Thursday, 23 May 2013

WHO ARE THE LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS

Ken Berwitz

A new buzz-phrase has come into vogue this year:  "Low information voter".  The term is pretty self-explanatory, and means people voters who do not know very much about the issues. 

So who are they?

Maybe this table will help.  From the Pew Research Center's just released poll, it shows the percentage of people who are following each Obama scandal closely, in total and by political category.:

Assuming these data are accurate, here is what we find:

-Sadly (pathetically is more like it) most voters, regardless of party, fall into the low information category, with no more than 30% closely following any of the four stories. 

I suppose it can be argued that this is because a lot of people don't think the four specific issues asked about in this question are major stories.  But that doesn't hold any water, since other polls show most people do consider every one of them major - and in  any event, the economy in particular ongoingly tends to be the #1 issue for voters. 

So the key finding is that voters, in general admit they don't know much about what they vote on (and that is before we get to the likelihood - near 100% in my opinion - that at least some of the people who say they are following these issues closely really are not).

-By party, Democrats are dead last when it comes to information on every one of the issues.  Again assuming these data are accurate, that means, therefore, the less people follow issues, the more likely they are to vote for Democrats.  Don't expect this to find its way into DNC literature any time soon.

I hope the above analysis has been helpful.  And as more information regarding who low-information voters are becomes available, I will be happy to post it as well. 

Knowledge is power. 


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's quote comes to us from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, expressing his disgust at the combination of BS and feigned ignorance coming from douglas shulman and neal wolin:

"This administration, which told us and told the American people that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was the work, was caused by a video, is now the same administration who expects us to believe that this scandal was just the result of two rogue agents in Cincinnati?  The people don't buy it."

Exactly correct.  This is a lie and - according to every poll I've seen - the people don't buy it.  The credibility meter does not move even 1%.

You wouldn't have to be a low-information voter to believe this garbage, you would have to be something beneath a no-information voter.

Thank you, Mr. Jordan.  Quote Of the Day Honors are yours.


LOIS WHO? DOUGLAS WHO? NEAL WHO?

Ken Berwitz

Evidently, at least some of the "journalists" who are supposed to provide us with the major news of the day still will be operating as wholly owned subsidiaries of Obama & Co.

Case in point:  Yesterday, lois lerner, head of the Tax Exempt Division of the IRS - that is, the person specifically in charge of giving or not giving tax waivers to groups which apply for them - pled the fifth.  To paraphrase her words, "I did nothing wrong but upon advice of counsel I will protect herself against self-incrimination"...which is utterly ridiculous. 

We also had former IRS head douglas shulman and current Deputy Treasury Secretary neal wolin testifying that they didn't do anything, don't remember anything, don't know anything and, generally making it clear that they were "pleading the fifth" as well, just not formally saying so as lerner did.

The behavior of these three disgraces on legs was so shameful that committee members on both sides of the aisle assailed them in the harshest of terms.

To summarize, we have three representatives of the IRS - an agency most people regard with fear and trepidation - directly involved with what seems, for all the world, to be a program of discrimination and intimidation against US citizens for daring to have ideas the current administration disagrees with, who are telling us, in effect, "We're not talking and you can't make us.  Nyah nyah nyah". 

If that isn't a major story, what is?

Well, let me give you two examples of how major components of what passes for mainstream media are handling it this morning:

-On the Today show, there was no feature on it at all - at least not for the first 20 or so minutes of the show.  Unless it was mentioned in passing, it was not mentioned at all.  No commentary from Chuck Todd, no guest discussing the ramifications, no nothing.

-In the New York Times, not only did it not make the front page, it did not make the news summary.  It can be found on page 19.

-And I have no doubt at all that this story has been downplayed elsewhere as well.

What does this tell  you?  It tells you that at least some "journalists" remain in full COA (Cover Obama's Ass) mode. 

I wonder how long they are prepared to hold out; how long they are going to expose themselves as the Obama acolytes they are.  Sadly, I won't be surprised at all if they continue doing so for a long time.

=================================

UPDATE:  I checked the video segments of the Today show just now, and there was no feature on the IRS hearings.  However, Today did do a feature on President Obama's prom picture, and a K-Mart ad in which the words "big gas" is said in a way that sounds like "big ass".  Evidently they were far more worthy of air time.


