At then end of this post, Eric Earling posed this question: "Exit question: why is that voters who can't figure out how to fill out a ballot correctly lean Democratic?
Here's my (recycled) answer:
Why do I think that the imbalance in provisional votes shows that Democrats are more likely to have trouble voting? Because provisional votes are often cast by voters who have made some mistake, gone to the wrong precinct (in some states), registered under a different name than they usually use, or something similar. We would expect more of those mistakes from less educated voters, and the Democrats have most of those voters. (As well, of course, as most of the professors, and other highly educated voters.)
In short, Democratic voters make more mistakes because more of the poorly educated, to put it gently, are Democrats.
(The relationship between party and education is not linear, as I explained here. (While correcting a not very intelligent piece by Neal Starkman.)
Incidentally, the advantage in support that Democrats have among the less educated helps explain the results of the manual recount in our 2004 governor's race.
One curious change: At one time, the Democrats were proud of their support among the poorly educated and often described themselves as the party of the common man, or the party of the working class. Now, they seem almost ashamed of that support. I would guess that the change came after the 1972 McGovernite takeover of the Democratic party.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 18, 2008 07:37 AM | Email This"As evidence, Mr. Wolfe points to a new poll by Washington Post/ABC News that found that white people without a college degree favor John McCain, the Republican candidate, by 17 percentage points, while those with a college degree prefer Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, by 9 percentage points."
http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/2468/education-level-linked-to-party-affiliation-poll-suggests
Looks like the college educated favored Obama over McCain by a sizeable majority. It makes sense, McCain ran one of the lowest common denominator campaigns in history. Only a fool would have believed the stupid socialist accusations or the far-fetched attempts to link Ayers and Obama. The college educated did not buy the false accusations and saw through this as a cynical attempt to cover up failed republican policies and a lack of new ideas.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 18, 2008 08:07 AMHe is talking about the mentally challenged the Ds bus to the precincts.
For the above two posers, you people live in a dream world if you think everyone who passes high school can read. I remember one great foster kid who played a lot of video games growing up, but at the end, he couldn't read and cipher. This is pretty common.
There was another kid in our care. Dad was in jail and mom was on meth. In the middle of the first grade, the poor kid couldn't read words. He said, "no one taught him." For the rest of this story, by the end of the school year, he was caught up to his peers.
Folks, there are a lot of poor people out there (by poor, I mean those that can't experience the pleasure of reading a novel or a magazine).
These folks can't read the instructions. That is one of the reasons I believe in polling booths instead of mail-in. At the polling places, you can at least ask for help and get it.
Posted by: swatter on November 18, 2008 08:18 AMAnd you can find plenty of rich, educated whites who still think of themselves as victims of this country, or of George Bush, or of their poor health lifestyle or poor home lending decisions. And thus they voted Obama. Because Obama appealed to everyone that thinks that government is the magic bullet, and that something or someone else is responsible for, and can solve, their problems.
Democrats are the party of victims.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 18, 2008 08:43 AMThe democrats depend on people being uneducated to win elections. Logic destroys most of their arguments. The college educated crowd that voted for Obama tend to be 22 year old idealists who have never held a real job or had to pay property taxes each April 30 and October 31. Their idealism will go by the way-side once the realities of life set in.
Posted by: Jack on November 18, 2008 09:02 AMFor instance, here is a multiple graph from the New York Times showing exit poll results since 1972. The group with the lowest education in their sample, no high school degree, voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election, except 1984. And even in that landslide, Reagan just got 50 percent of their vote.
This year, that group gave their strongest support to the Democratic candidate since the beginning of these exit polls: 63 percent. Which is just what I said.
In contrast, McCain's best groups, by education, were college, and some college.
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 18, 2008 09:04 AMLooks like the college educated favored Obama over McCain by a sizeable majority. It makes sense, McCain ran one of the lowest common denominator campaigns in history. Only a fool would have believed the stupid socialist accusations or the far-fetched attempts to link Ayers and Obama. The college educated did not buy the false accusations and saw through this as a cynical attempt to cover up failed republican policies and a lack of new ideas.
I disagree with you on several fronts:
Besides, all this talk about who gets the support of poorly educated voters is just Jim's attempt to heal the nicks and cuts in his ego. Who cares about who is supported by the poorly educated voters, all that matters is that they are a voting block, and if you can't attract their vote, there's one more check against you.
Posted by: blindman on November 18, 2008 09:26 AM23% of Texans think Obama is a muslim despite all evidence to the contrary.
yeah all that evidence, like the fact that he says he is not-hardly convincing-he is not exactly the most honest person out there (he is, after all, a Chicago Politician who can't remember attending a campagin event at Ayers house). Oh but wait! There is no evidence of that is there...
Posted by: Jack on November 18, 2008 11:53 AM"I think the discrepancy in support between college and non-college educated white people just shows you how effective the leftist university indoctrination system has become. The peer pressure alone is enough to sway most voters who don't really care about, or follow, politics. If you throw in professors who publicly embarrass and ridicule students with opposing views and the constant bashing of non-leftist ideas in university newspapers, it is easy to see how vast majorities of college educated white people goose-step with the left."
so - the indoctrination by the idiot right wing radio tralk show hosts doesn't count but colleges MUST be indoctrinating their students.
