Random blog posts about research in political communication, how people learn or don't learn from the media, why it all matters -- plus other stuff that interests me. It's my blog, after all. I can do what I want.
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Conspiracies
Just pointing to my brief piece on Medium about Democrats and whether they're now believers in conspiracy theories. Read it. Short, brilliant, and did I mention short? And brief?
Labels:
2016 politics,
9/11,
birther,
conspiracy theories,
death panels,
democrats,
Katrina,
republicans
Monday, May 7, 2012
If Everyone Voted . . .
Clarence Page has a column riffing off a study I discussed in some detail recently, about what Democrats and Republicans know (or don't know) about current affairs and political issues. The Page column goes further, however, in connecting what people know with voting and breaking partisan deadlock by expanding the electorate with more moderate folks.
The column itself is worth reading and his argument, while a bit simplistic, makes perfectly good sense. Of course it can't happen here, unlike Australia, but if everyone was required by law to vote, it would result in a more balanced electorate -- if by balanced you mean a whole lot of folks forced to vote who really don't give a damn and don't care and are largely indifferent (which is very very different than being independent or non-partisan).
So should everyone be required to vote? Only if everyone is required to read a good newspaper. As Gore Vidal said: "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half."
The column itself is worth reading and his argument, while a bit simplistic, makes perfectly good sense. Of course it can't happen here, unlike Australia, but if everyone was required by law to vote, it would result in a more balanced electorate -- if by balanced you mean a whole lot of folks forced to vote who really don't give a damn and don't care and are largely indifferent (which is very very different than being independent or non-partisan).
So should everyone be required to vote? Only if everyone is required to read a good newspaper. As Gore Vidal said: "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half."
Labels:
clarence page,
democrats,
gore vidal,
newspapers,
political knowledge,
republicans,
voting
Friday, March 26, 2010
What Republicans Know
I blogged the other day, as did many, about a new Harris poll of Republicans that found many hold to some, ahem, interesting beliefs -- 57 percent think he's Muslim and 24 percent say he may be the antiChrist (hopefully not the same people, because that raises all kinds of fascinating theological inconsistencies).
Many have written about this survey, folks much smarter than me when it comes to polling. Below I shamelessly swipe from a posting on AAPORnet.
In all, significant doubts about the kind of poll conducted (online, it seems), the kinds of questions asked, the results themselves. In other words, Republicans are not this dumb -- but the poll may be. There's much comfort in that thought.
Many have written about this survey, folks much smarter than me when it comes to polling. Below I shamelessly swipe from a posting on AAPORnet.
In all, significant doubts about the kind of poll conducted (online, it seems), the kinds of questions asked, the results themselves. In other words, Republicans are not this dumb -- but the poll may be. There's much comfort in that thought.
Labels:
antichrist,
barack obama,
harris poll,
republicans
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Government as Threat
According to a new CNN poll:
There's the usual, tired "partisan divide." About 37 percent of Dems see the feds as a threat, but 63 percent of independents think so. And Republicans? Seven out of 10 GOPers agree the federal government is a threat.
No questions about mysterious black helicopters, as far as I can tell.
Hosting a tea party, anyone?
Aside from being interesting, this raises an interesting theoretical question. A successful and functioning democracy relies on a reservoir of goodwill from the public, or so goes the theory. As that reservoir is drawn down more than it is refilled, things can go very wrong (or very right, I suppose, depending on your anarchist leanings). Of course from a journalism perspective this is great because, let's face it, a perceived threat makes for a great story. And if there is one consistent journalism bias, it's for a great story.
Ultimately what can we make of this?
I suspect some of this is the media feeding this sense of threat, which increases the sense of threat, which feeds more media coverage of this sense of threat. Certain bloviators on radio and TV spread further fuel to the fire, which keeps the circle going on and on until the whole thing will eventually collapse on itself -- at least for most normal people. What bursts the bubble? Usually some other major "rally around the flag" incident, or some TV/radio talk host pushes it too far, or a crazy guy flies a plane into a building. Then the storyline becomes why are we so afraid and who are these wingnuts? And the frenzy feeds on itself and that becomes the framework of a new set of stories.
Gotta love it. Keeps journalists and TV/radio bloviators (and bloggers) employed and something to talk/write/bloviate about.
A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
There's the usual, tired "partisan divide." About 37 percent of Dems see the feds as a threat, but 63 percent of independents think so. And Republicans? Seven out of 10 GOPers agree the federal government is a threat.
No questions about mysterious black helicopters, as far as I can tell.
Hosting a tea party, anyone?
Aside from being interesting, this raises an interesting theoretical question. A successful and functioning democracy relies on a reservoir of goodwill from the public, or so goes the theory. As that reservoir is drawn down more than it is refilled, things can go very wrong (or very right, I suppose, depending on your anarchist leanings). Of course from a journalism perspective this is great because, let's face it, a perceived threat makes for a great story. And if there is one consistent journalism bias, it's for a great story.
Ultimately what can we make of this?
I suspect some of this is the media feeding this sense of threat, which increases the sense of threat, which feeds more media coverage of this sense of threat. Certain bloviators on radio and TV spread further fuel to the fire, which keeps the circle going on and on until the whole thing will eventually collapse on itself -- at least for most normal people. What bursts the bubble? Usually some other major "rally around the flag" incident, or some TV/radio talk host pushes it too far, or a crazy guy flies a plane into a building. Then the storyline becomes why are we so afraid and who are these wingnuts? And the frenzy feeds on itself and that becomes the framework of a new set of stories.
Gotta love it. Keeps journalists and TV/radio bloviators (and bloggers) employed and something to talk/write/bloviate about.
Labels:
cnn,
democrats,
government as threat,
republicans
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Where the Crazy People Are
Yes, the Democrats have more than their fair share of nutjobs. Apparently, so do the Republicans. A Daily Kos poll of Republicans found:
- 39 percent think Obama should be impeached
- 63 percent think Obama is a socialist
- 36 percent think Obama was not born in the U.S.
- 24 percent think Obama wants the terrorists to win
- 31 percent think Obama is a racist who hates white people
The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed nationally by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers, nationally.
The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
