Sure. Cite?
Look Stoid, it’s like this. The conservative ideologues have a “line” here which is that any expression of dismay at the ignorance displayed by some American voters will be taken as evidence that the poster hates all Americans and is a fascist. This position makes no sense, but they’ll repeat it as a way of discrediting any liberal who’s honest enough to express dismay that the vote in the 2000 election was even close. This tactic works well enough in mass media where there’s no chance to respond directly, or on message boards dominated by conservatives where they can drown out reasoned responses, much less liberal voices.
It’ doesn’t work so well here with a more balanced group where they’ll get called on it enough to keep them from winning by repetition, but they try it nonetheless.
No, not at all. Let me explain:
People who think that the ‘average’ person is a stupid moron are elitist snots.
And BTW, in my experience Stoid is fairly representative of a wide swath of the liberals of my acquaintance, most especially including many of the people on this board. Liberals claim to be champions of the underclass, supporters of the working man, etc. But scratch 'em in the right spot, and they’ll fill your ears with poorly disguised hatred of rednecks, country hicks, Nascar fans, Republicans, and independents. For those keeping score, that’s about 70% of the country.
Sure, as soon as you define exactly who these ‘vast numbers’ of morons you keep talking about are. And try not to base it on two opinion polls.
As far as Evil’s comments well, I’m sorry if you see this as a liberal-conservative issue but it’s not. It’s an issue of saying that people that don’t have the same ideas you do are somehow less worthy of partaking in the democratic process than you are. It’s about elitism and support for democracy, not who’s in the White House. I’m no fan of Bush, believe me, but unlike (apparently) some on this board I’m not willing to espouse some sort of Orwellian ideology about the worthiness and/or intelligence of 28 million people on the basis of 2 freakin opinion polls.
Got a little problem with that, pal. Maybe you can help me out. Trouble is, I haven’t nominated anyone for the category “moron” (at least, not in this thread. Said it about Minty any number of times, Dewey too, but they’re lawyers so there is no threat of hurting thier feelings…)
Sam:
They will? There must be some sort of political G-spot you guys know about that even we don’t. Can’t say as I’ve noticed this phenomenon, but you probably know skads more lefties than I do. But if you’re going to offer your interpretation of friend Stoid’s remarks as evidence of your interpretive skills, I’m afraid not. If that is an example, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear you interpret the Sermon on the Mount as a stirring polemic in favor of reducing capital gains taxes.
For instance, you toss in the group “independents” as among The Disdained of the Elites. Well, hell, pardner, that covers a lot of territory! Do you include people simply too apathetic to regard politics at all? Genuine independents, of course, such persons who decide election by election and have no such political sympathies. But what about Lyndon LaRouchians, White Supremacists and others too wierd for conventions? Are they in your collection of “Independents”? And does not the Pubbie establishment share this contempt?
I apologize, I just googled and that quote came in the blurb under the link. The quote is on the right side of the page but it is in a blurb linking to another site.
Well your buddy Stoid did–just trying to nail down who exactly you folks are talking about since we’re apparently shouting about cites and whatnot now.
Okay, fine.
Now what does that have to do with me or anything I’ve said? Did the OP say “Average Americans are idiots!” I think you’ll find it didn’t say that at all. Didn’t even say anything close that.
But that’s what at least half a dozen conservative types have come in here assuming/accusing/imagining it said. Closer attention must be paid, Mr. Stone.
Certainly someone near here is making some leaps in logic regarding intelligence and “averageness”, as well as “American” - but it isn’t me.
Gee, I don’t know, Stoid. Perhaps this…
Look, I realize that you’re in full backpedal mode, now that a bunch of people have called you on your obnoxious elitism. So you go right ahead and stick to your story that the ‘Vast chunk of America’ is really just a couple of guys in Des Moines or whatever. The rest of us know exactly what you meant.
Anyway, I’ve been hearing this crap for two decades. Get a couple of beers into a young college liberal, and you’ll get an earful about how stupid the average person is. Nothing new here.
Anyway, it’s you that is displaying a ton of ignorance in that OP. The fact that public opinion changes with daily events has nothing to do with anyone’s lack of intelligence or their apathy. And it’s only the hardcore ideologues who think that the country should pay rapt attention to every move politicians make. The ‘vast chunk of America’ may just be too busy holding down jobs, raising families, and in general doing what the citizens of a free country are SUPPOSED to do. That they tend to pay little attention to politics has a lot more to do with rational utilitarianism (look it up) than with some character flaw.
Uh, Sam? Might wanna stick to your own story. I never made a peep about the “vast” thing, one way or another, I can’t begin to fathom why you are arguing with me as though I had.
Look at the post again, and read it slowly. You are making things up and attributing them to me, and then when I point it out, and give you the opportunity to prove it, you make some more stuff up.
Really, Sam, you’ve been hanging out with the wrong people, it’s having a terrible effect on you.
Here’s where you stumble over yourself (it must be from the foam getting in your eyes): you take a running jump and assume (and we know all about that…) that I must be referring to a particular subset of American people that are hardworking, patriotic, and enjoy monster truck rallys. Why, I really have no idea. Preconceptions? Need to feel put upon for some reason? Unable to differentiate between “the American Middle” and “Middle America”, even when the definition is spelled out to you? Secretly harboring your own less-than-flattering beliefs about the relative intelligence of the average joe? Who knows. It’s for you to figure out.