Got ANY hard evidence? Or is this just your poorly documented pet theory?
"It has been shown by several major newspapers lately that McCain lost because the Republicans stayed home, not that the Democrats got a bunch of new voters."
Hahaha: In an election where more people voted than EVER before - McCain lost in a landslide because republicans stayed home?
Republicans lost OH, FL, VA, CO, NM, NV, NC, IN and part of Nebraska - because republicans stayed home?
republican lost in the senate and the house.
republicans lost among the college educated.
Face it - the republican message of free market excesses, corruption, unnecessary wars and record budget deficits doesn't fly with REAL americans.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 18, 2008 12:07 PMPromises of FREE STUFF.
Duh.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 18, 2008 12:22 PMI'm certain he's including Acorn-registered illegal aliens, convicted felons and the dead in that classification also.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 18, 2008 12:31 PMUmmm-check the numbers again, Obama got LESS VOTES that W in 2004.
There was NOT RECORD TURNOUT. If you were so correct, you would have known this... Unless of course you get your news from M$NBO (M$ Nothing but Obama, formerly Nothing but Clinton)
In fact, of the youngest age group (I think 18-24), there was only a ONE PERCENT increase in turnout.
Posted by: Jack on November 18, 2008 12:35 PMBush 2004: 62,040,610
Obama 2008: 66,760,924 (and still counting in some states)
LOL!! Whose numbers are you looking at Jack?
2008: Obama got 65,111,904 votes (and counting).
2004: Bush got 62,040,610 votes.
1984: Reagan at his height received 54,451,521 votes.
That being said-turnout was NOT A RECORD. Percent of eligible voters who voted was pretty much consistant.
Obasm won because he carried the 18-24 age group by 2-1.
When these young zealots get a real life, it will be more difficult to repeat. Especially when "voting for change" is so opaque. Good luck meeting that goal, since it is likely different for each individual.
Posted by: Jack on November 18, 2008 01:30 PMThe "young zelots" clearly know which President screwed up the economy, got us into two wars, and brought us the largest debt in history.
9/11 was a changing moment for this country, people were willing to give W. the benefit of the doubt, his approval rating was above 90%. Clearly going to Afghanistan was the wise choice, people seemed cautious on Iraq but with the media being the echo chamber of the Administration people went along with it. When it was later revealed that the Iraq War was planed prior to 9/11 and that no WMD's were to be found the people turned and wised up.
Other highlights of the Bush Administration was his grand unconstitutional Terri Schiavo stunt, his lackluster efforts to help New Orleans after Katrina, a Attorney General who spent $8k covering up breasts on a statue, the reveling of Gitmo torture methods, the failure of No Child Left Behind (an event they were a part of), the "Nuclear Option" for Supreme Court Justices, and the nationalization of AIG & others. I could not imagine a worse situation for a GOP candidate to be stuck in.
Obama seemed at an early disadvantage due to the prolonged Primary fight. Rather than taking advantage of the situation McCain wasted all his effort attacking Obama and failed to describe what he would do to help America. To top it all off he picked a lackluster running mate with no experience and basically threw away his best argument against Obama, experience.
Poor economy, unpopular President, combined with a poorly run campaign by McCain clearly led to Obama's large margin of victory over McCain (over 7.3 million votes at present time) and the lackluster showing by the Republican Party in Congressional races.
Need evidence of University indoctrination? If you have the stones, you can go buy, download and watch This Movie that makes a pretty compelling case about the University system and its primary goals and leanings. And there's plenty of other evidence out there if you are willing to look. Talk radio, which most people who listen to it do so for an hour or less a day, doesn't hold a candle to a four year university degree with compelling face to face professor time. Especially when in many cases professors lean so hard left, that they either consciously or unconsciously punish students who lean right or disagree with them, when it comes to grading. And especially when such indoctrination comes at a formative point in most people's lives.
I attended just such a university. I remember an Econ class from a certain East Indian where the only thing taught was Keynesian policy. If you disagreed and mentioned Friedman, or von Mises, you got lower scores on your essays. So most took the easy route and parroted back what the guy wanted to hear. That's indoctrination.
Listening to the radio, where there are no tests, and no outcome to one's grade average, or standing amongst peers, does not hold a candle.
dude. )-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 18, 2008 02:12 PMVoter suppression.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 18, 2008 02:50 PMPerhaps a better question would be, "Why is it that tainted ballots, incorrectly filled out ballots, and ballots that need to be "re-done" seem to tilt heavily towards Democrat candidates and causes by the time they are officially tabulated?"
The video posted by Jeff B @ 6 is nearly 10 minutes of the average turnip that voted for Obama not really knowing anything about him, his politics, or the Democrat party. He was the latest vogue issue, the flavor of the month and a media creation that ascended to power based on an uncanny ability to make his verbal diarrhea smell like garden roses to an ever increasing uninformed electorate.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 18, 2008 06:53 PMSilver interviewed Ziegler and has posted a transcript of the interview on his web site. I'll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.
