The voting public in this country is so stupid it's pathetic. Hear me out

[tryanhas]

One woman in SC said that she is voting for Kerry over Edwards because, she "doesn't like Edwards' position on the war."

Hello idiot! They have the same position on the war! Both voted for the IWR and against the $87 billion.

Kerry got just as much of the ANTIWAR VOTE IN NH as Dean did!

It had nothing to do with "ELECTABILITY" like all of the news stations wanted to believe.

It is because Kerry's ads are just as misleading as his explanation of why he supported the war.

It leads some people to believe that he did IF THEY WANTED HIM TO, and leads others to believe that he DIDN'T if they don't want him to have.

When I saw that clip, I wanted to snap!

They have the same position you idiot!

People in this country are so dumb that it's no wonder politicians like Bush and Kerry can keep manipulating people and getting in to office!

Kerry is getting more of the democratic vote in SC than Edwards who is doing extremely well among independents.

Why do you think that is???

IT'S BECAUSE THEY THINK KERRY IS ANTIWAR based on his misleading explanations and misleading ads! SC Democrats and blacks are just as antiwar as most democrats in the country, especially the black population. Pretty much it is totally against this war.

And Kerry is benefiting from the ignorance of the voting public and his misleading explanation and ads where he criticizes Bush and the war leading people who ONLY KNOW ABOUT HIM BY HIS ADS to assume that he was against the war.

Clever, but it literally ticks me off that people in this country are that dumb to fall for it!

[redqueen]

1. I feel your pain

We really need to teach more critical thinking in elementary education.

[demnan]

2. If a candidate is dishonest

it is not the fault of the electorate, it is the fault of the candidate.

[cindyw]

5. That explains a lot about why people think Dean was against giving

Bush authority. Thanks for the analysis.

[nobiz]

7. Badmouthing the electorate

That's exactly right. If people are swayed by misleading ads, it is because no one is countering the disinformation. That's what we should be doing. Call me naive, but I don't think we'll win any elections running on the slogan: "We're smarter than the rest of you morons."

[janx]

25. It's not a matter of being smarter. It's a matter of being better

informed, that's all.

It's all about information, not brains.

[nobiz]

29. My point exactly

How do we help people become better informed? Not by calling them stupid.

[tryanhas]

33. and "MY POINT EXACTLY"!

It's not so much that they are stupid because they are "UNINFORMED".

They are stupid because they could care less about being informed.
They could care less about this stuff until it's time to vote, and for some, that means, all the way up until election day.

If people were concerned with informed, instead of just brushing off anything that doesn't have to do with "HAVING FUN, WEEEEEEEEEE. Give me a beer, WWEEEEEEEEEEEE. Let's go to the movies, WEEEEEEEEEE." then I might have more respect for them, but I don't.

But hey, I will give them credit in the fact that they BELIEVE that they are getting informed through the media, when they are actually being conditioned as to who they should support.

If you want to know why Kerry is doing so well in Missouri, then look no further than the media. He hasn't been there any more than anyone, and he hasn't even met most of the people who support him in the polls, but yet he has a 35% advantage???

I would love to know if the media in Missouri is fair and balanced in their coverage of the candidates. It's probably Kerry being discussed 75% of the time!

I pretty much don't like the media either...

[newyawker99]

37. Hi nobiz!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[GreenArrow]

14. It's the fault of both

As citizens, we have the responsibility to verify what our political officials tell us. It does not behoove us to accept anything they say at face value. It's not enough to say "gee, the Senator/President/Mayor says it's so, so it must be so. It's an abidcation of responsibility on the part of a citizen to do so.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. what does he actually say in the ads???

[tryanhas]

9. Like I said!

And Kerry is benefiting from the ignorance of the voting public and his misleading explanation and ads where he criticizes Bush and the war leading people who ONLY KNOW ABOUT HIM BY HIS ADS to assume that he was against the war.

If the only thing that they know about Kerry is his MISLEADING EXPLANATION for the war that can be read either as support or lack of it, and his ad where he is speaking against the way that Bush is handling the war, it leads a lot of people to assume that he is against the war, because they don't know anything about him other than what they see at that moment.

And I disagree!

It is not the candidate's fault, it is the fault of the voter!

That's like saying, if a friend tells you to try this OVER THE COUNTER DRUG, because it helped him get over his illness, and you do, but in the process, you ignore the label that says check with a doctor before you take it, and you take it anyway, and die...IT'S YOUR FAULT! Not your friend's fault for recommending it for you.

YOU HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK UP ON THE DRUG, just like voters have a responsibility to check up on candidates! If voters are just going to go off of what Kerry tells you, just like with his special interests crap even though he owns the special interests right along with the rest of Skull and Bones, instead of checking out more about the guy in order to make an informed decision, then they are lazy and dumb, period...