Guess what? I made absolutely no statement, implication, intimation, hint, innuendo, or remark whatsoever, which in the tiniest way referred to identifying characteristics of the people who make up this 10%. Nothing. No shit, go look for yourself. No reference to location, socioeconomic status, education, ethnicity, occupation, or preferred laundry detergent. i\It simply is not there, in any form. Not only have I made absolutely no such references, * I don’t even have any opinions about it. * In my not inconsiderable experience, stupid people are found everywhere people hang out. Paris Hilton should be proof enough of that, and I feel certain she’s not a hardworking Nascar junkie. I live in L.A., for god’s sake, home of thousands of airhead actors - hardly the noble “Average Americans” whose names you accuse me of besmirching with my big, fat liberal brush.
And here’s the final fascination of all this: pretty much everyone who has jumped my shit about this has themselves made all of these assumptions, and then attributed them to me.
Which is why you cannot say with any authority that you know fuck-all about me, what I mean, how I think or who I am, because you are far too busy projecting on to me to see a goddamn thing. Merry Christmas.
Now I will peep about the word “vast”: if one extrapolates the “10% in the middle” of the poll results to the whole country, that’s around 28 million people. Pretty vast, for my money. Why you are obssessing over this word is a mystery, considering that I gave nearly exact figures, rendering my use of the word “vast” beside the point. Potato, potahto.
Merry Christmas to you, Stoid (and everyone else)!
Let’s hope the new year brings with it new hope, new understanding, and joy.
When all else fails, lie.
Regards,
Shodan
Nitpick: Housing starts have been up for a long while. Given that, I don’t think they are good predictive indicators. When jobs are created in large numbers, I’ll know the economy has turned around.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to all
Welcome, ** citizen! ** (That sounds very odd in my head, but no matter)
I love capitalism, I’m a serious capitalist, always have been. I don’t believe that it’s the fix-all for every human ailment, however.
And if you are for less governement, then you really must avoid voting for Bush. I don’t have the figures at the ready, but lemme put it this way: Bush isn’t for less governement. He * lurves * government. He’s been spending like a drunken sailor. Problem is, in his little brain he forgot you that you can’t keep spending like that if you are going to reduce your income, which he has also done. It’s like America’s money has cooties or something and he can’t wait to get rid of it fast enough so he’s shedding it at both ends, kind of the gummint verson of dysentery
As to what I believe is your point in reference to the OP: if someone does examine the facts over time and comes to a conclusion based on an accumulation of them, whatever that conclusion may be, more power to 'em. They aren’t the 10%.
Well, I know that’s what * you *do, but I just don’t think it’s a very effective strategy myself. So even though you probably meant well in offering it, I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on the advice.
Thanks anyway, though.
And I do know how to spell “government”, it’s just that my fingers get a littl overeager at times and go off and do things without consulting me.
You must be more careful. You could go blind.
???
I’m confused. Stoid believes that
P1: A notable percentage of American voters changed their answers to a poll question after an event of good PR but little real value happened.
P2: This reflects their beliefs and attention span.
C1: This chunk of swing voters suck, because they vote on things other than the ‘real issues’, whatever they may be.
Now, I can see challenging P2, as has been done, but what’s with this tacking on of extra Cs? As far as I can tell, Stoid likes moderates who pay attention to the issues and vote with their brains, rather than those who vote even for her preferred candidates on simple party affiliations. I could be wrong.
Note: To all the moderates who posted huffily:
Well then, let’s talk about the misunderstandings in the OP. Giving Stoid the benefit of the doubt and saying that she’s not mad because more people support Bush (although one wonders why she doesn’t get incensed when Bush’s support goes DOWN after, say, an attack in Iraq).
So she’s really just mad at those people who change their minds on short-term events. The assumption here is that it’s the same people all the time - some collection of wafflers who can’t make up their minds and twist in the wind.
In reality, this is the way it works - when you sample a large population, you get a spectrum of results like this:
Love Bush<-------------------Not Sure------------------->Hate Bush
Sample a large enough population, and you’ll get a pretty smooth curve. That means that somewhere in the middle are the people ‘on the margin’, who just can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Bush (or vote against him in the other direction). Then an event happens which pushes them slightly farther, and over the edge of decision-making.
This does not mean they are stupid, or apathetic. You could sample a large population of Ph.D’s in political science, and you’ll find the same thing.
The hidden assumption in Stoid’s simplistic analysis is that the people fixed in either camp are the serious ones, while it’s some apathetic middle that moves around with current events. There is absolutely no proof of this. In fact, you could make the argument that the closed minds and apathetic voters are the partisans(“I voted Republican because my Daddy was a Republican, and his Daddy before him.” “I’ve always been a Democrat, and always will be. I became a Democrat in the 60’s during the civil rights movement.”), and the people who move back and forth are the hard thinkers who have open minds and are constantly re-evaluating their politicians based on changing events.
Sample a large enough population, and you’ll get a pretty smooth curve. That means that somewhere in the middle are the people ‘on the margin’, who just can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Bush (or vote against him in the other direction). Then an event happens which pushes them slightly farther, and over the edge of decision-making.
*** It is perfectly valid to state that a particular event should not (in an ideal world with rational decision-makers) serve as input to the decision-making process.
You are assuming, in your simplistic analysis, that the open-minded people in question are parsing the events rationally. They could as well be reacting in haste or they could have allowed themselves to be deceived by the event. Will you agree that both cases don’t bode well for an electorate? And, why can’t someone feel pissed off at that?