Is the voter base educated?

I'm the author of the essay "Mystery Unraveled: How a White, Moderate, Churchgoing, Middle-Class, Middle-Aged Woman Could Vote for Obama." Interesting to see the rounds that my post have made, even to this site! I don't own a GT40, but I registered in order to reply, particularly to John M.

As for the depth of my interest in politics, I'm sure my friends would attest that I'm a political junkie, year-round. My doctoral degree is in media studies, and my past academic work has focused on the formation of public opinion within the context of culture. While I do enjoy Jon Stewart, my information sources are a bit broader than that: the usual "MSM" (NYT, Washington Post and other assorted publications of what conservatives regard as the "left-media cabal"), Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Economist, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Salon, international views (particularly British newspapers and BBC), and a smattering of more polarized views on the right and left (Fox News, to the extent I can stomach it; several conservative blogs such as Powerline; HuffPo, Slate, etc.) As a former media studies professor, part of what I teach students in the intro course, Contemporary Mass Media, is how critical it is to get information from an array of sources and to be well aware of inherent biases. While the latter are somewhat unavoidable, I think we can still make distinctions between information enterprises with an overt agenda and those that continue to make an effort to achieve impartial coverage.

As much as Republicans want to believe that many of us white voters who went for Obama are ignorant, we're not. I didn't opt to use my article as a space to outline detailed policy positions - I tried to give a general take on the major philosophical and practical reasons I supported Obama. Yes, Obamacare is unproven, as one commenter notes -- but what it seeks to remedy IS proven, which has been a catastrophe in terms of making affordable healthcare available to more Americans. Romney's agenda of radical privatization and tax cuts for the richest Americans is not a road I want to see our country go down. All it will do is exacerbate the massive chasm that's already grown between the richest and poorest Americans, and further erode the middle class. We simply see things differently when it comes to assessing what's going to work and what isn't. Time will tell.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
Ok. I'll spell it out for you.

1. Obama being a closet Muslim is a fringe viewpoint. Just like Communism is fringe viewpoint of the Left.

2. She wants to take the risk of Obama's economic agenda when no one knows what it is. She also must not know that Adam Smith was for a graduated tax system...

3. She wants to take the risk of Obama care when no one really knows whats in it.

4. She thinks republicans want to stop all pursuits of green energy. Show me one republican that says this.

5. Fine, she supports a graduated tax system. But she gives a religious reason for her viewpoint. What happened to her pro-life view? Is she serious?

She gives 5 viewpoints, but I don't she could explain those view if you really asked her about them. I bet, like most Americans, she is really not too concerned about politics and is only interested in them come election time.

I think SHE just spelled it out for YOU. And you owe her (and me) an apology.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Welcome Wendy,

Thanks for taking the time to join us and add your thoughts. I agree with you 100%. I'm fairly sure that John M and some of the others mean well and really believe what they post. It just that the have been fed a diet of only one distorted view. Thanks for joining in!

Wendy, can you give us some thoughts on media outlets that you have found to be perhap, dare I say, fair and balanced?
 
I hope Obama care does work out, but you have to admit that its hard to decipher whats in the laws - especially since they reference other laws which references other laws and so on... We may find out that the Obama care is actually much more pro-business that you hoped; didn't the insurance companies have a hand in influencing the laws? Be careful what you wish for.

I think there is enough evidence - for me - to make a conclusion that Obama care is just not going to work out. My most basic argument is a supply and demand one. The demand on the healthcare system is going to increase but the supply of doctors is going to remain the same. So whats the outcome going to be?

Jeff, I don't think I owe anyone an apology since none of my points were really rebuttaled. Remember in Romney's campaign where he called Obama an Islamonazi? I don't either, and its clear that the republicans don't want to be attached to this view point. You give a poll that says many within the party believe him to be a Muslim. There was also polls that said Obama was going to win 80% of the popular vote in the election. Either way, the party officials don't share this view.

Where is your counterpoint to my green energy statement? Do you guys really think that Republicans want to stop ALL PURSUITS of green energy? The worst part about Obama is that he is picking winners and losers. There could be a viable alternative out there that we don't know about, or even a stopgap. But, we will never know because its not in his agenda.