[nobiz]

18. Blame the voters

Most people don't have time to hang out in political forums, attend candidate rallies, and read countless articles. They are more concerned about earning a living, and in this economy, who can blame them? So, they glean what they can from the media and candidates' ads. Of course, we would want everyone to do their homework, but most can't. That doesn't make them lazy or dumb. Like it or not, we have to deal with reality and find ways to reach people who aren't obsessed with politics. But we're not going to reach them effectively if we think they are stupid.

[tryanhas]

23. Duh. Believe me, I know and understand that.

Especially from my own life's experiences.

But I also know that most people in this country, AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN SAMPLES OF ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE AND CLASSES OF PEOPLE, could care less about the government so long as they are working and making a living.

That's where the "VOTING BASED ON THEIR WALLETS" slogan comes in.

You try to talk about politics with people, and they act like someone has cursed. Bring up what Bush said, or Kerry, and after they say, "WHO" they say, they don't care, and then they go to the gym and play basketball, or go to the movies and watch the new release, or they turn on MTV.

People in this country ARE STUPID, and that's why politicians can get away with things, but they are not "STUPID" for the simple fact of not being "AWARE" but they are stupid, because most of them don't care what's going on as long as they are getting by.

And most of them don't want to hear about.

I am an outcast in my house, because I like following the political happenings going on, as well as the global things that are going on. Over 95% of the people I know, and I know thousands of people, COULD CARE LESS ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS ELECTION.

They think that elections are one day events. They are going to show up and vote for the "D" or the "R" and they CARE LESS about anything else surrounding it.

THAT IS THE EPITIOME OF STUPID, and I won't take it back!

I understand that people work a lot. Heck, I have made that argument constantly when I talk about polls and the ability of certain candidates to raise money from small donors who work long hours and live from paycheck to paycheck.

Duh, I know about the "TIME" issue, but the fact of the matter is most people in this country could care less about anything going on so long as it doesn't interfere with what THEY WANT TO DO.

"OH MY, I'M NOT MAKING A LOT OF MONEY. I can't pay my bills. I'M going to vote because I'M struggling, but if I wasn't, I wouldn't even be concerened about any of this crap."

That's people for you...

[nobiz]

28. Stupid is as ...

I share your frustration. It bothers the hell out of me that people aren't as interested in politics as I am. But that does not mean they are stupid. It means they aren't interested or haven't grasped the importance of what is going on (or maybe they have, and we haven't).

I'll admit it: I'm obsessed with politics as a way of securing a better future for the world. Others are not. That's just reality.

[displacedtexan]

4. You're right!

And they think Dean is a liberal.
They haven't quite connected the Dean-Witter stock brokerage family thing.

[cindyw]

8. And they think Dean was against giving Bush the authority to go to

war. Funny thing is that Kerry and Dean have been amazingly close on the Iraq war issue. Glad to see, people are finally understanding it.

[dansolo]

19. Dean wasn't fooled by Bush's lies

While it is true that Dean and Kerry both felt similar actions should be taken *IF* it was proven that Saddam had WMDs. The problem is that Dean was not convinced by Bush's "evidence". Kerry was. Now we have David Kay, our chief weapon's inspector, confirming that Dean was right and Kerry was wrong.

[sangh0]

22. "I want him to be disarmed" - Dean

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=594

"I don’t want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed..."

So obviously, Dean did think Saddam had WMD's, or else why would he want to disarm Iraq of weapons it did not have?

[cindyw]

31. Your gonna love this.

"GLORIA BORGER, U.S. News & World Report: Governor, what exactly does the president then have to prove to you?

DEAN: I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it. But the president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does he have to have the means to deliver them to us? Or what if he had the means to give them to another terrorist group who could bring them into this country in a suitcase?

DEAN: Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/...ble523726.shtml"

Remember that Kerry was actually told by the CIA in secret briefings that Saddam did have the capability to deliver an atomic weapon via missle.

"But wait. Kerry is evil. Dean would *never* have voted for the war.

"I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it." - Dean, September 30 2002"

This is all taken from http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[redqueen]

11. There is no Dean-Witter stock brokerage family thing n/t

[Virgil]

6. Does the media say "electability" over and over

Yes, the media says elecability is the issue. Boy electablility is an issue. They could talk about the broken health care system or the military budget that is like $407 billion plus $80 billion for the VA. Those are issues. They will be around for decades and not be solved by one person on November 5th.

People are frightened and the herders of the sheep are saying run to Kerry. Big mistake. The real issue before us is ending Plutocratic Rule and ushering in an era of creating the greatest public good. That may not happen in my lifetime.

I will go so far as to say Kerry serves the Plutocracy. Look at his vote on the tax cuts and everything else. I reject Kerry because I see him as a Plutocratic representative. Many other people will to. Kerry has real electability issues.

[redqueen]

13. I thought Kerry voted no on tax cuts. n/t

:shrug:

[cindyw]

20. And you would be right. n/t

[GreenArrow]

21. "Kerry serves the Plutocracy"

They all do. With the exception of Kucinich and Sharpton, all the Democratic candidates serve the plutocracy. And I suppose most people are content with that and are unwilling or unable to imagine an existence that does not serve the plutocracy.

