11/19/2008 08:59:41 AM EST

Low Info Voters

posted by Qwerty

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< Pirates Anyone? | Let's Create the Real Bush Presidential Library >
 Display:
Low Info Voters | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
So where's the Republican version? (5.00 / 3)

If you were at all honest, qwerty (and we know that you aren't), you would also post a movie showing just as many Republican's being interviewed who don't know Republican headline grabbers like Ted Stevens or Mark Foley or Jack Abramoff or Bob Ney or Randy Cunningham or David Vitter or...

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=4Wroj0FLvzs

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=VJghQMq49dw

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=4QYwsM17a2M

And then, of course, there's the shining intellectual brilliance of the Republicans themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=i7pJGr8n5Q0

http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=kcj_Jsifov4

Why bother posting at all, qwerty?

by EveningStarNM on 11/19/2008 10:27:54 AM EST

Repukelican version? (1.00 / 2)
If you were at all honest, qwerty (and we know that you aren't), you would also post a movie showing just as many Republican's being interviewed who don't know Republican headline grabbers like Ted Stevens or Mark Foley or Jack Abramoff or Bob Ney or Randy Cunningham or David Vitter or...

No. First, these are Obama voters, not necessarily Democrats. To be fair, McCain voters would have to be asked the same questions. Judging by the lack of knowledge exhibited on the easy questions, these Obama voters would not have been able to answer any question about Jack Abramoff or anyone else on your little list, so it would not change anything if McCain voters were equally ignorant.

You seem to be missing the bigger point here. This video is further evidence that most American voters are poorly informed about the very people for whom they just voted. This is an indictment of the news media that managed to disseminate stories about Palin's wardrobe malfunction and the fecundity of her eldest daughter, but failed to present to its audience any but the most panglossian depiction of The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.

Why bother posting at all, qwerty?

Maybe this blog post will get the attention of someone at the show and he/she will get John Ziegler, the man behind this video and a companion Zogby poll, to agree to be interviewed on air.

by Qwerty on 11/19/2008 12:24:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But that wasn't your original point, was it? (5.00 / 4)

"...most American voters are poorly informed about the very people for whom they just voted."

You didn't say that.  All you did was present a clip depicting Obama voters as ignorant.  Since Obama did not win the popular vote by a wide margin (although he did beat Bush Jr. in both of his elections and Reagan in his first election), showing that the electorate is relatively narrowly split, it would only be fair to include McCain supporters.

Your later later attempt to make the a statement about the news media is overshadowed by your initial inaccuracy and unfairness.  It's that consistent and constant dishonesty of the right wing that bugs me the most.

by EveningStarNM on 11/19/2008 02:46:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Point (1.00 / 2)
... initial inaccuracy and unfairness.

I posted the video without comment. And you call that inaccurate and unfair? You are stupid.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 07:14:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, it's unfair. (4.33 / 6)

But you wouldn't understand, and I really don't expect you to.  Being unethical by nature, why would you?

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 09:33:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, let's start from the beginning... (5.00 / 3)

Ken, I've already conceded that you don't get it.  Why do you insist on proving it?

But even though I know you can't understand:

Qwety posted a video showing only Obama voters saying that they don't know the answers to some questions from a poll designed to test an argumentative strategy by right-wingers.  (It should be noted that the poll included questions that were deceptive and, in one case, had no correct answer.  However, I disagree with Nate Silver's characterization of the poll as a "push poll"; it wasn't designed to sway the opinion of the respondents.  It is, instead, similar to a "message test".  It is not a true poll in that it doesn't represent the state of knowledge of the electorate or even of Obama voters, as John Ziegler would wish us to believe.  I think it's easy to argue that the "margin of error" for the "poll" is very much higher than 4%, especially given that some of the questions have false assumptions.)

It should be noted that Zogby insists that the poll "was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election."  This statement is, of course, ludicrous, given the nature of the questions.