Wendy, you made the mistake of picking and choosing what religious viewpoints you want to support. In your article, you say your a pro-lifer "in the fullest sense of the term" but that didn't stop you from voting democrat. Then you bring up Luke 12:48 and somehow that outweighs what the bible (or any other religious text) says on abortion? This only leaves me one thing to conclude, and that is that you believe what you want about your faith. In the future, I recommend that you don't bring your faith into a political discussion unless you are a spokesperson for your church or have committed your life to the religion and follow its doctrine to a T.

Jeff, you clearly shouldn't be in these debates. Unlike me, I don't think any evidence I provide will sway your viewpoint and that you are only here to win an argument. Remember in the "Obama on Letterman" thread how you tried to spread disinformation on Obama's lie about being over spent in the 2008 campaign? You don't remember? Let me quote you and send you a link: "Uh, he was talking about HIllary outspending him in the primary. Get a grip dude."
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/paddock/38243-obama-letterman-3.html
I'm still waiting for an apology on that one.
 
Last edited:
Jim my main point of contention in all the red vs blue state argument is that you continue to try and show that people in blue states are some how superior or more enlightened than people in red states. If you are really that enlightened don't you find the idea or being superior due to the color of your state to be as offensive as being superior due to the color of your skin?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
TimB

As I'm sure you know, my comments about the differenced between the red and blue states did not come out of the air. They came in response to several posts on this thread, that implied that blue state voters were uneducated and made stupid voting choises.

The original post, was saying that uninformed Chicago voters elected a person being investigated for crimes. Veek commented that since Roseanne Barr was on a ballot and received some votes as further proof that the blue state folks are all stupid. Someone else noted that blue state folks are so easly manipulated that they would vote for Stalin.............

Tim, I could go on and on, but you get the idea. At that point I felt that some facts about which voters were better educated and better aware was warrented.

The parts about red states lower average income, higher divorce rates and higher crime rates came out of frustration.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Thats OK Nick, I personally have always enjoyed your posts. Anyway dinner and a few drinks has almost always worked for me:)
 
OK, my last reply here, and then I will bow out. To John M: Do you think either political party truly embodies all the views and values of any religious (or other philosophical) perspective? It becomes a matter of weighing which party's overall agenda is most in line with one's values. For me, that has been the Democrats more of the time, despite Obama's and the party's position on abortion. I find a greater "pro-life" commitment in Democratic policies re: caring for people during the full spectrum of their lives, not only when they are in utero (see Thomas Friedman's column, which I linked to in my original blog post). While I ardently wish to see us reduce the number of abortions, I do not believe that we will over overturn Roe v. Wade, whether Romney or any other conservative is elected, nor do I think that is the best method to accomplish this goal. To suggest that if I am not a full-time religious professional I should leave my faith-based views out of political discussions is silly. We all hold views based on our fundamental philosophical values, whether they are religious, atheist or otherwise. Thanks for the conversation, gentlemen! I love that it's happening on a car fan site. Best to all of you.
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
I'll stay out of the rest of this, but I WILL point out that the supply of doctors (and PAs and nurses and all the rest of us) IS increasing. There are quite a few new medical schools already up and running and several more on the drawing board. However, it is worth it to point out that medicine as a field doesn't produce anything- we don't make anything that can be resold at a profit, etc. We accept money in return for an intangible thing (health or whatever you want to call it) which is commonly defined as a public and individual good. Now, how that factors into all this, I don't know, but obviously you can't have medical care be too big a sector of the economy- as a group, we don't kick anything into the economy that is a tradeable good. Discussion welcome.
 
I'll stay out of the rest of this, but I WILL point out that the supply of doctors (and PAs and nurses and all the rest of us) IS increasing. There are quite a few new medical schools already up and running and several more on the drawing board. However, it is worth it to point out that medicine as a field doesn't produce anything- we don't make anything that can be resold at a profit, etc. We accept money in return for an intangible thing (health or whatever you want to call it) which is commonly defined as a public and individual good. Now, how that factors into all this, I don't know, but obviously you can't have medical care be too big a sector of the economy- as a group, we don't kick anything into the economy that is a tradeable good. Discussion welcome.

I guess I sort of look at the value sort of like billable hours for an attorney. There is a product in the skill whether it be as a surgeon or just a good diagnostician. Rather than try to reimburse doctors directly with tax dollars complicating treatment decisions with a federal exchange for those not coverd do you think it would be viable to allow doctors to donate time and write off the value of those services on their taxes?
 
Back
Top