Choose Life, Live Left? Study Finds That Liberals Outlive Conservatives

President_Barack_ObamaGeorge-W-Bush_jpegFor conservatives, it must sound like “better red than dead” all over again. A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health suggests that liberals live longer than conservatives in the United States. The researchers looked at more than 32,000 adults and tracked them over 15 years. The result was surprising: conservatives seemed to be expiring faster than their counterparts on the left. However, conservatives claimed to be happier than their counterparts in life.

It has been reported that Hillary Clinton has been working on a new campaign theme. Perhaps they should consider a “Vote Hillary Or Die” campaign.

Roman Pabayo, a community health researcher at the University of Nevada said that the group relied on more concrete data like actual death records than did prior studies. They also eliminated other factors by comparing conservatives and liberals of similar age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Notably, when divided simply between parties, Democratic and Republican party members died at the same rate, but when compared on ideological grounds, conservatives bit the dust first on average.

Subu V. Subramanian, a professor of population health and geography at Harvard was critical of the findings. His study relied on self-reporting and found that Republicans reported better health and they were 15% less likely to smoke. He also found that Republicans and conservatives were benefitted by being more religious and “more tied into social networks and organizations.”

It may still be too early for some conservatives to embrace wage equity and global warming. The difference in death rates is described by Subramanian as “slight” in the new study.

Source: USA Today

270 thoughts on “Choose Life, Live Left? Study Finds That Liberals Outlive Conservatives”

  1. look at all you ppl on tangents. It was a faulty study. No real conservative would have consented to being trackeked for 15 years
    not wittingly.

    1. J you are not getting the last word here okay so take your tangent and shove it. Any middle of the road conservative would have been tracked for 15 years and not cared less. Most of the real reactionary people – of which there are none on this blog – would have not wanted the tracking – you are referring to them and not the Classical Liberals on this Blog that you can’t Identify properly

  2. This has been some sad stuff going on here. Nothing that we haven’t seen before in other places but still it is disheartening for the casual visitor.

  3. Two wonderful women have emailed me this morning expressing concern and support for happy. There are good people on this blog, some very good people.

  4. happy is a wonderful person w/ a good heart. I have gotten to know this caregiving woman here, and now via email. I have reached out to others here who have been bullied, getting them through the vitriol. happy will be just fine. She now has some background information, and a venue to vent her hurt and anger. The bullying is not like it was, but still exists. JT is in laissez-faire mode. We know he’s busy on “The Case” and so do those who want to trash the blog. If anyone thinks they have been wronged, email JT. He will deal w/ it.

  5. Congratulations! Another thread I think I’d love it if Professor Turley, again as an act of mercy, would delete my single post here on…where I said I appreciate Issac and Elaine M even when we disagree. I still do that, heaven forbid I violate my “righty” image and be wiling to listen to some who are quite cogent and may clarify things for me. However, the rest of this raggedy spit fit is embarrassing and I’d like to not be associated with it in future archives.

    I realize the “act of mercy” bit is a bit silly itself, but my expression of it gives my opinion as well as anything I can say otherwise. The last few comments seem to indicate the inmates believe they’ve taken over the asylum so to speak. In all of my time here, not all that long, Darren has never been anything but respectful and honest in his comments to the best of my knowledge. How is it so hard to just listen to his requests and comply when they are not harmful to anyone?

  6. Happy, it was NOT a threat, that was absolutely and utterly ridiculous of Darren and I’ll be discussing it with JT tomorrow. Darren has overstepped his role here ( again) IMO. Now I’m done discussing anything with you. My instinct to ignore you is probably a correct one.

  7. Karen-

    It doesn’t shock me that you read the unabombers manifesto and yet completely failed to understand it, or properly classify the unabomber.

    The unabomber was a “post-left” anarchist. Which means an anarchist without the traditionally leftist views. He wasn’t a green anarchist. That assertion by you is just one more example of you not having the slightest clue, but just making things up to fit your perspective. Facts, to you, are like ballast- they’re what you throw overboard to get your argument off the ground.

    The unabomber believed in a complete eradication of technology and the return of mankind to a tribal existence.His reason for that wasn’t concern for the environment. His theory was that once technology for genetic engineering of the human species was attained, our genetic structure would be manipulated to the point that we could no longer be considered human. He saw genetic engineering as the death of the human species.

    There is some merit to that perception, but where his insanity came into the picture was in what he offered as a solution. If one were to try to erase technology and return man to a primitive hunter gatherer state, it would be impossible, but the only way to get close to that goal would be through some global genocide which wiped out 99.9% of the human species and as much of our technology as possible. Nuclear war- biological warfare, etc. He was advocating Armageddon, essentially.

    And Karen, about this comment of yours-

    “If one rebuts a Liberal study with facts and a cogent analysis, the response on the Left is to ignore the facts and make personal comments.”

    You’ll just have to content yourself with that assumption, since you lack both the honesty and the integrity to ever actually make an argument based upon facts or cogent analysis. You build strawmen. That’s all you do.

  8. on 1, February 5, 2015 at 7:17 pmhappypappies

    “But to call me insane over and over and to have you saying bingo and thinking it’s funny and being a psychiatric nurse and then calling Nick out for vile characterizations shows you basically either have no idea that it is wrong to call people out for having things potentially wrong with them if they are not of your political stripe or you are just well …. I won’t say”

    Happy, I’m trying to be patient with you . I told you what I said “Bingo” to. I have no idea what your issues are or are not. It’s not my business. I do however find you difficult to deal with because you do change on a dime, as Anarchist said. I don’t agree with him being unkind to you, but he described your propensity to change your behavior “from Jekyll to Hyde” rapidly. I was a psychiatric nurse for some years, not nearly all the years I was working. I have nothing but sympathy for the mentally ill. As I said I don’t know what your issues are, or are not, it’s not my business and frankly not my concern. My nursing days are over, I’m retired.

  9. I don’t need to go and get approbation from another for my actions. I know how I act and my comments don’t go into moderation for threatening people. That is jeckyll and hyde

  10. “You are all over the map and you go from jeckyll to hyde with no rhyme or reason.”

    And THIS is what I said “BINGO!” to Happy. This is precisely why I’ve tried to ignore you.

    1. Inga

      This is what you denied you said and asked me to find. Here it is. Why you think it’s okay to treat people like this on the blog is beyond me and agree with the cruelty of others. You, a psychiatric nurse. I repeat. It is beyond belief.

Comments are closed.