The Low-Information Voter: All They Know Is That They're Angry & Its All Obamas Fault

[MarcATL]

So I'm home now watching MSNBC, rewound my DVR to about 3 hours and luckily caught the better portion of Rachel Maddow's show. She's now in Alaska to interview Joe Miller and others.

Still watching, but just before this commercial break she asks some angry, clearly, RW voters some things and they start shouting out things like "Get rid of Eric Holder" She asks why are they against Eric Holder. One shouts back, "He's against guns." She asked the lady why? "What has Eric Holder specifically done that is against guns?" She responds with "he's voted down the line that are all anti-gun. Rachel then explains to her that Eric Holder has never had to vote on anything, he's not in Congress or in Senate. Some back and forth, with Rachel sincerely trying to figure what exactly do they have that tells them that Eric is "anti-gun." She ends up saying that she doesn't have all the facts on hand, but she just KNOWS he's anti gun.

Then a younger male, white, as well as the lady above, BTW, chimes in spewing the same nonsense. Again Rachel asks the young man, "What specifically has Eric done that is against the 2nd Amendment." He starts to flutter, then says, "Rachel, just Google Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment and Guns and you'll see all the ammo there." She responds, I will, but why are you currently so angry, what specically has he done that has you so angry....he says, he doesn't have all the facts on hand, but if she Googles it she will find it. And he was sincerely asking her to do so.

Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.


This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.

WoW!!

*SMH*

 

[Madeline]

These people are panicked by economic and environmental ruination (there has been leaks/spills in Alaska of late), they have been jerked all over hell and back by the finest propaganda machine man ever created, they are preoccupied trying to stay afloat and cannot study on every issue like a PhD candidate........

Rachel Maddow has an abrasive style (at least when I watched her) and a calm conversation with any of these people about what concerns them most could have been had, Marc. Maddow made time and place choices that maximized their ignorance and fear.

Yanno, one criticism of the left is that we look down on "regular people". Ain't that more or less what you are doing?

 

[Si modo]

Obama won because he is not Republican.

Go figure.

 

[The Rabbi]

Low information voters? Surely you mean Obama voters!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIOePg4K0vI[/ame]

 

[Annie]

The problem is that the majority of Americans disagree with the political class on what are the issues, problems, and solutions.

Only 14% Prefer Government-Regulated Economy Over Free Market - Rasmussen Reports

Only 14% Prefer Government-Regulated Economy Over Free Market
Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Voters overwhelmingly prefer a free market economy to an economy managed by the government and think government economic control helps big businesses at the expense of small ones.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters think a free market economy is better than an economy managed by the government. That’s up five points from December 2008 following Barack Obama’s election as president but consistent with findings in surveys since then.

Only 14% think government control of the economy is better. (To see survey question wording, click here).

The Political Class isn’t so sure. Ninety percent (90%) of Mainstream voters prefer a free market economy. Among Political Class voters, however, just 34% feel that way, while 30% like a government-managed economy better and 35% are undecided.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of all voters think increased competition rather than increased government regulation is the best way to hold big business accountable. Thirty-four percent (34%) say increased regulation is the best way to go.

But again while 74% of Mainstream voters favor increased competition, 70% of the Political Class prefer increased regulation.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 24-25, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Government regulation hurts small businesses more than big businesses, according to 71% of voters nationwide. Just 14% believe government regulation hurts big business more.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) say most big businesses take advantage of the political process to hurt small businesses. Twenty-four percent (24%) disagree, but 17% more are not sure.

Voters have consistently said in surveys for months that government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

Voters are evenly divided when asked if a free market economy unfairly concentrates wealth and power among a small segment of society: 42% say yes, and 42% say no. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

Democrats are more critical of a free market economy than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either of the parties. Sixty percent (60%) of those in the president’s party believe a free market economy unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small social segment. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of GOP voters don’t share that view. Unaffiliateds are closely divided on the question.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats think increased government regulation is the best way to hold big businesses accountable. Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party disagree and think increased competition is best.

Voters have mixed feelings about government regulation of big business, but most feel small businesses are regulated too much.

There is also a strong belief that more competition and less regulation would be better for the economy and job creation.

Congress recently created a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, an agency that will further regulate the lending practices of banks, mortgage lenders and credit card companies. But most Americans say increased competition, not more government regulation, will do more to protect borrowers.

A majority of voters continue to expect the cost of health care to go up under the new health care law that increases government regulation of that industry. Fifty-three percent (56%) favor repeal of the law.

The voters are informed, they just disagree. The anomaly is with Democrat voters, that seem to aligned themselves with the political class, which by definition includes all those in government, from both parties.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Voters don't know Obama gave us a $1.3 Trillion deficit and 10% unemployment?

 

[California Girl]

The OP to it from Rachel. That is all I need to know to dismiss it as partisan crap.

 

[Annie]

Seems the voters have a pretty good idea of where they want change:

Thursday, September 30, 2010
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis

With midterm elections scarcely a month away, voters continue to view the economy, government ethics and corruption and health care as most important on a list of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the economy easily remains in the top spot as it has nearly every month. Eighty-six percent (86%) rate the issue of the economy as Very Important.

