Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The writer cites a poll from Pew Research on 'what do Americans know.' The poll asked 12 questions of voters on current events. Republican respondents outperformed Democrats on 10 of 12 questions. Dems prevailed on 2 questions, but only by tiny margins.
There were a couple of questions where Republicans clearly outpaced Democrats on the answers, but there were some that were just as close as the 2 that Democrats outpaced Republicans on. So to point out that Democrats only prevailed by a tiny margin is a misconception in the grand scheme of the debate. here are the results
Republican /Democrat/Independent
Common Core
58/42/55
North Dakota economy
57/42/49
Sunni Shiites
38/28/29
Prime Minister of Israel
46/37/38
ISIS
72/66/70
Unemployment rat
38/34/33
Government spends the most on
23/20/18
Minimum wage
75/74/73
Chair of the fed
27/26/24
Below poverty line
20/22/22
Ebola 46/51/48
As is the entire notion of the quiz as these questions are not quintessential to human knowledge. This quiz is meant to gauge knowledge of news stories. Not who is smarter, i mean how would knowing that Oil is what caused the boom in North Dakota make you smarter than the next person ?
Democrats took a shellacking in 2010 and 2014, yet emerged victorious in 2008 and 2012. Various Democrat pundits note this, but they never seem to broach the question of why. The fairly obvious answer is that the low info voter has become an important voting block for the Democratic party.
Let me be clear: there are plenty of D partisans out there who are smarter, more informed, and more engaged than me. But the low-info crowd has become an important arrow in the D quiver.
The low info voter will always be with us. It is part and parcel of democracy. How can the GOP turn the tables and appeal to the low info crowd?
They already are, the GOP couldn't win an election without their huge block of low info voters who vote R because their preacher tells them to, or because they fear losing their guns, and have no clue about the myriad of issues facing the US today. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not very well educated on political issues, and vote based on narrow concerns.
You are correct, the low info voter will always be with us, and both sides use this to their advantage. If a politician wants to appeal to a specific group of these voters that generally go with the other party, they have to court, and educate them on how switching sides will benefit them, and the country
They already are, the GOP couldn't win an election without their huge block of low info voters who vote R because their preacher tells them to, or because they fear losing their guns, and have no clue about the myriad of issues facing the US today. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not very well educated on political issues, and vote based on narrow concerns.
You are correct, the low info voter will always be with us, and both sides use this to their advantage. If a politician wants to appeal to a specific group of these voters that generally go with the other party, they have to court, and educate them on how switching sides will benefit them, and the country
I can't much disagree with that. Both sides have their low-info component, but the numbers show that the Democrats excel in this department. Again, even Pres. Obama admitted as much.
Actually, wutitiz, IMO the data demonstrates not so much the Dems win low info voters, but rather they do far better (POTUS) at upper middle income voters in BW vs RW states. They may not win such towns, but look at tonier, higher median income regions around large Northeastern cities, and you see results where they lose towns by 5-15% repeatedly, and in similar demographic Southeastern Bible Belt upscale towns, they lose by 30%+.
I saw it a lot having lived in both a RW and BW region. Winning statewide electoral races is far more about cutting loss margins where you are weak, vs the GOP mistake IMO, which is a focus on running up the score where you are strong. A perfect example of this should be called "Blue bleeding", as if you watched the results in states like Pa 2012 and 2008, instead of just winning Philly, Dems started to turn nearby tony burbs either blue or , at minimum, purple. They cut their losses, leaving too little population to try to offset the spreading out of Philly and Pittsburgh blue vote in depopulated other Pa regions.
I can't much disagree with that. Both sides have their low-info component, but the numbers show that the Democrats excel in this department. Again, even Pres. Obama admitted as much.
The numbers did not prove your point, nor did President Obama make that claim.
Sorry, but the Republicans didn't campain with throwing grandmothers over a cliff, saying the opposing party is going to take away your kid's school lunch, or they want dirty water, dirty air, etc.
As far as who is the "low-information voter party, I doubt the lady standing on the side of the road screaming "e'rbody come and get yo Obama phone" was a Repulican. And I'm pretty sure the lady saying she didn't have to worry about paying her mortgage or putting gas in her car voted for McCain...just sayin'.
Democrats have done that for years of you go back as early as 1964 with Goldwater threatening to cut Social Security or use the bomb in Nam. Nixon did the same with McGovern defense in 1972 as did Reagan with the bear in the woods (Russia) or even Bush with the wolves (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) So it's not like Democrats are the only ones to attack on the low informed voters. I mean Wal-Mart moms voted for Bush and would have voted for Nixon and LBJ.