John Ziegler, who commissioned the poll, has admitted that he had a malicious motive to denigrate Obama supporters in order to promote his new movie "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected", which is designed to make right-wingers feel better about themselves.  (Ziegler calls the movie a "documentary".&nb sp; I haven't seen it, so I can't say.  But given the unjustifiably biased nature of promotions for the movie, I think calling it a "documentary" would be giving it too much credit.)

So we have Qwerty helping to promote an unethical movie.  And he lied when he said that he posted the movie without commentary.  Clearly the fact that the clip shows only Obama voters admitting that they don't know the answers to some questions, his title "Low Info Voters" cannot then be presumed to be unbiased.  The title alone is commentary.  Besides, we know Qwerty, and we know his motives, just like we know you and your motives.

What I can't figure out is why he told such a transparent lie.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 10:55:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please explain (5.00 / 2)

How is pointing out the obvious an "ad hominem attack"?

First, I've offered evidence (well, actually you have offered the evidence) of your psychopathy.  ; And I don't recall saying that bobo1 is delusional, although I probably have thought that on occasion since he does suffer from crippling cynicism.

But I've never said that "acroso is demonic" or that "Twba is the devil incarnate".  I don't believe in demons or devils, even in the case of those illogical, maladjusted ignorami.

Besides, just because you're a bad person doesn't mean that you're not also stupid.  An ad hominem attack is an argument of bad character being used in place of a relevant counter-argument.  But when a relevant counter-argument is presented, even when accompanied by a criticism of one's character, then there was no ad hominem violation of logic.

But you would have to understand logic to get that, and you never have.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 12:44:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
:) Whatever you say, Ken. (5.00 / 2)

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 03:47:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Excellent point (3.00 / 2)
For example, higher up in this thread I pointed out how the media relentlessly beat up Obama with endless coverage of Wright and Ayers (with barely a peep on Hagee, The Keating 5, Palin's Church, etc.).

And THEN I added my insult.

by Tom Hanc on 11/20/2008 12:51:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maths (3.00 / 2)
I think it's easy to argue that the "margin of error" for the "poll" is very much higher than 4%, especially given that some of the questions have false assumptions.

The quality of the questions has no bearing on the 95 percent confidence interval, better known as margin of error, which is based on population and sample size.

by Twba on 11/20/2008 02:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Puleeeze (4.20 / 4)

I have a poll with two questions with which I will gather answers from a random sampling of 1500 American adults from 3000 telephone calls:

1. Do you prefer the color green or the color purple?
(a) Green
(b) Purple

2. Have you stopped beating your mother yet?
(a) Yes
(b) No

The MOE for the first question will be around 4%.  The MOE for the second question will be close to 50%.

Your contention that "the quality of the questions has no bearing" on the confidence interval is foolish, at best.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 04:01:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maths II (none / 1)
Your contention that "the quality of the questions has no bearing" on the confidence interval is foolish, at best.

No. It's basic mathematics. With a population over 200 million and a sample size of 1,500, the margin of error for both questions is +/-2.5 percent.

by Twba on 11/20/2008 04:37:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I give up. (5.00 / 3)

Now you're not making any sense at all.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 04:43:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's simple (none / 1)
I have a poll with two questions with which I will gather answers from a random sampling of 1500 American adults...

There are over 200 million American adults. Your sample size is 1,500. Your margin of error is +/-2.5 percent. The quality of the questions doesn't change the margin of error.

by Twba on 11/20/2008 04:51:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's just plain dumb. (4.20 / 4)

If the questions don't make any sense and the poll is absolutely unrealiable because it doesn't represent the population at all, what is the error rate then?

I'm really sick and tired of trying to discuss anything with people like you who have turned off their brains.  Except that you aren't simply dumb.  You're also deliberately avoiding the issue, and that makes you a liar.  And since you have chosen to lie to me, I have only one response:

Go fuck yourself.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 06:18:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wish I could rate this comment (5.00 / 3)
as "Projection".&nbs p; Oh well...

by Spencer on 11/20/2008 06:32:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What???? (5.00 / 3)

See, that's what you idiots don't understand.  Logic is mathematical.  It has a precise language and method.  But you people twist a bunch of crap and then try to claim it's logic.

