are conservatives dumb?

[ConnorEl]

Being a Gump-level simpleton, my head went to 'scoreboard' while reading this thread (e.g., if one were to proxy comprehensive intelligence with income, net worth, job level, etc.), which got me wondering what such a scoreboard would show if used to compare the average Dem voter with the average 'Pub voter (adjusting for factors such as age, etc.). I truly have no idea. But I did query the web goodle about Tea Party intelligence, income, etc. and this interesting Times article popped up. (which actually led to another question... why is the web goodle the same on both the Firefox web and the Chrome web... are they the same web somehow??!? Maybe I'll drop that into the Pit and see if anyone can help me understand it better) --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0

Quote:
----------
... Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.” ..



... When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
----------


Passion baby.

 

[jhmd2000]

Well the reason terms like "negotiate in good faith" are being used by the left in this case is because Republicans are framing the discussion around Obama's willingness to negotiate period. The battle cry is "Obama won't negotiate." The counter is that Republicans are negotiating, but they are not negotiating in good faith, meaning that they are coming to the table just to say LOOK WE'RE HERE, but have absolutely no plans to reach an agreement with compromise.

Odd that they're not willing to work with someone accusing them of committing acts of terrorism and taking hostages.

 

[avalon]

Republicans used to be amazing at branding. Their PR ran laps around the Democrats. Not sure when that changed, and I don’t pay close enough attention to know who was rotated out in terms of the people crafting the message (Rove?). The Democrats still suck at PR, but the Republicans don’t seem very good at it either.

(Which has nothing to do with whether or not conservatives are "dumb." Just rambling.)

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I know I'm comfortable judging who can and cannot lead the nation based on their ability and commitment to finding a church.

I did laugh out loud at the "and to be honest I think he's a Muslim". I can just hear my grandma leaning across the table a dinner and whispering the same thing.

 

[PhDeac]

Something I've been thinking about lately is that I see a large number of Republicans using buzz words which have subjective meaning in an attempt to support their arguments. There really isn't much being provided in the way of substance from the Republican party these days. I realize that it's easier to just sit back and obstruct the other party from achieving anything, but at the end of the day that's not really constructive, nor does it help get you back into a position of power where you can again begin to make policy.

I touched on this on another thread, but a popular talking point right now with Obama is that he doesn't know how to lead. "Leadership" is a completely subjective term where the metrics for it can be changed entirely depending on who you ask. JMHD brings up another good one on this thread with "effort." We need people to "try harder" to get what they want to pick themselves up. If people are poor it must be because they aren't trying hard enough. As if effort is a perfect proxy for employment status, income, and socio-economic status.

Lowering taxes is another decent example of this but more to the extent that it's such a broad comment that it doesn't really specifically address, well, anything. We need more jobs created in America, well it's simple - lower taxes. And then what happens? What happens after we lower taxes? We can't get taxes low enough to compete with outsourcing a job. Same with the minimum wage argument. We need lower minimum wage! Or we need to keep the minimum wage the same (without adjusting for inflation) otherwise jobs will go overseas! Or even better, we should let the market determine what the lowest wage earners should be paid so we can compete internationally. The truth is that we can never get the costs of domestic jobs low enough to compete with outsourcing to Bangladesh. Regulation is necessary because industries simply do not or will not self-regulate.

These buzz words make it easy to sound like there are solutions: "try harder," "lead better," and "lower taxes" for a better American economy, government, and society. But let's be honest, these aren't actual solutions, these are just subjective terms which can be altered by Republicans so that any plan offered by a party that is not the Republican party can be shot down as not meeting these metrics. Let's call a spade a spade.

It's good to see young Republicans see Republican BS.

 

[deacphan]

Republicans used to be amazing at branding. Their PR ran laps around the Democrats. Not sure when that changed, and I don’t pay close enough attention to know who was rotated out in terms of the people crafting the message (Rove?). The Democrats still suck at PR, but the Republicans don’t seem very good at it either.

(Which has nothing to do with whether or not conservatives are "dumb." Just rambling.)

agreed.

 

[deacphan]

I know I'm comfortable judging who can and cannot lead the nation based on their ability and commitment to finding a church.

I did laugh out loud at the "and to be honest I think he's a Muslim". I can just hear my grandma leaning across the table a dinner and whispering the same thing.

i couldn't. one fo the things i love about my died-in-the-wool liberal, leftist, commielib grandma.

 

[WFFaithful]

Republicans used to be amazing at branding. Their PR ran laps around the Democrats. Not sure when that changed, and I don’t pay close enough attention to know who was rotated out in terms of the people crafting the message (Rove?). The Democrats still suck at PR, but the Republicans don’t seem very good at it either.

(Which has nothing to do with whether or not conservatives are "dumb." Just rambling.)

