9.29.2009

The Attention Deficit

Gallup has some interesting data out on the percentage of Americans who pay a lot of attention to political news. Although the share of Americans following politics has increased substantially among partisans of all sides, it is considerably higher among Republicans than among Democrats:

This is not necessarily a new feature of the political landscape. News tends to be consumed by people who are older and wealthier, which is more characteristic of Republicans than Democrats and has been for some time. Nor is it clear that a measure like this has any sort of predictive value for upcoming elections. The "attention deficit" was fairly high in 2006, but Democrats nevertheless has a very good election. In 2004, by contrast, the attention gap had actually reversed itself -- Democrats were watching the news more than Republicans -- but John Kerry lost to George W. Bush and the Democrats failed to make any tangible gains in the Congress.

But this probably is important from the standpoint of day-to-day news cycles. If you want to "win the day" on the cable networks, you probably need a message that appeals to older people of a higher socioeconomic status. Republicans, recently, have tended to place more emphasis on winning daily news cycles where as Democrats -- particularly the President -- seem instead to go for "big" moments. Both parties are really playing to their strengths.

This may also be important from the standpoint of interpreting polls. It is hard to weed out response bias -- people who are more interested in politics are more likely, maybe much more likely, to take a political survey. Although weighting for demographics can remove some of this response bias, it probably cannot remove all of it, or it may do so in weird ways that tend to cause the polling results to be less reliable. This is one reason why polls on policy issues tend to be less consistent with one another than polls on elections.

76 comments

Mule Rider said...

Where'd everybody go?

Dwight said...

Lonely already?

It appears the comments were disabled/broken for a brief period.

ArcadeFire said...

But many of those republicans get their news from Fox, so they got a lot of distorted information. Their are probably more Democrats who actually accurately informed.

ArcadeFire said...

*who are

Andy said...

I think there is an alternate explanation that isn't being accounted for here. People generally pay far more attention to dismaying/bad news than they do to good news. It's one of the principles behind running negative political ads.

For Republicans in general, most of the things going on in the news are bad, policies they don't like, so I think it's hardly surprising that they are paying more attention. Same goes for the Democrats in 2004.

Outrage attracts eyeballs.

GROG said...

ArcadeFire said:

But many of those republicans get their news from Fox, so they got a lot of distorted information. Their are probably more Democrats who actually accurately informed.


You mean actually accurately informed from such great journalistic news organizations like CBS, or NBC, or CNCBC or the New York Times???

Jeremy said...

Came here to say what ArcadeFire said. Lots of people might be saying they are following the news "very closely" when they define "very closely" as watching Glenn Beck every single day.

Just John said...

Good point Andy.
An interesting piece of data missing here is WHERE these political junkies like ourselves are getting their news, or as the case may be, "news." Is it Cable? Network? Blogs like these? That info, broken down by party affiliation, would be worth reading about.

T.W. said...

Of course Republicans watch a lot of news... how on earth would they remain Republicans if they didn't get a regular supply of paranoid misinformation from Fox?

EmonOkari said...

Fox News = Yellow Press

Nosimplehiway said...

A ten point gap in news consumption may have implications for the idea that Pres. Obama is overexposed.

Those of us who leave cable news on all day, and set our alarms to get up for the Sunday shows may see Pres. Obama as overexposed. Meanwhile, those Americans whose idea of background noise tv is a soap opera, the Weather Channel or ESPN, don't.

POTUS should be going on shows like Leno, Today, SNL, SportsCenter and the View. These are audiences who likely don't see the Prez as overexposed.

Bart DePalma said...

This is not necessarily a new feature of the political landscape. News tends to be consumed by people who are older and wealthier, which is more characteristic of Republicans than Democrats and has been for some time.

It would be more accurate to state conservatives are better educated and thus wealthier and more likely to be consumers of news.

This may also be important from the standpoint of interpreting polls. It is hard to weed out response bias -- people who are more interested in politics are more likely, maybe much more likely, to take a political survey.

And more likely to vote and cast an informed ballot.

Drowzee said...

BDP & GROG:

Wow. So looking for agreement among multiple news sources makes me less informed than someone who only watches Fox News or listens to Limbaugh?


My eyes have been opened.


I argue that you are confusing opinions and data with information.

More opinions and more data does not lead to an informed citizen on either side.