Calling it that doesn't make it that.  You've made yourselves irrelevant.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 08:43:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maths III (none / 0)
I did not lie to you. I calculated the margin of error for your suggested poll. Any statistics textbook contains the equation I used to arrive at the number. That equation doesn't change if the poll questions make sense or not.

by Twba on 11/23/2008 11:57:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I minored in math. (5.00 / 3)

I got A's in statistics.  Think of yourself as Bob in this story:

Jim turns to Bob and says, "You know, I'm tired of going through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I'll go to the community college, and sign up for some classes."  Bob thinks it's a good idea, and the two leave.

The next day, Jim goes down to the college and meets the Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, history, and Logic.

"Logic?" Jim says. "What's that?" The dean says, "I'll show you. Do you own a weedeater?"

"Yeah."

"Then logically speaking, because you own a weedeater, I think that you would have a yard."

"That's true, I do have a yard."

"I'm not done," the dean says.  "Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house."

"Yes, I do have a house."

"And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family."

"I have a family."

"I'm not done yet.  Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife."

"Yes, I do have a wife."

"And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual."

"I am a heterosexual.  That's amazing, you were able to find out all of that because I have a weedeater."

Excited to take the class now, Jim shakes the Dean's hand and leaves to go meet Bob at the bar.  He tells Bob about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.

"Logic?" Bob says, "What's that?"

Jim says, "I'll show you.  Do you have a weedeater?"

"No," explains Bob.
"Then you're a queer."

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 10:43:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Disbelief (none / 0)
I got A's in statistics.

I don't believe you did.

by Twba on 11/24/2008 12:44:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fine. (5.00 / 2)

You're allowed to believe anything you want.  For instance, you're also allowed to believe that the poll in question is viable and reliable.  But don't be surprised when your opponents judge your intelligence by your beliefs.  People believe all sorts of crazy things in contradiction to facts.  That you choose to demonstrate that fact is actually quite entertaining.

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 03:18:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally (none / 0)
You didn't ace statistics. You don't know enough to credibly fake it. You should have stuck to juvenile insults, rather than bragging about imaginary educational achievements.

by Twba on 11/24/2008 04:02:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Once again,... (5.00 / 2)

...you've drifted off into your netherworld where logic doesn't exist.

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 07:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You wouldn't understand, Ken. (5.00 / 2)

It involves math and books and actual learning.  But I will admit that I'm getting pretty tired of this thread.  All that Twba has done is to avoid responding to the original issue.  He doesn't want to respond to it.  He will do anything he can to avoid it.  He wants to avoid confronting the issue of whether or not the poll by Zogby and designed by the right-wing nutcase John Ziegler is valid or not.  Even you avoided directly answering that issue, Ken.  Even you attempted to divert that discussion.

So, if people are looking, they'll see that, Ken, and they'll know that is the act of a dishonest person.  And that's you, Ken.

Dishonest.

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 11:29:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry man (none / 0)

I'm a straight shooter.

If you thrived in mathematics (especially in statistics and logic) you would know what TWBA is talking about.

Stop right now because you are embarrassing yourself Ken style.

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 08:11:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huh? (5.00 / 2)
I beg to differ.  What you folks seem to think is the formula for calculating the MoE is not all there is to it.  And what you probably think is the formula, isn't.  Please read on.

Twba is claiming that the poll is reliable and viable when it contains misleading questions and at least one question that has no correct answer.  Also, Twba apparently does not understand that a poll can be designed that has a 100% margin of error (MoE), i.e. a poll that is guaranteed to give a wrong answer.  If he does think such a poll can be designed, I'm willing to bet that he can't account for it in his simplified STAT 101 formula for calculating the MoE.  (Twba also apparently does not understand that a poll can be designed which is absolutely unreliable, but I'll limit my discussion here to MoE.)