The TP takeover

 

[PhDeac]

Before that because Obama ran circles around them in 2008.

 

[WFFaithful]

Before that because Obama ran circles around them in 2008.

The TP was already wielding power at that point because they forced McCain to pick Palin as his running mate.

 

[TownieDeac]

stupid thread

 

[PhDeac]

The TP was already wielding power at that point because they forced McCain to pick Palin as his running mate.

Maybe. I don't think the McCain campaign knew that much about Palin when they picked her. That pick was more to get a woman on the ticket to draw Hillary voters. There weren't many women to choose from. On paper, she looked like a great choice.

 

[dmcheatw]

stupid thread

i do not see how the question is taboo. i've gone ahead and made the assertion, backed by at least three studies....so people are free to dispute that. I'm not an expert on this it's just what i have heard, seems to be supported by a quick google, and in line with my own experiences.

if you don't think it has any real world implications, then i may not necessarily disagree (i'd like to see what your argument is, if you have one, not calling you out though at all.), but just saying the thread sucks isn't any better than all the conservative posters which basically have already said that. nobody is engaging in any sort of discourse on either of the two original questions I asked. it makes me tend to think those questions both yield true answers.

would love to see a well spoken conservative address the original two questions.

 

[TownieDeac]

i'm a super lib and i hate the current pub strategy or anti strategy, and i've read the studies and they make me happy, but there are plenty of super smart republicans and plenty of super dumb libs and i don't buy this notion that on the whole conservatives are dumb. it takes good discourse from both sides to run this country well from where i stand.

 

[dmcheatw]

we're on the same page, although i suppose you give 'pubs a bit more credit than I do. to prevent group-think, confirmation bias, and belief perseverance (among other pitfalls) we need diverse viewpoints (and more than two parties) in the political dialogue.

that said, like assholes everyone has an opinion... but the less oft spoken addendum to that sentence is ...but not all opinions are equally supported by the evidence.

would u buy the notion that conservatives score lower than liberals on IQ tests? because that's all that's been asserted so far. the thread title was sensationalism, and the question mark absolves me of having to answer to that. that wasn't the real question i wanted to ask.

 

[TownieDeac]

i would buy a larger meta-study if the methods were a little more well-structured, it was double-blind, and the sample size was good. so basically, if there was reasonable evidence, yes. and even then, iq is just basically a denominator of aptitude. 98% of people on both sides don't use their brains, get stuck in a certain way of thinking, and never allow other people to change their minds on anything.

feel free to discuss without me, but i think the premise is faulty, that one party has dumber constituents than the other.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

There are dumb liberals and dumb conservatives.

The issue as I see it is the right has always been slightly better in regards to political unity with fewer strains of disparate ideals and unfortunately the dialogue and party lines aren't being promoted by the George Will's of the world, but instead Hannity, Limbaugh, Cruz etc.

The less educated portions of the party are also better at mobilizing and having their uneducated voices heard than their left leaning equivalents which probably exacerbates the problem somewhat. I think that tends to be one of the largest issues with this - the part of the party which this question was probably directed at/had in mind seems to have some sway or be in lock step with the main platform these days whereas the democrat equivalent remains somewhat a fringe group.

 

[RJKarl]

The TP was already wielding power at that point because they forced McCain to pick Palin as his running mate.

The only problem is the Tea Party didn't exist in 2008,

 

[jhmd2000]

i do not see how the question is taboo. i've gone ahead and made the assertion, backed by at least three studies....so people are free to dispute that. I'm not an expert on this it's just what i have heard, seems to be supported by a quick google, and in line with my own experiences.

if you don't think it has any real world implications, then i may not necessarily disagree (i'd like to see what your argument is, if you have one, not calling you out though at all.), but just saying the thread sucks isn't any better than all the conservative posters which basically have already said that. nobody is engaging in any sort of discourse on either of the two original questions I asked. it makes me tend to think those questions both yield true answers.

would love to see a well spoken conservative address the original two questions.

I had no idea you were such a racist...

 

[beatrix]

i never argued that the TP was less educated than the general public...

if you guys could frame what i wrote correctly, we could then discuss its merits.

Intelligence =/= to education, and besides, I'd bet major money the education the TP has is not in social sciences, at all. these fields include politics, economics, communications, and sociology...the fields most relevant to governing and informed voting.

No, you didn't. But I'd ask you to consider the general tone across multiple threads slamming the opposition party... the TP gets its share of ink, often (always???) characterized as an unsophisticated group of mouth-breathing idiots (for some reason, the King of the Hill character Dale pops into my mind), sitting around in their boxers, cleaning their guns and railing away at the very government(s) that provide their disability pay... so I thought the Times commentary was an interesting counter to the generalizations.

Granted, I didn't directly address your OP, but I'm not clear this was meant to be a serious topic... so I thought having some fun with it would be acceptable.