I'm sure you both will readily agree that we liberals are not informed, despite the vast left-wing jew-controlled media conspiracy that feeds us lies and talking points. We have a lot of information and data, but you would not consider us 'informed', correct?

How are republicans/conservatives any more likely to be 'informed' when they are subject to the same failings as liberals/democrats?

Just because one group consumes more 'news' than another does not equate with being more informed.

Further, when certain news networks argue and obtain a legal ruling that they can lie to the public (case in point, Fox News, Feb. 14, 2003), does consumption and trust of a single 'information' source make one more 'informed'?
Or does it simply make one more likely to succumb to bias and misinformation?

Just John said...

Bartholomew, Bartholomew...
Part One: Not true. I would send you to link, but there are too many.
Part Two: Excellent point. Nate's grasping at straws there.
But you should be glad. One for two raises your batting average considerably.

Bart DePalma said...

Drowzee/Just John:

Go check out Pew for a breakdown of the relative education of GOP and Dem voters.

Drowzee may also want to check out the Pew findings of which media programs have the most informed audience. The Limbaugh Show comes out ahead of nearly all of the Dem news sources.

Alon Levy said...

BDP: check the exit polls - the Democrats perennially do best among both people with postgraduate degrees and high school dropouts; the Republicans do best among people with some college education. Until 2008 people with postgrad degrees were actually the Democrats' strongest educational demographic.

Nate said...

I wonder if individuals consume more political news when their party is losing?

Davy said...

Anybody know when the book is coming out? I await anxiously. I bet once Nate becomes a best selling author the trolls won't be so blustery.

Bart DePalma said...

Alon Levy:

BDP: check the exit polls - the Democrats perennially do best among both people with postgraduate degrees and high school dropouts; the Republicans do best among people with some college education. Until 2008 people with postgrad degrees were actually the Democrats' strongest educational demographic.

I agree completely. As a primarily urban phenomenon, the modern Dem party is dominated by urban professionals and the urban poor.

However, you need to take the next step and quantify these groups. The Dem urban poor heavily outnumber the Dem professional classes, bringing down that party's average education. Thus, your average Elephant with some or all of a college degree have more years of education than your average Dem.

Bart DePalma said...

Nate said...

I wonder if individuals consume more political news when their party is losing?

I doubt it. Politics reminds me more of professional sports. Weak fans like the political mushy middle follow the winners.

Just John said...

Bart, I'm enjoying the modicum of sense your comments make today.
But as the pew numbers suggest, there is a great disparity between education levels in each camp, conservative and liberal. (And that's all 2005 data, so I'm going to go out on a very strong limb and proclaim that 2009 numbers on the same issue would show a substantial swing to the left's advantage, what with the flight of moderates from the right.)
What is indisputable is that more degrees translates directly to a greater likelihood of voting Democratic. The rest of the education stats can be spun this way and that to make a partisan point, depending on who you want to include and exclude.

Mule Rider said...

I love how I have more posts deleted than any other commenter at this site. That won't stop me from being heard, however. Great article by Howard Fineman at Newsweek.com. A must read.

The Limits of Charisma

Mason said...

I love how I have more posts deleted than any other commenter at this site. That won't stop me from being heard, however. Great article by Howard Fineman at Newsweek.com. A must read.

That one wasn't political. Good netizens don't steal other people's hits, brah. The hypertext link is your friend.

shiloh said...

On the bright side all of MPM's O/T posts were zapped. ;)

BDP, just replied to you in a previous thread that the well-educated, 1/3 of Americans are trending heavily Dem, go figure.

And as I said earlier, Dems are very happy Obama won, whereas the dwindling Reps are totally distraught having lost to a young, relatively inexperienced, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Islamo-Fascist, Satan, The Devil Incarnate, The Anti-Christ, wealth distributor, who wants to kill grandma, who is a Muslim born in Kenya, yada, yada, yada ... hence, ergo, therefore they are clinging to their guns, religion and fixednoise lol as they all can cry in their beer together! :)

Yes Virginia, the redneck yahoos are a tad upset an African/American family is living in the White House, go figure!

the hate and nonsense is flying fast and furious, even fixed is on overload lol and they thrive on fear and hatred ...

take care

Yes, as a rule, losers are always more attentive than winners, especially yahoo losers, but the progressives are having fun watching the losers bringing it full circle as regards to paying attention.

Alon Levy said...