Amateurs often assume that the MoE is a function of the relative sample size in relation to the universe.  Those that understand this is false will still insist that the MoE is dependent only on the absolute sample size, given a desired confidence level.

Amateurs often will not understand the MoE has as much to do with methodology and context as on the absolute sample size.  This is why not all polls of 1000 people have an MoE of 3%.  An accurate calculation of the MoE does not ignore response-distorting effects, such as the inability of respondents to provide a correct answer to a question because none exists even though the results of the poll are evaluated as if a correct answer does exist.

There is substantial literature showing how deviations from the assumptions (or ''hypotheses'') of MoE calculations can change the value of an MoE.  While I'll leave research into that topic as an excercise for the student, I will mention that those factors include:
 
-- the number of possible responses,

-- factors accounted for or ignored while formulating questions,

-- response rates vs. refusals,

-- the quality of responses, i.e., respondents' honesty, the ambiguity of questions, possibility of misinterpretation, etc.

-- fixed poll sizes for either independent or rolling (''tracking'') trials

-- honest reporting

-- factors that compose the sampling method (e.g., replacement, randomness, selection bias, independence of responses, etc.)

All of these factors influence the MoE, and can be accounted for in calculating the MoE.  Unfortunately, they are almost never covered in STAT 101 because they're somewhat advanced, so you folks might not understand them.

In summary, the margin of error is not simply calculated as:

MoE = SQRT(p * (1-p) / n) * 2s

This is simply the elementary -- albeit useful -- formula you're shown in STAT 101, except that the 2s is usually replaced by the value 1.96 in order to establish an assumed 95% confidence interval.  Please note that 2s (s = standard deviation) is NOT always necessarily equal to 1.96.  That value is usually simply a choice of the person designing the poll and can lead to all sorts of inaccurate calculations of the actual MoE.  The actual calculation of s depends upon the factors that I cited above.

So, if you don't mind, I'd really like to get back to the original topic which Twba is so desperate to ignore. Twba still has not responded to that issue:  The poll that began this discussion is invalid.  To say otherwise is either a lie or pure ignorance.

Now, you were commenting about my understanding of statistics...?

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 10:23:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (5.00 / 2)

Our next lesson will be on the use of binomial distributions in queue simulations as applied to supermarket checkout lanes and the advancement of various blood particulates through capillaries in various locations throughout the body.  Hopefully, we'll have time before the end of the semester to cover three-dimensional integration as used in software used to design sailboat hulls.  (I've made a lot of money doing these kinds of calculations.)

by EveningStarNM on 11/24/2008 11:47:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There are a (none / 0)

million and one variables you can put in any statistical analysis. That is why we rely on the basics and/or Occam's razor. Which is what statisticians figured out a long time ago

Please, trust me, the people you are talking to have taken the same classes you have and more.

For the love of God stop, you sound silly. 

by z1p101 on 11/25/2008 12:02:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay, Professor (5.00 / 2)

Please help me.  I'm always willing to learn.  Can two similar tests with identical sample sizes from the same population have different margins of error?

What is the margin of error for a poll consisting of the question "Does 2+2 equal 5 or 6?"  Is a normal distribution useful in evaluating this poll?

How would you quantify a test's and validity?  Is the simple margin of error calculation, where the multiplier is 1.96 standard errors with a 95% confidence level all we need to quantify a test's reliability? (2s dammit; I don't care if it's not 95% because it's fucking late and 2s really is simpler to explain, especially since I -- like at least one professor that I know -- don't start with the level, but calculate it later.  You might as well say that the margin of error for a population of 1000 with 95% confidence and a perfectly reliable and valid test is actually 3.1%, but nobody says that, do they?)

