Idiot Voters???


Have you ever wondered what the normal non-political geek votes on? The normal dude who doesn’t even understand policy, politics, or poll numbers?

Let’s take the example of my younger sister. She is not ready to vote. (not 18 yet) She knows the family is republican. She will probably be a liberal, based on comments she says and the clubs she belongs to. One of them being PETA. She also protested Chic-Fil-A when we ate there and thinks the rich are evil. But that’s besides the point. My sister and her friend discussed politics for a brief moment while I was in the room and they were talking about how “cool” Obama was!!! That he rode a skateboard and goes on all the talk shows.

I restrained myself as much as I could, because they really DON’T know anything about politics. It wasn’t my place to enter that conversation.

So that brings us back to the idiot voter. I keep wondering about the election results and it seems that LESS voters voted for Romney than did McCain!!! Seriously??? What happened there?? Also on the other end, Less voters voted for Obama than they did in 2008. At least that was SOMETHING we got right. Romney, Karl Rove, and Dick Morris were all counting on the Chick-Fil-A outpouring of voters to trek to the polls and boot Obama out! For months we heard that the polls were stacked against us using 2008 numbers and emotional support. It seems that all the polls were wrong and Obama won many states that we KNEW Romney was going to win.

What does that mean? What is going on? Why no backlash from the Romney camp, or even ANY Republicans? Do you trust the results? Were people sleeping during the election? Does it mean that nobody cares anymore?


You should have called her an idiot and then explained why she’s an idiot!


Look, as long as the Media, except for FNC and a few newspapers are no more than a propaganda machine for the Democrats, yo can expect the Democrats to stay in power.
At this time I think a severe Depression is what this Country needs. Maybe it will wake up the Democrat zombie voters.


Unfortunately, idiots are the people who entirely decide elections and why democracy is not a good system of government. A good system of government protects individual liberty, democracy does not.

Democracy is rule by idiot.


Actually, our founders tried to exclude idiots from voting. they only allowed ‘landed gentry’ to vote in most States.


I remember the Kennedy days, when many of the younger set (as well as a good supply of registered voters) wanted to see Kennedy win because - according to them - he was “cute.”


People who aren’t interested in politics do have a habit of voting for stupid reasons, people voted for Berlusconi because he was manly, rather than actually taking a look at his policies.


Same with Clinton.

For the most part, the American people are a disgusting lot.


The age to vote, sign a contract, get married, join the military and drink alcohol used to all be 21. Lowering these ages to 18 was a big mistake IMO.


, particularly in regard to voting and drinking.



I don’t think its fair to blame younger people, plenty of people at working age vote for stupid reasons. It doesn’t matter what party someone votes for (bar the extremist parties on both sides of politics), as long as they have an opinion based around the candidate’s/party’s policies rather than the physical qualities of said candidate.


In the case of the youngsters, they aren’t taught any better. Worse, they’re being pressured to make bad choices (of all kinds) to an unprecedented degree.


The only people who knew Romney was going to win or the race was close were media outlets and some other conservative personalities. Nearly all statisticians and political predictions placed Obama as a likely winner. This includes Nate Silver, the Princeton Election Consortium, Josh Putnam from Davidson University, the University of Virginia Center for Politics. The only people who got it wrong were people like Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Dean Chambers from Unskewed Polls, Michael Barone. Almost all of them are either personalities with no real experience in political analysis, have questionable methods of analysis in the case of Dean Chambers, or are simply biased. The organizations that actually have experience in political analysis nearly universally got it right.


One of my friends voted for John Kerry because ‘he was hot’. I mean if that’s your only basis for casting your ballot, then please for the sake of the Republic, stay at home.



There were some states Romney was certainly going to win and didn’t!


Which ones were those, and why was he “certainly going to win” in them? Because it seems like many legitimate political pundits guessed right on the money, so I’m wondering what source told you that a Romney win was certain in some states where he did not win.


Karl Rove, of course, owned one of the major pro-Romney super PACs, and made money directly off of donations to it. He therefore had a financial incentive to hype Romney’s chances of winning. Did you ever think it was kind of dubious that a news network would appoint someone like that as their “analyst”? I mean a man who works for one of the candidates? A man who makes money off of donations to that candidate? That’s their election analyst?

You were told the actual odds of Romney winning all along, by folks like Nate Silver. The reason you were surprised is because the people you relied on for your information were not telling you the truth.


With some exceptions (Rasmussen and Gallup were way off), the polls and the numbers were fine. It was the interpretations and spin put on those numbers by conservative pundits that was wrong.