BDP, among voters, many more (about 17%) have a postgrad degree than are high school dropouts (4%).

And within urban areas, the Dems seem more dominated by the unionized middle class than by either the professional class or the underclass.

Mule Rider said...

Good netizens don't steal other people's hits, brah. The hypertext link is your friend.

If you weren't so illiterate, you would have seen that I cited Howard Fineman (Newsweek0 as the author. It's not uncommon for many other posters to do the exact same thing I did, which is to reference another article (by providing a link) and then cut/paste lengthy excerpts of it, if not the entire thing.

It was done purely with vindictive motives because of who I am and not because I didn't follow protocol. Don't even pretend to be that dense. Then again, maybe you're not pretending.

Mason said...

MR- Calm yourself.

You posted the *entire* article. That takes money from Newsweek, because people no longer need to go there to read it (and view or click on the ads). That's a no-no. Try a leading paragraph and a link.

Think a minute before you claim victimhood... if it was removed for vindictive reasons, why is your 1720 post with a link still there?

Mule Rider said...

You posted the *entire* article.

As I said, I've seen it done here before and the contents were not removed.

That takes money from Newsweek, because people no longer need to go there to read it (and view or click on the ads). That's a no-no. Try a leading paragraph and a link.

Give me a break! Me posting that article here has a negligible impact on Newsweek's traffic.

Think a minute before you claim victimhood...

I just know how much I'm loathed by Nate and most everyone else in this echo chamber, so it's a logical deduction that they would silence me for posting something - my own words or someone else's - that isn't consistent with their world view or their reverance for Obama.

if it was removed for vindictive reasons, why is your 1720 post with a link still there?

Maybe they just haven't gotten around to deleting it yet. Or maybe because it doesn't actually have the text (i.e. you have to follow the link) that is negative towards Obama, they are willing to tolerate it.

Mason said...

Two words, MR:

Fair.
Use.

That is all there is. Anything else is just a copyright violation, and a responsible forum operator will delete it, or edit the post to replace it with a link.

loner said...

Mule—

What's this? You posted an essay and included the author's name and a link? Wonders will never cease.

This comment should be deleted.

Mule Rider said...

Okay, dude, whatever. I'm not going to sit here and go tit-for-tat with another groveling mouthpiece for the Obama propaganda machine.

We both know why it was deleted, but only one of us has sense enough to admit it. You're free to say and think what you want. I'm not going to get into another irrelevant argument that is borne out of the steady ejaculatory spew of illogical liberal statements.

Mule Rider said...

@loner,

I saw where you said you were intrigued by me the other day. What, are you wanting to schedule an interview?

You remind me a lot of assmole. Shy and mostly uninteresting but with occasional wit and generally polite. That's my take on you, at least.

Mule Rider said...

My only quibble being the paranoia you seem to have in thinking I've posted under several aliases at this site.

I know I won't convince you, but I have always been, currently am, and will always be 'Mule Rider.'

Mr. Universe said...

Cutting and pasting articles without permission is a copyright violation, albeit one with negligible consequences. Besides we would miss out on the opportunity to be exposed to teeth whitening ads, Before and after Photoshopped (tm) aging pictures, colon cleansers, and weight loss before and afters. I wonder if anyone really ever clicks on those ads?

Mr. Universe said...

I have always been, currently am, and will always be 'Mule Rider.'

Well at least you can admit that you're an obtuse fool.

Mason said...

We both know why it was deleted, but only one of us has sense enough to admit it.

Proof by assertion. The counterexample remains above.

Try again.

Mason said...

MU-
The Interent without ads? There's something unamerican about that. Where there is a revenue stream, we shall dam it.

Mule Rider said...

Let me repeat:

I'm not going to get into another irrelevant argument that is borne out of the steady ejaculatory spew of illogical liberal statements.

If you have something worthy to discuss, then you try again.

Mule Rider said...

Well at least you can admit that you're an obtuse fool.

Any hint of that is merely a reflection of the company I keep here, a parasite-filled den full of utter nonsense and paranoia.

Mason said...

Anyway... Here's somthing more on topic:

Chris Cizilla, The Fix, The Washington Post. (9/29/09)

The national debate over President Obama's health care plan has exposed a weakness in the Democratic Party apparatus: it lacks a high profile surrogate to push back -- hard -- against the rhetorical arguments put forward by Republicans.