You don't permit the quantification either of reliability or of validity.  Well, sometimes Occam's Razor leads you to the wrong answer, and I don't feel embarrassed at all.  As it turns out, sometimes a factor of 1.96 doesn't yield a 95% confidence level, nor (as you probably prefer it) vice versa.


And I'm still waiting for a response to my original statement that the Zogby poll is invalid.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2008 02:53:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Validity (none / 0)
Twba is claiming that the poll is reliable and viable when it contains misleading questions and at least one question that has no correct answer.

That question does have a correct answer. None of the candidates claimed to see Alaska from her house. One percent answered correctly. 86.9 percent incorrectly answered Palin. Ziegler chose to count those as correct because it fits his purposes.

The poll results are here. The poll appears to be quite good.

by Twba on 11/25/2008 02:49:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're a liar (5.00 / 2)

"None" was not one of the answers offered to the respondents, and I think you know that.

by EveningStarNM on 11/25/2008 02:55:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Shaadup stupid (none / 0)
You have no idea what people are talking about here either.

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 08:24:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

you really want to go here? I already told you that the Supreme Court warned of the possible repercussions of laws like this and and believe me people are keeping a list of disenfranchised voters for a rainy day.

Never mind that. Lets keep this simple because that subject is too complicated for a simpleton like ken.

Lets look at Ken giving me a news flash.

News Flash! (none / 0)

George W Bush is not running for re-election in 2008!

Details at 11:00 o'clock. by KenTX on 06/20/2007 08:50:03 AM EST

Lets look at what really happened.

reality sucks 

 George Bush was a boat anchor around the Republican party's neck. Just like I told you for 2 years but you didn't want to belive me.

I'll tell you what. When Republicans start winning again you let me know. Until then STFU and take it like a man. 

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 11:40:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One of the best! (none / 0)

I just NOW came across your weedeater comment !

Fucking Awesome!

And it comes complete with belly laughs...truths are funny that way...

by opiman000 on 08/02/2009 02:09:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Inconsistant, even within one thread (none / 1)
"And thank you for holding up a mirror to this forum with the YouTube video you posted in this thread."


This ad hominum attack was later followed by:

"KenTX is psycopathic, Bobo is delusional, Acroso is demonic, Twba is the devil incarnate. Have you ever heard the term "ad hominum attack"?"

BTW, I'm still waiting to meet a social conservative who isn't racist.  Every social conservative I knew during my 30 years in Texas was a racist.  How many times have you and your friends screamed about the "nigger" in the White House in the last couple of weeks Ken?

I'm well aware of you guys say behind close doors among "good company."

Also, one of the PhDs I work with is a fiscal conservative.  And we get along great, because his ideas are based on reason, instead of the hairsplitting, frothy mouthed hatred of liberals that drives your ilk.

by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 01:09:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Congratulating your own sockpuppet? (3.00 / 2)
Come on Ken.  You know that TYT listeners are more familiar with Right-wing echo chamber talking points than the average Joe on the street-which is exactly what this "quiz" was all about.  So your comment about "holding up a mirror" just shows how limited your ability is to properly analyze a situation

I've known a few stupid liberals, but at the same time, I've known a HELL of a lot of stupid conservatives (I'm originally from Texas too).  I'm currently in a PhD program for cellular/molecular/developm ental biology, and the Obama supporter/McCain supporter ratio is close to 10:1 (and I'm stretching that number by including staff besides the faculty that already hold doctorates and graduate students).  I'm sure these people are all stupid too, huh Ken/Qwerty?

by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 08:25:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm (none / 0)
Their user IDs are very similar...

by desertpear on 11/21/2008 04:08:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you, Ken. (1.00 / 2)
You're a great American.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 10:21:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
To be in the ''TYT Hall of Fame''... (3.67 / 5)

...wouldn't other TYT members have to agree?

Now, if you were to say call it "KenTX's Hall of Fame", I wouldn't argue.  Besides, it would be nice to have all of the nutcases you named who are just aimlessly wandering around here in one place where we can keep an eye on them.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 10:59:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If (none / 0)
If your point is that the average voter from both parties knows almost nothing about politics all I have to say is "Of Coooooourse!"