Thanks, my assessment @ 35 stands.There's video proof @ 6 and @36 afterall.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 18, 2008 07:40 PMIt's laughable that you would give this guy enough credence to point people to his site. I agree with Rick D.--everyone should go to BOTH sites and see for themselves. As you said "leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions."--I don't expect that most would reach the same conclusion as you apparently have, however...
Thanks to Jeff B for the link to the u-tube video. You can also go to the actual website--How Obama Got Elected
Posted by: Bill H on November 18, 2008 08:38 PMRick, Obama ran against a candidate that would make anyone sick to their stomach, if they ever examined his military, and voting record. McCain was just another spoiled brat, and would probably have made a far worse president than even the lying chimp. Imagine him running the white house as poorly as his campaign. See what I mean?
Obama defeated McCain without pulling a single McCain skeleton out of the closet, and believe me, the closet is over flowing. Obama ran a brilliant campaign, and we can only hope his presidency succeeds, because if it doesn't America will go down the tubes. I don't think you constitution haters understand this.
It is time you right wingers started working to make America a better place, instead of trying to destroy her with your greed, and your politics of hate, and division. Time to grow up kiddies.
While you are at it, why don't you ask Paulson who he gave all those trillions to.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 18, 2008 08:44 PMI remember Cheney, live on national TV saying Saddam could have a nuclear weapon is as little as 6 months. I watched him say it myself. He was lying straight faced. TREASON.
Mankind has not invented a punishment severe enough to equal what Dick Cheney deserves. Cracking heads at the Senate to make sure he was allowed to TORTURE KNOWN TO BE INNOCENT VICTIMS.
I hope he spends eternity in an extra hot part of hell. Maybe Satan has a couple extra large pineapples for his kazoo. (Little Nicki)
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on November 18, 2008 08:50 PMOn the other hand, many Obama voters were lazy and ill-informed as a result of being mesmerized by their candidate. We (collectively ) get who we deserve and the results have not been good for quite some time. The voters have spoken and if the results turn out to be bad, then they who elected those serving are at fault for being ignorant and ill-informed and voting for them in the first place. However its too early to accurately assess this, but I will say that the handwriting is on the wall.
One sign of ignorance and being misinformed is that the Democrats may have a vetoproof majority in the Senate and they have been very mediocre since they took over in 2006, so how can this be ? Extenuating circumstances such as the economy can be an alibi as to why voters made what appears to be poor choices in Congressional races, but poor choices are still poor choices and the handwriting is on the wall.
Posted by: KS on November 18, 2008 08:55 PMMy own opinion is that neither of them came off particularly well. Silver should have either supported his claims about debatable questions or not made them, and did mischaracterized what may or may not have been a "message testing" poll as a "push poll".
At the same time, Ziegler's insulting and dismissive comments toward an interviewer, his profane end to the interview, and his reference to Silver as "the enemy" seems to me unprofessional and makes it difficult to take him seriously.
Since you asked (albeit in a sidelong way), I did in fact know the answers that Ziegler was looking for in every one of his questions. I believe the wording of some of the questions is debatable and intended for purposes other than unbiased information gathering, but regardless of that there were answers in each case that the questioner would clearly assert to be correct. Some of the issues were widely reported in the media, others were not.
I read widely on both the left and the right, have studied a variety of political and economic schools of thought, and take virtually nothing at face value from either side of the political spectrum. Blind adherence to dogma of any variety is the enemy of good government.
And for the record, my state allows residents to register as unaffiliated rather than as a member of any political party. I am both formally and philosophically an unaffiliated voter rather than a partisan of either the left or the right, and I am distressed by the degree of blind adherence to dogma and unthinking partisanship on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Prometheus on November 18, 2008 08:57 PMI'd like to give the President-elect a fair chance and think he may do OK, if it wasn't for the Democrat leadership in Congress that he has to work with - Pelosi and Reid are partisan hacks on a mission to exact revenge on the Republicans for the last 8 years - a misguided and damaging premise; I hope that I am wrong on that, but it looks that way for now.
Posted by: KS on November 18, 2008 09:09 PMIf you look at the numbers it is true that Gregoire gained exactly twice as many votes as Rossi in the manual recount in King Cty, but overall she got only 1.44 times as many votes.
Either a) there was cheating in Gregoire's favor in the manual recount, or b) Gregoire voters were about 40% more likely to botch their ballot.
Posted by: russell garrard on November 18, 2008 11:37 PMWas McCain simply "not getting his message out", or was it that, no matter how much he tried, his message didn't make it too far past the MSM filters?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 19, 2008 07:48 AMBy this reasoning, those who can fill out a ballot have "learned" the skills for filling out school tests correctly, thus they must be more receptive to being "indoctrined" :)
A woman I know, recently spoke to a foster child she had. He is mentally handicapped, slow but functions in society, has a job now. He recently voted for his first time, for Obama. Given the choice, I could only wonder why someone in his situation wouldn't vote Democratic.
Posted by: Just on November 19, 2008 07:58 AMYou unknowingly just described the average Democrat party voter.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 19, 2008 09:21 AM