Health care gained six points from last month, ranking it second, with 76% who think it is Very Important. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on September 22-23 & 26-27, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's amazing how she can't find any informed voters....

Oh wait, no it's not. She is editing the videos to present the people she wants to present.

 

[KMAN]

So I'm home now watching MSNBC, rewound my DVR to about 3 hours and luckily caught the better portion of Rachel Maddow's show. She's now in Alaska to interview Joe Miller and others.

Still watching, but just before this commercial break she asks some angry, clearly, RW voters some things and they start shouting out things like "Get rid of Eric Holder" She asks why are they against Eric Holder. One shouts back, "He's against guns." She asked the lady why? "What has Eric Holder specifically done that is against guns?" She responds with "he's voted down the line that are all anti-gun. Rachel then explains to her that Eric Holder has never had to vote on anything, he's not in Congress or in Senate. Some back and forth, with Rachel sincerely trying to figure what exactly do they have that tells them that Eric is "anti-gun." She ends up saying that she doesn't have all the facts on hand, but she just KNOWS he's anti gun.

Then a younger male, white, as well as the lady above, BTW, chimes in spewing the same nonsense. Again Rachel asks the young man, "What specifically has Eric done that is against the 2nd Amendment." He starts to flutter, then says, "Rachel, just Google Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment and Guns and you'll see all the ammo there." She responds, I will, but why are you currently so angry, what specically has he done that has you so angry....he says, he doesn't have all the facts on hand, but if she Googles it she will find it. And he was sincerely asking her to do so.

Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.


This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.

WoW!!

*SMH*

Same thing happened in 2006 and 2008... It was Bush's fault for everything....

Payback is hell isn't it...

 

[MarcATL]

These people are panicked by economic and environmental ruination (there has been leaks/spills in Alaska of late), they have been jerked all over hell and back by the finest propaganda machine man ever created, they are preoccupied trying to stay afloat and cannot study on every issue like a PhD candidate........

Rachel Maddow has an abrasive style (at least when I watched her) and a calm conversation with any of these people about what concerns them most could have been had, Marc. Maddow made time and place choices that maximized their ignorance and fear.

Yanno, one criticism of the left is that we look down on "regular people". Ain't that more or less what you are doing?

No, this is not what I'm doing. A "regular person" doesn't just get livid with NOTHING factual or reasonable backing it up. If this is what a "regular person" in America is today. We got some MAJOR problems.

These people are drunk on FOXNews, and FOXNews has PURPOSELY fed them a steady diet of lies and propoganda. These people are people who already leaned a certain way, and what FNN has done is spread the sickness from those with absolutely no sense to those with a little bit of sense to those with some sense...all on the right.

I don't appreciate you suggesting that I outright have something against "regular people," the facts just doesn't bear that out.

Edit:
Oh, and to suggest that Rachel Maddow's interview style is somehow..."abrasive" I think that's near laughable. I'd like to know what and how you define abrasive, also, what examples do you have on her being such as well. You want to know whats abrasive, or who...Bill O'Reilly...that's abrasive if I ever seen it.

 

[Vel]

These people are panicked by economic and environmental ruination (there has been leaks/spills in Alaska of late), they have been jerked all over hell and back by the finest propaganda machine man ever created, they are preoccupied trying to stay afloat and cannot study on every issue like a PhD candidate........

Rachel Maddow has an abrasive style (at least when I watched her) and a calm conversation with any of these people about what concerns them most could have been had, Marc. Maddow made time and place choices that maximized their ignorance and fear.

Yanno, one criticism of the left is that we look down on "regular people". Ain't that more or less what you are doing?

No, this is not what I'm doing. A "regular person" doesn't just get livid with NOTHING factual or reasonable backing it up. If this is what a "regular person" in America is today. We got some MAJOR problems.

These people are drunk on FOXNews, and FOXNews has PURPOSELY fed them a steady diet of lies and propoganda. These people are people who already leaned a certain way, and what FNN has done is spread the sickness from those with absolutely no sense to those with a little bit of sense to those with some sense...all on the right.

I don't appreciate you suggesting that I outright have something against "regular people," the facts just doesn't bear that out.

Edit:
Oh, and to suggest that Rachel Maddow's interview style is somehow..."abrasive" I think that's near laughable. I'd like to know what and how you define abrasive, also, what examples do you have on her being such as well. You want to know whats abrasive, or who...Bill O'Reilly...that's abrasive if I ever seen it.

And how is it you KNOW that those people are watching FOX news? Did they tell you they or are you making out the ass assumptions?

 

[Flaylo]

Low information voters is a disntinctly ringtwing nut thing, I again refer to this example as the most glaring example

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o[/ame]

 

[MarcATL]

When you have a swath of society that spews every. single. talking point that comes out of FNN it doesn't take rocket science to ascertain where it came from.

These people were mad as hell from the point they lost as evidenced here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/85023-right-america-feeling-wronged-hbo-documentary.html

I don't care what anybody says otherwise, its simply not true. They're like angry retarded robots/Frankensteins...."Obama...BAAAAD! Must SMASH!!!"