If the point was that Obama voters were especially dumb, I couldn't disagree more. I have to give the edge to the people at the McCain/Palin rallies on that one. Because not only were they uninformed, but they were also (dangerously) misinformed, and angry.

by Tom Hanc on 11/19/2008 12:48:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll spell it out for you. (1.00 / 3)
If your point is...

The point is these people who voted for The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers don't know anything about him, but they know all about Sarah Palin's teenage pregnant daughter. The media did a terrible job of informing the electorate. The electorate did a terrible job of seeking information.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 10:20:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hilarious (none / 0)
Right, right, you know now that you mention it, the mainstream media NEVER covered Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright.

By contrast they talked about McCain's Reverend Hagee and the Keating 5 day after day after day.

Idiot.

by Tom Hanc on 11/20/2008 11:03:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I had to laugh, too. (5.00 / 3)

What I don't get is how these right-wingers can't see their own biases.  I'll admit that I saw more "favorable" news articles about Obama in the NYTimes and WaPost than I did articles favorable to McCain (I think WaPost even admitted to it, but I can't find the link).  But that is not proof of bias.  It's evidence that there was more favorable news for Obama than there was for McCain, an observation that doesn't surprise me in the least.

And while these right-wingers want to talk about Ayers and Wright all day long, I've never heard them talk about Hagee and the Keating Five other than to say they're irrelevant.  That is proof of bias.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 12:27:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Some truth (none / 0)

the media does fail to inform voters by and large, but given the saturation coverage of this past election, some of the blame surely rests with voters. If you are sincere in your belief that voters didn't know enough about the people they voted for, you must admit that their choice was based on knowing enough about the GOP to make the correct choice. They clearly didn't know enough about GWB in the last two elections or he never would have been elected. So I guess in some small way you have a point.

 This is an indictment of the news media that managed to disseminate stories about Palin's wardrobe malfunction and the fecundity of her eldest daughter, but failed to present to its audience any but the most panglossian depiction of The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.

How absurd. Palin's daughter was talked about, sure. But she was never an issue or an impediment to Palin's election. And you accusation that the media didn't cover Bill Ayers is simply laughable. Bill Ayers was ubiquitous for the last 2 weeks of the election, even though he wasn't running for office. Don't you get it? People. Don't. Care.

You're not a closer, man. Coffee's not for you.

by hazmat on 11/20/2008 10:34:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Possibility (none / 1)
If you are sincere in your belief that voters didn't know enough about the people they voted for, you must admit that their choice was based on knowing enough about the GOP to make the correct choice. They clearly didn't know enough about GWB in the last two elections or he never would have been elected.

Could it be that they knew enough about Al Gore and John Kerry to make the correct choice?

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 11:30:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Could it be... (5.00 / 3)

...that there was no Republican manipulation of those elections at all?  Could it be that Bush actually beat Gore and Kerry?

You would have to believe that a majority of the American people are pretty stupid in order to make that claim.  I don't believe that.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 12:51:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Believe (none / 1)
You would have to believe that a majority of the American people are pretty stupid in order to make that claim.

Half of Americans are below median.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 01:03:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What ''median''? (5.00 / 3)

I'll assume you're talking about IQ.  So, you're contention is that if someone has a IQ below average then they are necessarily stupid?

George W. Bush is reported to have an IQ that is somewhat above average, yet many people -- if not most people -- believe him to be a very stupid man.  Yet I know people who appear to be a little "slower" than most others, but they still come up with the correct answers.

