true. the obliviousness of political partisans to fairly plain realities is not to be under-estimated.
Printable View
true. the obliviousness of political partisans to fairly plain realities is not to be under-estimated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-really-dont/Quote:
As Dave Weigel reported Friday, the operating theory of much of the conservative media is that increases in food stamps are functioning as bribes to get poor people to vote for Obama. “We have three million more off the unemployment rolls and on the disability rolls, and they all vote,” Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners. ” The evangelical activist Gary Bauer told Weigel, “There’s a lot of people out now around America who depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers being in the mailbox every day. They will turn out in massive numbers.”
Here’s the problem: poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...port_table.png
If all income groups had voted evenly, Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t “all vote” or turn out in “massive numbers”.
sameQuote:
What’s more, the trends with voting by class don’t seem to match up with the generosity of government programs. Here, according to NonprofitVOTE, is how voter turnout between income groups changed from 1998 to 2010:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rnout_time.jpgSource: NonprofitVOTE
If the Bauer/Limbaugh theory were true, you’d expect to see an increase in low-income turnout between the 2006 and 2010 midterms due to the increases in food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so forth. But turnout among low-income people actually falls. There’s just no evidence to support the theory that Obama’s antipoverty measures will lead to a mass of government-dependent people backing him in the polling booth.
Note To Romney: Overall Share Of Taxes Largely Aligns With Share Of Income
But those 47 percent who have no federal income tax liability are far from the free-loaders Romney described. More than half of them pay the federal payroll tax — at rates higher than Romney pays on his own income — and most of the rest are either elderly, unemployed, or have an extremely low-income.
And by only focusing on federal taxes, Romney ignores taxes at the state and local level, including sales taxes, gas taxes, and sin taxes. In fact, when all taxes are taken into account, Americans of all income levels pay taxes basically in line with their share of total income, as these charts from Citizens for Tax Justice show:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ftaxes2010.png
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...ftaxes2011.png
Basically, those at the bottom of the income scale pay so little of the federal income tax because they make so little of the income.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-taxes-income/
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...er-for-romney/Quote:
More than anything else, what makes this video damaging is that it confirms what most Americans already suspect about Romney: he holds at least half the country in contempt, including many of the people that normally vote Republican. It isn’t just that Romney expresses contempt and pity for “anyone who isn’t going to vote for him,” as Barro says. What makes this stand out as exceptionally arrogant is the fact that he clearly has contempt for many of the people who were likely to vote for him. This is another self-inflicted wound that comes from Romney’s willingness to say whatever his supporters want to hear regardless of the merits, and it’s another reminder why more Americans dislike Romney than like him
I think this will get big play for a news cycle or two but I don't think its a huge mover. Its just the election news season amplifying it until something newer and shinier comes along. I definitely believe its emblematic of Romney's view on the country however. Its telling but I don't think that the general public is necessarily interested in actually finding out who either of these two candidates are but are more interested in fortifying their perceptions of who they are.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Its really frustrating though and I guess this is what makes one like myself feel as powerless. The guy really is holding a middle finger to a huge part of his own support and they're still going to support him. Its a lot like the people I know who still support Obama and act like he's this amazing progressive when all he's done is pretty much shit on progressive ideas since taking office (with the exception of marriage and gay rights although he's been more pulled in that direction than actually lead the country in that direction).
If the people who support these candidates aren't going to ever hold them accountable then there is virtually no hope of improvement because hearing criticism from your supporters is always more important than from the opposition. Its easy to write off your opposition but when its someone who supports you then its much harder to simply blow it off.
He'll have to make up for it at the debates though. So more pressure there.
yet Obama is the elitist. :shrugs
all by itself, no. but the drip drip dripping of the media on these memes can be devastating. just ask Gore ("I invented the internet") and Kerry ("I was for it before I was against it.")Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
If the Islamic world goes up in flames and oil goes to $150+ people are not gonna give a shit about this. Like Colin Powell told Bush before he went into Iraq, "You break it, you own it". Obama broke it in Egypt and Libya starting with the Cairo speech and ending with cruise missiles and he damn sure owns it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
" Obama broke it in Egypt and Libya starting with the Cairo speech and ending with cruise missiles and he damn sure owns it."
total bullshit. Those peoples started their own revolutions, and lots of countries helped them finish them, but as with the Banksters Great Continuing (Jobs) Depression, you dishonestly pin Obama exclusively for full responsibility.
btw, your boys dubya and dickhead really do OWN Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody helped them break those countries.
hey bou, don't forget about the coalition of the willing. lol
I'm not too sure that Obama's Cairo speech three years ago wrecked Egypt, but certainly I agree about Libya.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Unfortunately for Romney, unless the price of oil spikes, Americans don't really give a shit about Egyptians/Libyans/Syrians.
Flashback. "Bitter clingers" comments didn't hurt Obama. But then again, the media is much more Obama friendly.
timing counts. it wasn't an election year. I think it did hurt Obama, though. made him look like the sort of out of touch elitist that Romney is revealing himself to be now.
btw, the meme that the media is friendlier to Obama would appear to be objectively incorrect: the media is about equally unfriendly to both.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/t...gn-narratives/
Red Team actively hoping things get worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
This graphic is very telling.
Even Fox has more negative than positive on Mitt.
http://www.poynter.org/wp-content/up....png-large.png
New Obama Campaign Digital Ad:
Fuck off, Chump. I'm not wishing for it but it damn sure looks like the way it's headed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It's kind of hard to find positive stories about the Romney campaign tbh.
Team Red!Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Team Black and Blue!