I actually don't dislike the President as a person although he does come across as arrogant at times. I just don't think he is/was qualified to be President. It is the people who propped him up and those who blindly voted for him that I have an issue with. (Which means some did not blindly vote for him, and I respect their right to have an opinion.)

 

I have no doubt there is a startling number of people who vote with little knowledge or who would vote for one candidate or another based solely on the letter next to their name. I also know there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who disagree over candidates and issues as well. Intelligent people are also prone to have biases and emotions that cloud their judgement.

 

I think that's why debate and discussion are good, it forces people to deal with their blind spots or at least hash out a middle ground between positions so that one extreme or another doesn't win out. One of the underlying problems with political polarization in this country is the assumption that "the other side" are misguided neanderthals (there has always been a degree of this, but I think a combination of the internet and a growing sports-type culture in politics has exacerbated it). It creates a climate where this debate/discussion doesn't occur. More people are more comfortable finding voices that agree with their own opinions and interaction with the "other side" ends up being limited to insults. I think this is something that's been increasingly evident on here as well.

 

In short, it's a problematic assumption to think that everyone who votes a different way or disagrees with a position are morons who've been duped. I remember identical phrasing about Bush voters that I'm hearing now about Obama voters, it's just coming from different people now.

I think people vote their wallet more than they ever have. Just like doomer's point about this friends and their civil engineering firm, those on assistance will continue to vote for the assistance. I'm sure that someone will poo poo that sentiment, but I think it's common sense as generations of voters who see the generation before them rely on assistance are going to do what they need to do to stay on assitance. yep, broad brush I know. No stats or links, just everyday interaction with those on aid.

I have no doubt there is a startling number of people who vote with little knowledge or who would vote for one candidate or another based solely on the letter next to their name. I also know there are intelligent, knowledgeable people who disagree over candidates and issues as well. Intelligent people are also prone to have biases and emotions that cloud their judgement.

 

I think that's why debate and discussion are good, it forces people to deal with their blind spots or at least hash out a middle ground between positions so that one extreme or another doesn't win out. One of the underlying problems with political polarization in this country is the assumption that "the other side" are misguided neanderthals (there has always been a degree of this, but I think a combination of the internet and a growing sports-type culture in politics has exacerbated it). It creates a climate where this debate/discussion doesn't occur. More people are more comfortable finding voices that agree with their own opinions and interaction with the "other side" ends up being limited to insults. I think this is something that's been increasingly evident on here as well.

 

In short, it's a problematic assumption to think that everyone who votes a different way or disagrees with a position are morons who've been duped. I remember identical phrasing about Bush voters that I'm hearing now about Obama voters, it's just coming from different people now.

 

I was going to say something like this. Not as eloquently but I was going to attempt to make this point.

I have no doubt there is a startling number of people who vote with little knowledge.

 

It would be interesting (or possibly scary?) if voters took simple quizzes to test their knowledge of the candidates and what position they take on the issues.

 

Several decades ago (1970's maybe??) there was a group called "Don't Vote" I believe and their premise was if you are not going to take the time to educate yourself of the candidates, don't vote. I think wide spread voting is so important to democracy that I really cannot back this idea but I can certainly understand it.

I think people vote their wallet more than they ever have. Just like doomer's point about this friends and their civil engineering firm, those on assistance will continue to vote for the assistance. I'm sure that someone will poo poo that sentiment, but I think it's common sense as generations of voters who see the generation before them rely on assistance are going to do what they need to do to stay on assitance. yep, broad brush I know. No stats or links, just everyday interaction with those on aid.

Anecdotal information too often is misleading. Obama got 69.5 million votes in '08 and 65.9 million votes in '12 -- after the honeymoon long had ended. (His win in '12 was actually more impressive than '08.) Why? Was it because of the support the president received from people on assistance? That's ridiculous. Or was this a result of the GOP shrinking its tent more and more every year? I think the answer lies with the latter.

It would be interesting (or possibly scary?) if voters took simple quizzes to test their knowledge of the candidates and what position they take on the issues.

 

Several decades ago (1970's maybe??) there was a group called "Don't Vote" I believe and their premise was if you are not going to take the time to educate yourself of the candidates, don't vote. I think wide spread voting is so important to democracy that I really cannot back this idea but I can certainly understand it.

Democracy is the most unappreciated opportunity us Americans are given. It is not taken seriously nor is it valued like it is virtually every other country. Heck, I would say people in many countries take our elections more seriously than most in this country.

I would suggest anyone who believed Obama on his health care law voted blindly because all the problems we are having were stated in many sources people just down played that information by calling those people loons. I can show you links to articles right before and right after the law was passed that said the Obama statement of you could keep that plan was a bold face lie. People chose to believe him anway.

Anecdotal information too often is misleading. Obama got 69.5 million votes in '08 and 65.9 million votes in '12 -- after the honeymoon long had ended. (His win in '12 was actually more impressive than '08.) Why? Was it because of the support the president received from people on assistance? That's ridiculous. Or was this a result of the GOP shrinking its tent more and more every year? I think the answer lies with the latter.

And again, I never said people on assistance got the president elected. I stand by my premise. You can spin it however you choose.

Just for slow day reading, maybe this article 101M Get Food Aid from Federal Gov?t; Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers | CNS News is enough to support my premise. To say that the number of those on assistance hasn't increased is a falsehood. To think that those who've grown up in that lifestyle won't vote to continue that lifestyle is absurd.

Just for slow day reading, maybe this article 101M Get Food Aid from Federal Gov?t; Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers | CNS News is enough to support my premise. To say that the number of those on assistance hasn't increased is a falsehood. To think that those who've grown up in that lifestyle won't vote to continue that lifestyle is absurd.

 

Why? Take Owsley county for instance. It's routinely the poorest, most impoverished county in the country and government assistance is its lifeblood. But, they overwhelmingly vote Republican there and have for a long time. That's true for most poor counties in the South.

 

Seniors tend to vote more conservatively, yet they are also highly likely to receive government assistance. They also tend to separate that assistance from other issues when voting.

 

It's just more complicated than government assistance and I think it reinforces the mindset that "the other side votes the way they do because they are duped."

It's just more complicated than government assistance and I think it reinforces the mindset that "the other side votes the way they do because they are duped."

 

I don't disagree. I can tell you this, I know firsthand having dealt with those on assistance for going on 20 years that they vote to keep the card. Does that play a role nationally? I don't know. Short of exit polls, how will we ever know how many folks on assistance voted for which candidate/party. Do you see the numbers increasing? Do you think it's not beyond argument that those on assistance vote to ensure that the party/candidate who promotes assitance will be elected? I didn't say that those on assistance got Obama elected. Not once.

Why? Take Owsley county for instance. It's routinely the poorest, most impoverished county in the country and government assistance is its lifeblood. But, they overwhelmingly vote Republican there and have for a long time. That's true for most poor counties in the South.

 

Seniors tend to vote more conservatively, yet they are also highly likely to receive government assistance. They also tend to separate that assistance from other issues when voting.

 

It's just more complicated than government assistance and I think it reinforces the mindset that "the other side votes the way they do because they are duped."

 

I'm not sure a rural county in Kentucky compares socially or in any other way with people on assistance in a large urban area....say LA, Chicago, Detroit. How did they vote?

Just for slow day reading, maybe this article 101M Get Food Aid from Federal Gov?t; Outnumber Full-Time Private Sector Workers | CNS News is enough to support my premise. To say that the number of those on assistance hasn't increased is a falsehood. To think that those who've grown up in that lifestyle won't vote to continue that lifestyle is absurd.

More than half of this 101M figure you cited in the Brent Bozell piece appear to be kids under 18.

I'm not sure a rural county in Kentucky compares socially or in any other way with people on assistance in a large urban area....say LA, Chicago, Detroit. How did they vote?

 

Why is it that you believe that those in urban areas vote based on government assistance and that those in equally poor rural areas don't?

More than half of this 101M figure you cited in the Brent Bozell piece appear to be kids under 18.

Who grow up in that cycle and get to vote soon. Which is my entire point.