A low IQ is not a sign of stupidity, any more than a high IQ means that someone is smart.  The point you're trying to make can't actually be made.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 04:10:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah in 2000, anyway (none / 1)
when they chose Gore.

by richardshort2001 on 11/20/2008 01:10:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Got Brain? ya moran (none / 1)

by hazmat on 11/19/2008 10:36:32 AM EST

Low Info Posters (none / 1)
See above.  Snerk.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 11/19/2008 10:48:07 AM EST

Low Impact Voters (none / 1)

"AP - Millions of Republican voters voted on November 4th and had little to no impact on our government.  They are now bitching and whining and blaming the media for their inability to convince America to continue the same stupid shit that has not worked for the past 8 years."

P.S. - I would like to note that I posted that without commentary, so I am not being at all unethical.

by richardshort2001 on 11/20/2008 11:21:51 AM EST

Hah (none / 0)
You know what really must be pissing off Ken and Co. is the fact that just a few short years ago, a completely fraudulent story, such as Ashley Todd's "Obama supporter attack" claim, would have been given real traction in the media.  It would have been played for several days, and then a tiny footnote would have been made saying the story was in fact, incorrect.  Most Americans would have heard about the attack, and very few would have known it was bullshit.

It must be disheartening to know that just a short while ago, you could have "catapulted" your propaganda, no matter how ludicrous, into the mainstream media.

That's why Ken and this ethical and honest Ziegler fellow are so frustrated; they can scream all day on Fox News and the right-wing radio stations now, but this doesn't magically translate into mainstream coverage for them.


by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 01:37:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's not a problem with your will to attack (none / 0)
I'm sure the right-wingers will be attempting to concoct stories like the Vince Foster farce, or paying IL state troopers to implicate Obama (like Scaife did in Arkansas).

Unlike the 90s though, there is an organized left (thanks to the tubes on the internets) which puts pressure on the mainstream media to keep them honest (since the 70s, there was a steady rightwing pressure on the media, with little or no pushback from the left).

Why do you think Novak screamed about bloggers so much?  They stepped in and provided the fact-checking that was so very very absent in the mainstream media.  And as we all know, the facts have a liberal bias.

That's the difference now.  You can concoct whatever stories you want, but you're going to have a much harder time making them "mainstream."

by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 03:37:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberal bias (none / 0)
Why do you think Novak screamed about bloggers so much?  They stepped in and provided the fact-checking that was so very very absent in the mainstream media.  And as we all know, the facts have a liberal bias.

And yet it was ultra-liberal Dan Rather who got fired when bloggers exposed his lies.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 03:53:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And in a fact-checking environment... (none / 1)
Newspeople who vet their stories will do better.  Hence the problem with you "catapulting" manufactured stories.  I noticed you haven't contested this point.

In the wild and wooly 90s, Matt Drudge could put up any "developing" or "anonymous source" story and it would get media play.  That game won't work nearly as well, or at all, now.

by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 04:00:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you serious? (none / 0)
In the wild and wooly 90s, Matt Drudge could put up any "developing" or "anonymous source" story and it would get media play.  That game won't work nearly as well, or at all, now.

Yeah, sure, and those weren't anonymous sources telling us that Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent?

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 04:10:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0)
And which "news" organization was releasing the story about Africa and Palin?

by twalters0 on 11/20/2008 04:13:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wall to wall coverage (none / 0)
What news organization didn't pound that anonymously sourced story down our throats?

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 04:18:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Sunshine Boys (none / 0)

Yes, Rush Limbaugh and his geriatric 20 million listener a week army are going to go out and convince everyone what a horrible president Obama is.

Armed only with a walker and a crackly transister radio they will dominate the world.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the "drive by media" (who reaches a slightly larger audience btw) will have nothing but good things to say about Obama because it will be good for ratings. At the same time blaming everything that goes wrong on Bush because no one likes him anyway. Once again, a ratings booster.

Ken, you have no idea how things really work do you? Say hi to your neighbors Ward and June for me next time you see them.

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 05:12:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Leave this to you and Rush? (none / 0)

What are you two going to do, annoy people until they start voting Republican again?

Rush is irrelavent dinosaur.

Ken you crack me up.

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 05:45:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Low Info Voters | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: