Perhaps it's time for the Supremes to allow cameras in the courtroom (gasp!). Call it "Reality Justice." Run it on the E Network rather than on C-SPAN. Scalia and Thomas don't have any problem appearing on TV when they're peddling their books. Problem solved.

 

I think that voters today are fairly well informed. The right likes to think the opposite because they're losing with females, young people and non-whites. In other words, the GOP argument is "If people are not voting Republican, it must be because they're not embracing 'the truth.' "

 

I've never brought either party up in this, I'm saying voters aren't educated...not Democratic voters or Republican voters...you are the one that seems to think any discussion of uneducated voters means Democrats...I never said that in any way.

I've never brought either party up in this, I'm saying voters aren't educated...not Democratic voters or Republican voters...you are the one that seems to think any discussion of uneducated voters means Democrats...I never said that in any way.

 

There's plenty of information out there and it's easier to get now than it has ever been. One would think people would be better informed. But spend any amount of time on Facebook or an social media site and look at all the misinformation that exists, and consider the fact that almost every news source has an angle or an agenda they want to promote, it's really tough to get an unbiased news story. If you look hard enough (and really, you don't have to look hard) you can find some article that will support your opinion, and make it really easy to ignore any information that refutes it.

I've never brought either party up in this, I'm saying voters aren't educated...not Democratic voters or Republican voters...you are the one that seems to think any discussion of uneducated voters means Democrats...I never said that in any way.

In the last three or four presidential elections, roughly 54 to 60 percent of eligible voters have cast ballots. Which means that 40 to 46 percent of eligible voters are NOT voting.

 

So perhaps the people you label as "uneducated voters" are actually "uneducated non-voters."

There's plenty of information out there and it's easier to get now than it has ever been. One would think people would be better informed. But spend any amount of time on Facebook or an social media site and look at all the misinformation that exists, and consider the fact that almost every news source has an angle or an agenda they want to promote, it's really tough to get an unbiased news story. If you look hard enough (and really, you don't have to look hard) you can find some article that will support your opinion, and make it really easy to ignore any information that refutes it.

 

One of the reasons I've looked at Facebook maybe once in the last 3 years. Inundated with political junk from friends on both sides of the aisle.

 

Like they're gonna change my mind.

Of all of the categories listed the one that jumps out to me and supports my belief re: Sen McCain and Gov Romney is that the moderates when with President Obama in convincing fashion.

 

Both tried to seem "more conservative" than they were and IMO pushed many over to the other side.

Saw something one time where if Romney could have split the youth vote he would have flipped Ohio, FL, PA and one other state and cruised to victory.

We have to be careful here and not assume that every person making under $30,000 is on some sort of public assistance. I'm guessing a good chunk of the under $30k number is young adults, recent college grads, etc....those who are just starting careers. I think this is just as indicative of the Republican Party failing to resonate with young people as opposed to the poor "sweeping" Obama into office. So while the poor on assistance are part of this group, it's also fair to say they don't make up the whole group. It would be interesting to see actual numbers rather than just percentages, and polling to see how many that are truly on assistance actually voted (I'll accept the fact that most of them probably voted Democrat) to see what the impact actually was.

I never said that everybody with an income of $30,000/year or less is on public assistance, but most people who depend on government handouts do fall into that income class. There is a clear trend among voters that the lower income that a person has, the more likely it is that they are two-time Obama voters.

 

As for raw numbers, anybody who wants to spend a few seconds Googling can find the total votes that Obama received and do the math. I am satisfied that the percentages support my position and do not plan on wasting my time looking up raw votes to satisfy somebody else's curiosity.

Another example of you making something up. Another broad generality not established in fact. Perhaps the GOP should hire analysts to find out why it fares so poorly among young people and women.

Do tell. It is a generally established fact that our education system is broken. Despite a high unemployment rate, IT and other tech workers are flooding into this country to fill high paying jobs that American college graduates are unqualified to perform. I know this is true because I work in the IT field and exactly 50 percent of my project team was born someplace besides the United States.

 

Knowledge of history, government, and current events has little to do with one's level of formal education. Anybody with basic reasoning and reading skills and sufficient interest can become a well informed voter.

 

The fact that the majority of voters having PhDs voted for Obama twice is pretty strong evidence of the disconnect between a formal education and wise voting decisions.

I never said that everybody with an income of $30,000/year or less is on public assistance, but most people who depend on government handouts do fall into that income class. There is a clear trend among voters that the lower income that a person has, the more likely it is that they are two-time Obama voters.