That makes sense. The current winners are always more satisfied than the losers, so more attention is paid by the current losers to what's going on.
The deer that gets nipped by a wolf is always more alert than the deer that wasn't nipped when the wolf came around. Humans work the same way.
No doubt there is something to that, and it is a good insight. It was palpable how conservative media came alive last Nov. when GOP Senate candidates beat expectations. Again I stress that I'm not trying to make a broad brush portrayal here. There are plenty of people out there on the left such as yourself who have forgotten more about politics and history that I ever learned in the first place.
However, the basic point remains that the appeal to the low info voter has become an important component of campaigning for the Democratic party. Pres. Obama in Iowa in 2008 is still my favorite example. He won by almost doubling turnout, by bringing in voters who had never participated before. Game Change has excellent coverage of Iowa 2008, and how Bill Clinton, who knew Iowa backwards & forwards, was chagrined when he saw turnout numbers coming in. IIRC they thought at one point that the numbers must be in error, that there must have been an electronic glitch somewhere.
Actually, wutitiz, IMO the data demonstrates not so much the Dems win low info voters, but rather they do far better (POTUS) at upper middle income voters in BW vs RW states. They may not win such towns, but look at tonier, higher median income regions around large Northeastern cities, and you see results where they lose towns by 5-15% repeatedly, and in similar demographic Southeastern Bible Belt upscale towns, they lose by 30%+.
I saw it a lot having lived in both a RW and BW region. Winning statewide electoral races is far more about cutting loss margins where you are weak, vs the GOP mistake IMO, which is a focus on running up the score where you are strong. A perfect example of this should be called "Blue bleeding", as if you watched the results in states like Pa 2012 and 2008, instead of just winning Philly, Dems started to turn nearby tony burbs either blue or , at minimum, purple. They cut their losses, leaving too little population to try to offset the spreading out of Philly and Pittsburgh blue vote in depopulated other Pa regions.
This may be true, too. The Eastside Seattle burbs where I live were pretty Red 20 years ago. The US rep here was Jennifer Dunn, a true-believer conservative who named her kid 'Reagan Dunn.' But that was long ago, and the area is now solidly blue. My rep is now Adam Smith (D, WA). The tech industry when I worked in it 25 years ago was filled with libertarians and conservatives. Now it seems to be solidly liberal Democratic.
I also note that, buttressing your theory, IIRC exit polling showed that Obama won among voters with a HS diploma or less. Romney won among 'some college' and bachelor degree holders. And Obama won among those with graduate degrees.
All that said, I don't see these two trends as mutually exclusive. Democrats can appeal to both low info and well-educated, upper income voters. In fact sometimes the two can be one in the same. The CPA or MD working 60 hours/week does not have as much time to follow news as a guy working 40 hours/wk as a blue collar job.
I'll bet those Seattle burbs went from pretty red to mildly red to tossup to slightly blue to solid blue, correct? That is why folks overlook that vital trend. We saw the same thing in Va, with NOVA growing every cycle, to the point now, their Blue margins overwhelm Southern, rural Virginia red margins. In general, the population growth is getting more urban/suburban sprawl in some key states that have reshaped any possible paths to 270.
wutitiz"The CPA or MD working 60 hours/week does not have as much time to follow news as a guy working 40 hours/wk as a blue collar job."
The former is also very often more interested in an economy with a rocking Dow Jones versus slightly lower tax rates, as they know where to put their money to reduce their tax rates anyway, w/o needing brackets changed.
I'll bet those Seattle burbs went from pretty red to mildly red to tossup to slightly blue to solid blue, correct? That is why folks overlook that vital trend. We saw the same thing in Va, with NOVA growing every cycle, to the point now, their Blue margins overwhelm Southern, rural Virginia red margins. In general, the population growth is getting more urban/suburban sprawl in some key states that have reshaped any possible paths to 270.
wutitiz"The CPA or MD working 60 hours/week does not have as much time to follow news as a guy working 40 hours/wk as a blue collar job."
The former is also very often more interested in an economy with a rocking Dow Jones versus slightly lower tax rates, as they know where to put their money to reduce their tax rates anyway, w/o needing brackets changed.
Yes, pretty close. The Eastside Seattle burbs (Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland) were actually pretty mixed 20 years ago, but at least Bellevue was considered Republican turf. Now it is largely blue, although my state senator is still an R.
But the Lord taketh away and the Lord giveth. The GOP lost the Eastside in the past 20 years but gained 31 governorships, the US House, the US Senate, and even the WA state Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.