While people like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin have scored points by hammering the Obama plan hard and repeatedly, there has not been that same sort of presence on the Democratic side. The dearth of attack dogs contributed to the White House losing the message war in September.

Obama, himself, hasn't been -- and shouldn't be -- the party's attack dog. He has fought back against some of the misinformation being disseminated on health care by taking a forceful tone but always staying within the bounds of being presidential.

But, no one else in the party seems interested in filling that space.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine (Va.) would be an obvious pick but he remains the governor of Virginia through early next year and his political nature is not confrontational.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean (Vt.) has confrontational down pat but he has no official position within the party and, having been passed over for secretary of Health and Human Services, isn't likely to be called on by the Obama administration.

Former president Bill Clinton surely understands the need for someone to counter the Republican message machine, but after his scarring performance during the 2008 campaign, he isn't likely to wade back into the waters any time soon. (Clinton did show a flash of his own brilliance over the weekend when he slammed the ongoing "vast right wing conspiracy" during an interview with "Meet the Press".)

The best fit for the attack dog role -- and we reject the negative connotation that the phrase seems to carry -- is one Rahm Emanuel, who during his time in the House showed both an affinity and skill for the bare-knuckled brawls that accompany any major policy fight. Emanuel, however, is constrained in how aggressive he can be since he is no longer a member of Congress but rather chief of staff to the president.

Without someone hammering Republicans on health care, the task has fallen largely to outside interest groups -- the most notable of which are Health Care for America Now and several of the large labor unions, which have spent heavily on television ads slamming the insurance industry for seeking to block health care and line its pockets.

There are some within the party who reject the idea that an attack dog is necessary, arguing that voters want solutions and not negative attacks from their politicians. "It seems like we have an abundance of snarling canines," said former Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey (D).

But, politics is a game of choices -- the candidate or party that is able to define the choice in terms favorable to them usually wins.

Like it or not, Republicans have been relentless in their willingness to slam the Obama health care plan as -- among other things -- detrimental to seniors, sketchy when it comes to end of life care and almost certain to raise taxes on the middle class.

In politics, an attack with no response is often believed. Democrats' lack of an attack dog has meant that they have left too many Republican hits unanswered -- a problem not only for the remainder of the health care debate but the next several years of the Obama presidency.

Mr. Universe said...

No really, think about it. A mule is a cross-bred smelly animal with a penchant for stubbornness. Only a fool would ride one. Didn't Don Quixote's sidekick Pancho ride a mule? Maybe you and PK can go tilt at windmills together.

Mason said...

I'm not going to get into another irrelevant argument that is borne out of the steady ejaculatory spew of illogical liberal statements.

An explanation of copyright is illogical and liberal?

What a queer little man you are.

Mason said...

MU-
They're very sure-footed beasts of burden. If you're riding down a steep trail, mules are the way to go.

Mule Rider said...

An explanation of copyright is illogical and liberal?

Dude, you just posted an entire excerpt from Chris Cillizza's (NOT Cizilla) Washington Post article.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

Are you even being serious chastising me for doing the same thing and trying to explain why mine was deleted while doing the exact same thing? That is the apex of illogical behavior.

Mule Rider said...

An explanation of copyright is illogical and liberal?

No, but obfuscating and ignoring the fact that I'm a target of scorn on this site is.


What a queer little man you are.

And what a whiny little bitch you are. Do I even know you? I don't need to waste any more of my time with a simpleton.

Mule Rider said...

I'm vindicated. They are leaving the entire excerpt from Chris Cillizza's Washington Post article that Mason posted after deleting what I said, when we essentially did the same thing.


By the way, whatever happened to

Try a leading paragraph and a link.

Mason said...

Are you even being serious chastising me for doing the same thing and trying to explain why mine was deleted while doing the exact same thing? That is the apex of illogical behavior.

That you cannot see the logic is not my fault. I'm sure it will become apparent shortly. Even to you.

loner said...

Mule—

I've told you before why you interest me. It has a lot to do with your various aliases (your denials notwithstanding) and your gaffs.

There's Mark Jordan and there's unsourced non-neutral weasel-worded addition and there's Cade Barker. Remember Cade Barker?

Paranoia is not one of my problems.

Please delete this comment.

Mule Rider said...

That you cannot see the logic is not my fault. I'm sure it will become apparent shortly. Even to you.

