The facts have a liberal bias, as you may have heard.
So the right answer is No.
Here’s a similar 2010 study from the U of MD:
But they’re “better informed” than Democrats, you claim. 
Those facts are cherry picked so as to be advantageous to Democrats. What the study does is demonstrate that when the facts do benefit Democrats, Republicans are less likely to accept them. The same is true of Democrats. Let’s ask Democrats these questions:
Do most economists believe that raising minimum wage causes job loss?
Do most scientists regard fracking as safe?
Do most scientists regard GMOs as safe?
Do most economists support free trade deals?
Do the rich work more hours than the middle class, or less?
Did the stimulus create more or fewer jobs than projected by the administration?
Those questions would probably show Democrats being wrong more than Republicans, since in those cases the facts have a Republican bias.
A better approach is simply to ask non-biased questions about events, rather than “scientists think” or “economists think” or “Did you know that the auto bailout isn’t just Obama’s fault?”
Which the study I linked to did, and while Fox viewers fared poorly, Republicans overall did better than Democrats.
Truth be told, what I’d like to see is a survey asking Republicans, Democrats, and independents about basic facts that everyone should know that don’t change much. Like:
What are the three branches of the federal government?
What are the freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment?
Is country X in NATO or not in NATO?
Who is Speaker of the House?
Who is your state’s governor?
Who is the Vice President?
Can non-citizens vote in federal elections?
I’d bet any amount of money that Republicans would SMOKE Democrats in such a survey.
Pew did a survey on political knowledge, such as what the parties stand for and which famous political figures are in which party. Democrats couldn’t even come close:
CAn we really take Democratic voters seriously when only 58% know Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat? A large proportion of them don’t even know what their own party stands for! I wonder how many votes Republicans could win by educating Democratic voters on what their own party stands for?
Only 57% of Republicans (and 62% of Democrats!) knew Boehner was a Republican. And on the 7 political issues, Democrats knew better which party was on which side on 4 of them – and one of the 3 Republicans won was “reducing the size of the Federal government” – which is a Republican mantra, but means pretty much nothing (as it should!) to Democrats.
So you’re selectively reading the poll. I am too – this just shows that it’s not nearly as cut and dry as Ds or Rs are more politically ignorant.
Look at it this way- there is no liberal equivalent to Michael Savage, Mark Levin, or Rush Limbaugh. Their listeners are Republicans and fed a massive diet of ignorance and lies every single day. You’re talking millions of people who can’t be trusted to walk in the rain, lest they face the sky with their mouths open and drown. Any sample that included this group of listeners is going to come out on the short end of any measuring stick you come up with.
Oh? Well, what about Rachel “Mad Dog” Maddow? Can anyone deny that behind her girlish giggle and cheerful enthusiasm lies a seething cauldron of ruthless rage and raw hatred?
She doesn’t want you. Get over it.
Leaving aside the rest of the discussion here, it’s worth noting that the situation is fundamentally different on the Republican versus Democratic sides. The Republicans have an open field, and supporters of any other candidates will tend to take a more negative view of their guy’s rivals. On the Democratic side, Hillary currently dominates the field - she is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and as such Democrats will tend to look at her favorably. If JB (or anyone else) wins the Republican nomination, his numbers among Republicans will rise significantly, as people rally around their guy.
It’s also worth noting that JB is somewhat left-of-center for the Republican party, while HRC is more to the center in relation to the Democratic spectrum. This can hurt JB’s popularity during primary season but that would tend to fade during the general (apart from helping him with independents).
[Again, this is not to support any broader point about the relative strengths of the Republican versus Democratric potential candidates - I tend to be skeptical of this sort of argument and have not been following it closely.]
Of late, her restraining orders have taken on a much more affectionate tone. So, I guess you could say things are getting pretty serious.
What is that, slightly more liberal than Calvin Coolidge?
Does anyone have any doubt whatsoever that Clinton is for the TPP, despite her adamant refusal to take a position on that, among other issues?
Why does anyone care that Gary (“Monkey Business”) Hart likes O’Malley (and Jeb?!) more than Hillary? Hart is a failed loser who probably had the most insanely stupid self-destruction of a candidacy ever*. But a few weeks ago, he said he’d vote for Jeb over Hillary and it at least made Denver news, and just now he’ll vote for O’Malley over Hillary and it’s all over the news. Why? Lady Gaga is more relevant and more substantial. And more intelligent, but that’s another point. Will anyone in the world (except maybe Donna Rice) rethink their position on Hillary based on what Hart spews? I mean, it’s not even surprising that Hart hates the fact that Hillary is smarter and more successful than him. But he’s such a has-been, that you gotta wonder why it’s news.
Link
*And I’m including that one Republican pizza guy (Herman Cane? Cain?) from 2012 who was all “Family Values” but had a dozen women suing him for sexual harassment. Even his destruction was less stupid than Gary “I dare you to follow me to my love boat where I’ll be with my bimbo” Hart. (He was sleazier, but far less stupid)
I can believe she’s waiting to hear the details before she takes a position. I would agree she would generally favor such a deal, but why commit either way before the terms are public? We have a long time before the election, I don’t need to hear her opinions on everything 18 months out.
Lot’s of good news for Port Authority Clinton in there including a 50 point lead among dem primary voters for the nomination.
I have no doubt whatsoever she supports it. As more of a free-market Democrat that’s one of the reasons I will support her - she doesn’t buy in as wholeheartedly on the protectionism that the pro-union wing of the party calls for.
Of course she would be very foolish to commit strongly on a trade deal she hasn’t seen the final language for, particularly when she is under no obligation to do so. Her generic statement of supporting free trade with strong protections for workers and the environment is exactly the right tone to take, IMO.
The answers aren’t are cut and dried to the Republican orthodoxy as you might think.
*Do most economists believe that raising minimum wage causes job loss?
*Can’t say I give a shit. In states that have raised the MW higher than the national minimum, there has been no evidence that it actually cost any jobs. If you believe that a higher MW costs jobs, you must also believe that businesses routinely hire more workers than they need.
Do most scientists regard fracking as safe? I don’t know. I do now that there are many more small earthquakes in fracking areas not previously prone to earthquakes. I do know that some people have had their well water ruined by fracking. If there is indeed a consensus, it is nowhere nearly as lopsided as the global warming consensus.
Do most economists support free trade deals? Do most economists work in jobs that would be outsourced to other countries with slave labor? Does anyone think that NAFTA was a good idea?
Do the rich work more hours than the middle class, or less? Who cares? The question isn’t how many hours they work, it’s the unneeded tax breaks that they enjoy.
Did the stimulus create more or fewer jobs than projected by the administration? Did the stimulus work better than the Republican alternative, i.e. do nothing?
Those questions also aren’t nearly as relevant to current political topics and issues, where one’s views really do matter directly.
It would be interesting to see adaher’s obvious cut-and-dried answers anyway, as they’d provide more fuel for the now-somnolent Pit thread about his wrongness.
Instead of asking you for a cite I found one for you.
It’s from 2013, but I think it’s still relevant.
When presented with the statement, “Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment,” 34% of economists polled agreed, 24% were uncertain, and 32% disagreed.
However, when presented with the statement, “The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy,” 5% strongly agreed, 42% agreed, 32% were uncertain, 8% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed.
Did you know the answer to your question was, “No,” when you posted it? Do you believe the answer is, “No,” now?
This one is not quite spot on, but I think it’s pretty close.