these options. I don't like the word liberal in this context and I don't see any of the things listed as "necessarily" liberal.
Short bit of history on GM vis Ford and the origin of car colors:steve-in-kville wrote:The Horning Mennonites I work with don't even know that fun fact.Ken wrote:Honestly the car color thing seems like a 100 year old anachronism left over from the time of the Model T when you could get your car in any color you wanted as long as it was black. And then GM started to compete with Ford by making cars in flashier colors.
http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Desig ... study3.htm
Tough Guys and Pretty Boys: The Cultural Antagonisms of Engineering and Aesthetics in Automotive History
by David Gartman
General Motors Style Overtakes Ford Efficiency
Sloan also decided to rely on aesthetics to differentiate GM’s five brands in a clear price hierarchy covering the entire automotive market. He slowly integrated the previously independent brands of Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Cadillac into a scheme of parts-sharing, which cheapened production by increasing the economies of scale on which mass production relied. The different models and makes shared not merely mechanical parts, like transmissions and brakes, but also the structural foundations of the body, called body shells. The dozens of different GM models were all built on three shells of different sizes. The same shell was made to look different, however, by the addition of superficial features like fenders, headlights, taillights, and chrome trim that were unique to each model. GM also added cheap, superficial variety in its mass-produced cars by developing in 1923 a nitrocellulose lacquer paint called Duco, which combined the broad color range of lacquers with the quick drying time of enamel. Ford’s basic black cars were thus eclipsed by GM’s dazzling variety of brightly colored models. In the mid-1920s Sloan also introduced the annual model change, which similarly relied on aesthetics. Every year the body style of all GM cars was changed slightly to give consumers the look of newness and progress. However, underneath the dazzling new surfaces, the body shells and mechanical parts remained unchanged, often for decades. These policies focused on automotive style were responsible for propelling GM sales past Ford in 1927, when the Model T was discontinued due to plummeting sales.
I doubt the Starbucks/Walmart thing works anymore if it ever did. We used to live in the Waco TX area, which is reliably Republican. McLennan County (Waco) went 61% Trump, 34% Clinton in 2016. I count 8 Starbucks and 4 Wal-Marts in the Waco area. It's probably more of a measure of how rural an area is. Starbucks is mainly suburban/urban while Wal-Mart has spread to many much more rural smaller towns. I'm pretty sure if you went to any of the wealthy Republican suburbs around cities like Dallas such as Collin County you'll find far more Starbucks than Wal-MartPetrChelcicky wrote:The only reliable fact is the Starbucks/Walmart ratio: If your county has more Starbucks, people will vote for the Left; if it has more Walmarts, people will vote for the Right.
There's a class aspect: The urban upper middle class invents fashions which work as class markers but after a while trickle down and are replaced by new urban upper middle class fashions.
There is a gender aspect, too: Linguist Labov found that men are more eager to imitate underclass habits whereas women are more eager to imitate upperclass habits (in speech).
And there is a religious aspect, insofar religious people tend to avoid fashions (as long as they are fashions, i.e. new).
(Hilariously, a social scientist told in 2008 that "Sarah Palin was the last populist class warrior the Republicans produced".)
This Monday, I had a great cup of coffee here, in Morristown TN.ohio jones wrote:What if your Walmart has a Starbucks in it?
That's a concept I want to ponder a bit. Our county has two Walmart's, but I think we just got our first Starbucks. I'll have to poll some co-workers who are deeper political thinkers than I. I'll get back to you on thisPetrChelcicky wrote: The only reliable fact is the Starbucks/Walmart ratio: If your county has more Starbucks, people will vote for the Left; if it has more Walmarts, people will vote for the Right.
Somehow I get the feeling that there are a lot of blue voters in your Lebanon Walmart on Saturday night.steve-in-kville wrote:That's a concept I want to ponder a bit. Our county has two Walmart's, but I think we just got our first Starbucks. I'll have to poll some co-workers who are deeper political thinkers than I. I'll get back to you on thisPetrChelcicky wrote: The only reliable fact is the Starbucks/Walmart ratio: If your county has more Starbucks, people will vote for the Left; if it has more Walmarts, people will vote for the Right.