The only possible "logical" thing I can see you doing by that is to post something to prove that it too will be deleted and that it isn't just a function of them deleting things that only I post.

If that's the case, then I'm confident I will be vindicated. Yours will be left alone.

Mason said...

If that's the case, then I'm confident I will be vindicated. Yours will be left alone.

And I'm confident that if they do, you'll claim that they only did it because I wanted them to do so.

You still complained about it before figuring out what I was doing. Admit it. I had you going there of a second or two.

Mule Rider said...

Mark Jordan?
Cade Barker?
Who???


Seriously, loner, you are the only one displaying any paranoia around here.

I've only been under two blogger ID's. You can check this on backtype.

I'm currently at:
16332455517929326496

And I was formerly at:
18017729469839020424


Everything else is from imposters or other whacks just ranting away on the internet. I know some of you dimwits can't believe there are more "wackos" (your description of me, not mine) than just me out there, but trust me, it's true.

Mule Rider said...

And I'm confident that if they do, you'll claim that they only did it because I wanted them to do so.

Let's just see what happens first. My personal belief is that Nate, et al have their "finger on the trigger" ready to censor me at any opportunity, so they won't give it a second look if it's under your name. Which, again, defends my position. In any event, if they do leave it, you'll claim they only did it out of oversight.

You still complained about it before figuring out what I was doing. Admit it. I had you going there of a second or two.

I thought you might be doing it to prove a point. That was my initial reaction, as I really didn't think you were stupid enough to critique me for something and then do the exact same thing. But I couldn't make that assumption and had to take it at face value. You know, I try and avoid that whole "ASS out of U and ME" thing.

Mule Rider said...

Looks like I win. Better luck next time.

Drowzee said...

BDP:

You're confusing education with media savvy.


In something you'd agree with, a good number of educated people with undergraduate and graduate degrees voted for Obama, so that disproves the 'more educated = more informed', right?

This is about the source of information. If there were no news networks, no papers, no communication of anything about what was happening in congress, how could any citizen form any opinion about it?

Even if they all had doctorates, they need information to have an opinion on anything.

Being informed is not the same as consuming information. If you watch one channel for all 'news', you only have one source of information, regardless of the time spent watching. If that source is compromised, the consumer becomes 'misinformed'. Only by taking information from both sides, looking at the overlap, and trying to remove the bias, can one approach the state of being 'informed' with any reliability.

By my reasoning, since we don't have any data about what the source of the news was, we can't assume that Republicans xor Democrats are more 'informed', regardless of the amount of media they claim to consume.

Mason said...

Looks like I win. Better luck next time.

This is good news for John McCain.

Seriously... give it some time or else, be proactive and file a complaint to bring it to their attention.

I don't doubt that they have you on a list, but you've a track-record with lapses of self-control.

Mule Rider said...

I don't doubt that they have you on a list, but you've a track-record with lapses of self-control.


Hah, that's laughable. I am generally civil and only wallow in the filth once it's obvious that's where the game is going to be played for the day.

And who are you again...especially to accost me with your value judgements of my character? You came out of nowhere and got in my face. I've never seen you around here before. Or at least not nearly as much as some of the regulars like shiloh, Pragmatus, liberal_defender_of_freedom, etc.

Mason said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Mason said...

And who are you again...especially to accost me with your value judgements of my character? You came out of nowhere and got in my face. I've never seen you around here before. Or at least not nearly as much as some of the regulars like shiloh, Pragmatus, liberal_defender_of_freedom, etc.

First, no... You're generally disagreeable, though not always. Secondly, does "Oil Speculators" ring a bell? How about when Nate "pwnd" you? I've been silent, but lurking for a while. Too busy in the meat-space, you know?

Mule Rider said...

Gotta watch those "lurkers." They'll get ya at the poker table, if you don't keep an eye on 'em.

Well, I gotta run. It's time to get some shit done around here.

loner said...

Mule—

Really? I called you a wacko?

You forgot Mason? He was number 4 on your 12/13 "Most Despised List" which reminds me: How'd you forget PorridgeGun?

Delete this comment at your earliest convenience.

shiloh said...

Drowzee said...