Their knowledge, information or mindset doesn't get far past that analysis or thought. Only FNN PUMPS that into the society on a minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, day-by-day, week-by-week basis. And of course the rest of the RepubliCON News Network in the form of RW talk radio shows, who are the majority of that particular form of media. They all feed off each other.

 

[Si modo]

Ima gonna vote Democrat cuz they're not Republican and Bush is Republican. ...typical 2008 presidential election voter





Stop the presses! The average voter is uninformed!

 

[MarcATL]

Low information voters is a disntinctly ringtwing nut thing, I again refer to this example as the most glaring example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o

Whenever you actually ASK them where they get that information from, the answer is almost always...FOXNews.

 

[theHawk]

Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.


This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.

WoW!!

*SMH*

Or maybe she cut the camera because she just lied. The Bush administration did not drop the case, the DOJ filed suit against the two men in Jan 2009 two weeks before Bush left office. When none of the defendants showed up to court in April/May, it was assumed the lawsuit would win, but the Obama admin led DOJ dismissed the suit.

Racheal Maddow is a lyng hack. She shovels bullshit to idiots like you who believe it.



John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Washington Times


Then even after all that it was brought up again and yet again the Hussein admin shut it down:

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

Now who is the low-informed voter?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So I'm home now watching MSNBC, rewound my DVR to about 3 hours and luckily caught the better portion of Rachel Maddow's show. She's now in Alaska to interview Joe Miller and others.

Still watching, but just before this commercial break she asks some angry, clearly, RW voters some things and they start shouting out things like "Get rid of Eric Holder" She asks why are they against Eric Holder. One shouts back, "He's against guns." She asked the lady why? "What has Eric Holder specifically done that is against guns?" She responds with "he's voted down the line that are all anti-gun. Rachel then explains to her that Eric Holder has never had to vote on anything, he's not in Congress or in Senate. Some back and forth, with Rachel sincerely trying to figure what exactly do they have that tells them that Eric is "anti-gun." She ends up saying that she doesn't have all the facts on hand, but she just KNOWS he's anti gun.

Then a younger male, white, as well as the lady above, BTW, chimes in spewing the same nonsense. Again Rachel asks the young man, "What specifically has Eric done that is against the 2nd Amendment." He starts to flutter, then says, "Rachel, just Google Eric Holder and 2nd Amendment and Guns and you'll see all the ammo there." She responds, I will, but why are you currently so angry, what specically has he done that has you so angry....he says, he doesn't have all the facts on hand, but if she Googles it she will find it. And he was sincerely asking her to do so.

Then another older lady who's REALLY angry now, again, white, tells her "The black panthers is why I'm mad at Eric Holder." She's visibly livid on camera and ready to shout and Rachel asks her what about the Black Panthers, the lady replies "Voter Intimidation...not being prosecuted!" Rachel informs her that it was decided by the Bush Administration that there was nothing to prosecute the lone 2 New Black Panthers for. Then she cuts the camera back to where she was at the time, live, and then tells the audience that s he continued to question the woman, who got even more angry. Then told that she cut off the camera and had another very long convo with the lady who then calmed down. The lady told her that she's voting for Miller because Obama's not prosecuting the NBPs because they are black...so she's voting for Joe Miller.


This, folks, is the atmosphere that FOXNews has created. FOX LOVES the Low Information Voter.

WoW!!

*SMH*

Clearly you're the one that lacks information. Based on data from the United States Census and renowned Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI), congressional districts with more educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Republican presidential
candidates. Conversely, congressional districts with less educated residents are more likely to pledge their electoral votes to Democratic presidential candidates.

Presidential Politics: More Educated Vote Republican - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

 

[DiamondDave]

The racist ill-informed voter making a thread about supposed ill-informed voters... priceless

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These people are panicked by economic and environmental ruination (there has been leaks/spills in Alaska of late), they have been jerked all over hell and back by the finest propaganda machine man ever created, they are preoccupied trying to stay afloat and cannot study on every issue like a PhD candidate........

Rachel Maddow has an abrasive style (at least when I watched her) and a calm conversation with any of these people about what concerns them most could have been had, Marc. Maddow made time and place choices that maximized their ignorance and fear.

Yanno, one criticism of the left is that we look down on "regular people". Ain't that more or less what you are doing?

No, this is not what I'm doing. A "regular person" doesn't just get livid with NOTHING factual or reasonable backing it up. If this is what a "regular person" in America is today. We got some MAJOR problems.

These people are drunk on FOXNews, and FOXNews has PURPOSELY fed them a steady diet of lies and propoganda. These people are people who already leaned a certain way, and what FNN has done is spread the sickness from those with absolutely no sense to those with a little bit of sense to those with some sense...all on the right.

I don't appreciate you suggesting that I outright have something against "regular people," the facts just doesn't bear that out.

Edit:
Oh, and to suggest that Rachel Maddow's interview style is somehow..."abrasive" I think that's near laughable. I'd like to know what and how you define abrasive, also, what examples do you have on her being such as well. You want to know whats abrasive, or who...Bill O'Reilly...that's abrasive if I ever seen it.

Provide a list of the alleged lies and propaganda that Fox News spreads.