[ShaneGR]

10. Ummmm, are you an Edwards supporter?

If so, no bashing allowed... we're above all that.

[cindyw]

12. Am I wrong or did Edwards support the war when it began? I accept that he

did and that he came to see it was wrong. But Kerry and Edwards are not the same. Kerry was speaking out against the coming war (given that it became apparent was not meeting the support requirements set out in his October speech) by January.

[redqueen]

15. Neither Edwards nor Kerry has said that it was wrong.

Edwards defends it more strenuously than Kerry.

[cindyw]

32. Said what was wrong. Kerry has said that he made the right vote with

the info he had, but that he was wrong to trust the president. He also has said that we should have not invaded.

[rucky]

16. Smart politicians...

know this & play off the perceptions. Don't blame the people as much as Edwards' failure to deliver the right message (or the media's failure to pick up on it). This voter was involved enough to do some rudimentary research about the politicians & where they stand on issues. That's more than a typical voter would do. So are voters more likely to look at what they say or what they've done? I would say that what they say is more memorable than who voted for what & when. So for a politician, it's more to their advantage to say what's popular at the time, rather than to be consistent. Sad but true. Look what consistency has done for the Kucinich campaign.

To the informed, they appear to be "wafflers", when there's a disconnect between politics & action. But Kerry's repackaging himself as antiwar (who happened to have voted for the war) is working (right now) precisely because of the fickleness of the voters.

Of course - as we learned from Dean - playing to the people is all about timing. Everything could change tomorrow as the next new talking point the opposition throws out just may stick. So really it's the media that's to blame - and the politicial strategists. They're the ones supplying the research material - and the lies - to the "ignorant" voter.

[IrateCitizen]

17. The mainstream media is performing its task quite well

That is, if you view their task to be that of the "first filter" -- determining what the American public gets to see and hear.

Most people get their news from either TV, the newspaper or radio. They don't have the time nor inclination to spend as much time perusing independent media as we do here. Therefore, they are only going to see/hear/read what the establishment (since the mainstream media is a member of the establishment) wants them to see/hear/read.

Americans are largely misinformed, but definitely not stupid. It's both inaccurate AND counterproductive to portray them as such.

[Duder]

24. True...

'...While American politics has always centered on the 5-10% of voters who were indecisive or indifferent, the power of this strange bloc - a kind of aristocracy of the apathetic - has gained new importance as reality in politics is increasingly replaced by media-generated myth.

This election has much more in common with 'American Idol' than it does with its electoral predecessors, a point dramatically illustrated by the number of voters who think it's their responsibility to find an electable candidate rather than one with whom they actually agree. This is a deadly trap, ultimately fatal to what remains of democracy, because it reduces the citizen to the status of a sitcom producer rather than an active political participant. If we are all trying to guess what each other thinks, we will all drown in our suppositions about each other.

How important this is can be shown by the exist polls from New Hampshire and Iowa. In each case, eliminating all voters who made up their minds in the last week - the least involved, the least thoughtful, and the least committed to anything - produces strikingly different results.

For example, counting just the people who knew what they thought at least a week before the caucuses causes Kerry to lose four points, Dean to gain eight points, and Edwards to lose 12 points. Kerry would have won, but only by eight instead of 20 points, and Dean would have beaten Edwards.

Similarly in New Hampshire, Kerry would have gotten the same total, but Dean would have gotten 7 more points to close the gap between the two to only six.

Obviously, in such instances, the subsequent media commentary would have been quite different than it was.'... Sam Smith

[redqueen]

27. This post deserves its own topic. n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. Maybe Kerry's making sense in his criticism of the war

give these folks credit. Edwards and Kerry are not carbon copies of the same man. Criticism from Kerry holds a lot more weight of authority and credibility than from most anyone in the campaign.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. But Edwards just said the War on Terror is not exaggerrated

and he even went out of his way to interrupt the debate to say so.
Kerry and Edwards obviously see things differently.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tryanhas]

36. You can keep it.

There is a brown stain on it.

Kerry is the biggest phony in this race, and I hope that Dean keeps calling him on it.

It may be the end of Dean's campaign, but if he can bring down an obvious phony in the process, he will definitely have earned my respect, lol.

Mr. #1 in donations from SPECIAL INTERESTS (Skull and Bones owns the special interests, duh).

I hate John Kerry, and if he is the nominee, I will do everything that I can to talk people that I know out of voting on election day, and take thousands of votes from the democrats in my district.

There is no need to vote in a fluke election.

"D" in front of your names doesn't mean a thing to me if you are dishonest and a hypocrite. All of these UNINFORMED AMERICANS? I am not one of them, and I'm going to spread the word about this fluke election.

Emails, calling in to shows, writing letters, etc in an attempt to destroy what would be a fluke election between two bonesmen.

Take your stained towel back, just like a stained candidacy.

And if you say something in response, and I don't respond, you didn't win.

I'm on a dial up connection and it's time to get off...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. "The People Are Stupid" - sounds like a winning November strategy.