BDP:

You're confusing education with media savvy.
~~~~~~~~~~


BDP has been confused for quite some time ...

DNFTT

Bart DePalma said...

shiloh:

BDP, just replied to you in a previous thread that the well-educated, 1/3 of Americans are trending heavily Dem, go figure.

No surprise at all. At their cores, the GOP is the party of entrepreneurial business and the Dems are the party of labor. Entrepreneurial businessmen and women do not require post graduate degrees to create and operate businesses. In contrast, graduate and post graduate degree holders are generally employees, often highly paid, but still employees.

Moreover, professionals and graduate or post graduate degree holders tend to congregate in cities and the Dems are the urban party.

Alon Levy said...

BDP, among voters, many more (about 17%) have a postgrad degree than are high school dropouts (4%).

Many of the uneducated who self identify Dem or liberal do not bother to vote. That was my original point above.

And within urban areas, the Dems seem more dominated by the unionized middle class than by either the professional class or the underclass.

The vast majority of the middle class who work in the private sector are not union members and have been migrating away from Blue megacities for about three decades now. Thus, the Dems are like an Oreo with most of its middle sucked out, leaving a top wafer and a bottom wafer.

Bart DePalma said...

Drowzee said...

BDP: You're confusing education with media savvy.

Actually, you make a great point about the difference between educational credentialing and intellectual curiosity.

Educational credentialing is generally a function of the work you wish to pursue or your parents have pushed you into pursuing through their expectations.

Intellectual curiosity is something you have for your own personal benefit.

Voracious consumers of news and facts fall into the latter category.

This begs the question of whether conservatives are more intellectually curious than liberals because conservatives are more voracious consumers of news by a substantial margin?

I know enough not to argue causation from a simple correlation unlike those who worship at the altar of the manmade climate change religion, but this correlation is interesting.

Theogrin said...

Twofold apologies, first for interrupting what looks to be a massively entertaining flame war, and second if I happen to repost anything that happens to have been said:

At the moment, in contrast to the state during the W. Bush administration, we have a president who is not only Democratic, but is potentially more liberal than we've seen in some time. The end result of this occupancy is that those on the conservative side are probably likely to pay attention to the news in order to spot spoofs and blunders, much as those on the liberal side did from 2001-2008; it's an old cycle, and likely to be repeated ad infinitum throughout the future of the United States, no matter who's in charge. Those who aren't behind the chair, or want someone else sitting on it, are more likely to pay scrutiny to the one who currently occupies it... and it doesn't matter /what/ party they're in.

I am likely conflating causality and correlation, but it seems to me that those feeling they're under threat - for reasons good, bad, or ugly - are more likely to pay attention to that perceived threat.

Inferno said...

@Theogrin: No, by all means, interrupt away. Please.

I'm pretty much going to have to say "this." Though one trend I picked up on is that independents have been steadily paying more attention to political news.

I think there also may be a response bias. I mean, I watch Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show (well, more Maddow - Keith is a gigantic blowhard and pretty much every time I turn his show on, he's bigger, oranger, and angrier) fairly often, check up on politics articles nearly every day, and read FiveThirtyEight pretty much every day...but I wouldn't say I follow politics closely.

Conversely, and I know how much you hate anecdotes...how many times have you seen someone on the Internet say, "I know this guy/lady, and he/she says, 'I follow politics very closely! I tune into Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly/Laura Ingraham/etc., etc. every single day!'?"

shiloh said...

Bart DePalma said...

shiloh:

BDP, just replied to you in a previous thread that the well-educated, 1/3 of Americans are trending heavily Dem, go figure.

No surprise at all. At their cores, the GOP is the party of entrepreneurial business and the Dems are the party of labor.
~~~~~~~~~~


Again, more rationalizations from BDP, hey at least your consistent. ;) As always, please provide source material to back up your claim re: entrepreneurial business. A 2008 exit poll would be interesting to look at. Perhaps you have anecdotal evidence lol

btw, CNN's exit poll does show college degree breakdown:

College degree ~ 53/45 Obama
No college degree ~ 53/46 Obama

Also, first time voters ~ 69/30 Obama

btw, here's a list of Obama campaign endorsements. Quite a diverse group, eh as (8) years of cheney/bush changed everything.

and feel free to post source material backing up the seat of your pants entrepreneurial business rationalization anytime ...

take care

DARKERstar1 said...

It would seem that the ever wonderful MR has stopped comments on this site for awhile by lighting this post on fire. I wonder is this the same guy who threatened Nate's life?

Theogrin said...