 

As for raw numbers, anybody who wants to spend a few seconds Googling can find the total votes that Obama received and do the math. I am satisfied that the percentages support my position and do not plan on wasting my time looking up raw votes to satisfy somebody else's curiosity.

 

We don't force you to substantiate your claim. That is entirely up to you.

I didn't see any evidence of deception. All one has to do is examine the 2012 GOP national platform. Besides, it doesn't matter whether the "GOP War on Women" is real. What matters is whether the public perceives such to be true and whether the public votes accordingly.

 

Women voted for Obama over McCain and Romney by 14 points(!) in both '08 and '12, despite the stellar campaigning of Sarah Palin.

I am sure that you saw no issue with the dishonest Obama campaign tactics. It is part of the Alinsky game plan and Obama is executing it well.

Do tell. It is a generally established fact that our education system is broken. Despite a high unemployment rate, IT and other tech workers are flooding into this country to fill high paying jobs that American college graduates are unqualified to perform. I know this is true because I work in the IT field and exactly 50 percent of my project team was born someplace besides the United States.

 

Knowledge of history, government, and current events has little to do with one's level of formal education. Anybody with basic reasoning and reading skills and sufficient interest can become a well informed voter.

 

The fact that the majority of voters having PhDs voted for Obama twice is pretty strong evidence of the disconnect between a formal education and wise voting decisions.

 

Evidence? For your definition of "wise voting decision," I suppose you can call it that.

We don't force you to substantiate your claim. That is entirely up to you.

I already illustrated the deceptive numbers used to support the original claim that Obama voters are smarter than Romney voters. If you or anybody else wants more information, then you are as capable as I am to do your own research. My claim has been substantiated to my satisfaction.

I never said that everybody with an income of $30,000/year or less is on public assistance, but most people who depend on government handouts do fall into that income class. There is a clear trend among voters that the lower income that a person has, the more likely it is that they are two-time Obama voters.

 

As for raw numbers, anybody who wants to spend a few seconds Googling can find the total votes that Obama received and do the math. I am satisfied that the percentages support my position and do not plan on wasting my time looking up raw votes to satisfy somebody else's curiosity.

 

As do most young people under 30, just out of college, beginning careers, etc, most of which aren't on assistance. Which also supports the claim that Republicans aren't connecting with young people either. But we are talking subsections of subsections. And taking the poor, on assistance out of the mix, still doesn't result in an Obama loss in 2012. Again, that group doesn't make up a large percentage of actual voters. Was it a factor?? Certainly, and I can't and will not try to debate that fact, but it was by far not the only or largest factor in Obama winning the election. And to blame it strictly on the poor, welfare recipients ignores the perception (right or wrong) that people have about the Republican Party being very exclusive and out of touch with the common man.

Yes, there are so many older voters who did not make it to their first year of high school. That is certainly a key demographic that shows low information voters voted for Obama. :lol2:

 

The demographic that handed Obama his win was the voters who earn less that $30,000/year. In other words, the voters who depend on government handouts overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

 

Given the rapid disintegration of the Obama presidency, it is pretty apparent that low information voting is not directly linked to one's level of academic achievement. At least many Obama voters have been smart enough to finally beginning to admit their mistakes.

 

I already illustrated the deceptive numbers used to support the original claim that Obama voters are smarter than Romney voters. If you or anybody else wants more information, then you are as capable as I am to do your own research. My claim has been substantiated to my satisfaction.

The second paragraph of the first post quoted is the claim that you made that remains unsubstantiated. It's an opinion that you are entitled to, but if you only need to validate it to yourself, why bother posting it?

As do most young people under 30, just out of college, beginning careers, etc, most of which aren't on assistance. Which also supports the claim that Republicans aren't connecting with young people either. But we are talking subsections of subsections. And taking the poor, on assistance out of the mix, still doesn't result in an Obama loss in 2012. Again, that group doesn't make up a large percentage of actual voters. Was it a factor?? Certainly, and I can't and will not try to debate that fact, but it was by far not the only or largest factor in Obama winning the election. And to blame it strictly on the poor, welfare recipients ignores the perception (right or wrong) that people have about the Republican Party being very exclusive and out of touch with the common man.

To add to it, according to the statistics that Randy Parker provided earlier, it would appear that Obama won the largest percentage of votes for all categories of education except one.