THE LIE-RS SCANDAL. STILL DEEPER

Ken Berwitz

According to Carl C. Johnson's blog at dailycaller.com, White House Chief Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, who claims she never knew a thing about the IRS targeting groups based on their apparent political leanings until April, had three meetings with the Treasury Department's chief lawyer, Christopher J. Meade - who "has a long history of extreme left-wing agitation"., including (but far from being limited to) his being arrested for disrupting a speech by then-Vice President Dan Quayle.

Meade has known that Inspector General J. Russell George has been investigating the IRS targeting of rightward groups for at least a year.  But we are supposed to believe that in three one-one-one meetings with Obama's Chief Counsel, he never bothered to mention this potentially catastrophic political issue to her?

You would have to be a spud to believe that.  A prize potato, complete with dirt covering  every one of your eyes.  Either that or an unconditional Obama suckup willing to believe anything anyone from his administration shovels out at you, regardless of how absurd it is.

Personally, I am neither.  And I hope, for your sake, that you can say the same.

This scandal gets deeper every day.  And I am certain the worst is yet to come.


A QUICK TAKE ON THE OBAMA SPEECH

Ken Berwitz

He's right about the necessity to use drones on a selective basis.

He's wrong to announce how he intends to use them in the future.  It makes no sense at all to detail US strategy to our enemies.

The reason Guantanamo is still open is that, with all his pontificating, President Obama has no clue what to do with the people there, a good many of whose own countries don't want them.  However bizarre Guantanamo may be, distributing terrorists like these to US jails is worse.

It would not surprise me at all if the idiot from Code Pink was working with the Obama administration, enabling him to crow about going off his prepared statement, and make what sounded for all the world like a second prepared statement; one the press wasn't given.

Zeke .... .... Turning Guantanamo's murdering fanatics loose in US prisons would guarantee radicalizing a huge number of social misfits. .... .... Recognize al Q'aida will finance this effort, resulting in a brainwashed army American citizens (who are felons) ready to do the bidding of their new Islamic master. ..... ..... (05/23/13)

free' Zeke, I am not so sure about that. Criminals in prison have a strange code, that is why rapists and peodophiles are kept separated. (05/23/13)


FLASH: FORT HOOD MASSACRE FINALLY CALLED ACT OF TERRORISM

Ken Berwitz

President Obama just suggested that the Fort Hood massacre was an act of terrorism.

Now, can he please explain why, for three years, he has been fine with Homeland Security referring to it as "workplace violence", with no mention of terrorism at all?

How can anyone believe a word he, or the people in his administration, say?

billy Do you think it just might be ALL the sacandals making this claim NOW? You think!!! (05/23/13)

Zeke ..... .... ..... Alternatively, combat wounds and deaths in Afghanistan could properly be referred to as "workplace violence". .... ..... (05/23/13)


CHICAGO FIRESTORM

Ken Berwitz

Well, it's official.  Chicago will close 49 of its public elementary schools - that's over 10% of the 472 currently operating.  And the preponderance of them are in low income Black areas -- they have to be since, assuming the Chicago Tribune has it right, 87% of Chicago school district students come from low income households and 91% are Black or Latino (that's quite a record of "diversity", isn't it?)

I don't know enough about these school closings to have a strong opinion one way or the other.  I do, however, know that:

-Chicago has something like a billion dollar budget deficit and

-As of the 2011 data, 21% of Chicago eighth graders were grade-level proficient in reading, and 20% were grade-level proficient in math.  This, of course, does not count the children who dropped out of school altogether.  (And, yes, this is the same school district whose teachers union struck last year, demanding a 30% pay increase, apparently for the great success it has had).

Taking these two facts together, I can certainly understand why Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a hardline liberal Democrat whose sympathies usually lie strongly with minorities and unions, felt he had no choice but to recommend these closings (with the School Board he himself selected, predicably voting its agreement).

Mr. Emanuel is certainly enough of a realist to know the kind of hit he is going to take from those sames minorities, unions, and more generally, activists on the left (i.e. the people who are overwhelmingly in control of Chicago, and have been for decades).  So, if nothing else, he definitely gets high marks for political courage.

I'll try to monitor how his decision is working out in subsequent blogs.

Ken Berwitz free - very interesting question. I would guess the answer is no. I would think that teachers from the closed schools would be distributed to the ones receiving their students. But, that said, I very much doubt they all would be necessary. I'll try to find out. (05/23/13)

free` Ken, I looked at the article and you know what? It doesn't say anything about teachers losing jobs, I wonder if any or all of the teachers at the schools to be closed are still going to be employed by the school district? (05/23/13)


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!