@Inferno: Well, I definitely agree that independents seem to be paying more attention, though that 'response bias' may play a large part in it; also, I find independents in general,or those more predisposed towards the middle-ground, more common than in years gone by. (I may, of course, be utterly wrong there: I'll have to do more research.) Perhaps that correlation exists because that same attention to the news lends itself to a less knee-jerk reaction to the current political climate, or stories therein - knowing the whole story helps a lot. It is easier to find numerous points of view and sources with the internet as prolific as it is.

I do mean no offense to steadfast liberals or conservatives here: that same proclivity can work to cement one's political views, for both good and bad reasons, or it can provoke a level of uncertainty. What you take from the news is, after all, dependent at least partially on who you are.

Finally... in that anecdote, and above, I do have to wonder how that bias fits in with the poll. There are quite a lot of readers on every side of the equation who follow innumerable blogs, but only get their news from one source or set thereof. If they feel that those sources are the only ones worth listening to, they may well believe they're following politics as closely as is feasible, which could result in skewed numbers and be damaging to the political process - the natural result of an echo chamber.

GbThrone said...

Once again more proof of two hypotheses I support.
1st. The President is not so much overexposed as not acting like a political leader. After all, as a party leader who has majorities in both Houses of Congress, he can't get action on his agenda? To recall an ancient campaign slogan, "Where's the beef?" Except for shoveling tax dollars to bankers and defacto taking over an auto manufacturer, there really hasn't been much action on his agenda. 2nd. "Never argue with a zealot. All they ever do is practice arguing their points." This relates directly to the discourse that virtually every comment thread on this site degenerates into...a steady stream of the same advocates of opposing positions pointing fingers and launching ad hominem attacks against each other.

Inferno said...

More anecdotes time:

On another site (Fark, actually), I was reading through the comments thread on some Politics tab post. Someone wrote a comment to the effect of, "I'm a moderate! I'm very far left on social issues and very conservative fiscally!"

I think I broke my nose facepalming at the cognitive dissonance.

Anyway. With all due respect, I'm going to have to disagree with attentiveness to the news, especially cable news, correlating to greater objectivity - I'll admit, I'm more prone to tune into Rachel Maddow because she fulfills my confirmation bias most of the time. Likewise to someone who tunes into Fox News.

I'm probably more prone to click a link to something on Daily Kos (though I'll probably click through to the linked articles if I do) than I am to read something on RedState. Someone like Bart, for instance, may do precisely the opposite.

If I had to conjecture with regards to response bias, though, it probably fits in fairly neatly with the poll. I mean, look at Glenn Beck's ratings compared to Keith Olbermann's. Granted, Beck is probably a more controversial figure than Olbermann (understatement of the century), and some of that is people tuning in to the freak show. However, I think that part of the reason he has a larger audience is because more conservatives are tuned in to politics in general. (Part of it is because liberals tend to trust cable news less - I believe DKos is more heavily trafficked than Townhall, RS, LGF, even Freep - and the liberal blogosphere is larger than the conservative one. I don't think that counteracts that, though.)

I also agree that it is dangerous - on both ends. I think the greatest failure of American media - online, television, and to a lesser degree, traditionally published - is that there's a lot of punditry mixed in with the actual news. While I understand that it's easier and more accessible to play up the drama for ratings/pageviews/sales, my ideal of the media is for a more sober deal.

On an unrelated note: I am kind of tired of the NJ Governor campaign. Can't it be Election Day already?

Inferno said...

Also:

@GBThorne - You mean "ad campaign." The famous "Where's The Beef?" slogan was from a 1980's Wendy's advertisement, though it's entered the popular lexicon.

Also: ARRA. AKA "the stimulus."

Mason said...

On an unrelated note: I am kind of tired of the NJ Governor campaign. Can't it be Election Day already?

This is one of the worst things about living in VA. The elections are never-ending. It still beats the pants off of Merilan, though.

Mason said...

Anecdote regarding response bias: I've blown off several polls on statewide or local races recently because they happened to call me during MNF or SNF. Any other night and I'll probably answer, but don't interrupt me then.

matunos said...

TLDR

Gunnery Sergeant Chimichanga said...

I think the finding that the opposition party pays attention more closely to political news stands very well to reason - if your party is in power, you may feel that you don't have to keep an eye on the till since you likely have a greater trust of those in power. Conversely, there is greater anxiety when your party is out of power so you want to keep a close eye on them.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,