A good example of the Importance of the 42% of US voters who identify as Independents.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 06, 2015 5:07 PM GMT
    Ignore the Issue about Woodsmen. It's not really important on this thread. In fact checking this I found a good example to start a dialogue about Independent voters and why they're mostly unmentioned and neglected by the media until the last days of elections. Thanks.


    Another Intentionally Misleading Title by Woodsmen.

    Original Title

    "Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says"
    The Woodsmen Title
    "69% Republicans: Businesses Should Be Able to Refuse Gays"

    His title change is based on 1 paragraph out of the entire 26 paragraphs and the statistics of the article are all debatable with contradictory data easily found with a quick web search.

    Finding this brings up a more important issue than one member's propensity for creating false and misleading headlines. So this is the end of talking about Woodsman.

    The full quote is below (it's the same old wedding cake drama you've read before)
    In addition, 69 percent of Republicans say small-business owners who provide wedding-related services should be able to refuse, on the basis of their religious belief, such services to same-sex couples. But 58 percent of Democrats think the businesses should be required to provide those services.
    Please be patient while I explain how and why this is bullshit.
    People who self identify as Democrats are about 31% of the population.
    People who self identify as Republicans are about 26% of the population.
    This poll doesn't seem to include the largest percentage of voters; Independents who make up 42% of voters. if you don't think the opinions of Independents don't matter in politics then you're fooling yourself. You being manipulated by the biased two party media into conceiving of politics as a simplistic "us against them" - Republican vs Democrat- good vs evil fantasy that is better suited for video games about castles dragons and kings.
    Independent voters.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
    Let's take a look at what lies one level below the above figures cited in Woodsman's article.
    69% of Republicans (x 26% =18% of voters) and
    42% of Democrats (x 31% = 13% of voters)
    Totaled = ONLY 31% of voters who DO NOT SUPPORT forcing businesses to selling wedding cakes to gays.

    D
    oes that give you an idea of how important Independent voters' opinions and votes really are?


    Now start asking yourself why they are not factored in to all polls. The minds of 57% of voters will not change because they are party loyalists. The media is geared to influencing the opinions of the 42% of Independents who have no allegiance to either party and predominantly vote on issues not ideology by presenting every issue as simplistic "us against them" - Conservative vs Liberal- good vs evil fantasy battle to the death attempting to compel Independents to take sides.

    Why the fuck do you guys, Republicans and Democrats, keep falling for it? It's not about you. It's about us Independents.

    More coming later, maybe.

  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 06, 2015 6:16 PM GMT
    Of course independent voters are important. They're the ones who need to be swayed. According to PEW, about a quarter of independents are swing voters, and as close as most elections are so far this century, whoever gets that group wins.

    According to the surveys I quoted yesterday, those voters seem to have been swinging liberal lately.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 06, 2015 6:46 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidOf course independent voters are important. They're the ones who need to be swayed. According to PEW, about a quarter of independents are swing voters, and as close as most elections are so far this century, whoever gets that group wins.

    According to the surveys I quoted yesterday, those voters seem to have been swinging liberal lately.


    That last line leads to things I'm trying to address. Let's concentrate on how Independents and purposefully left out of most discussions and ignored by media until usually 6 weeks before primaries and general elections.
    AND
    ... How intentionally misleading polls of just Democrats and Republicans really are. Most people see a number like "69% of Republicans" and think "HOLY SHIT!!!! that's a winning majority" instead of just a puny 18% of voters.

    Not throwing cow turds at Hillary, but just using a trending item as an example-- let's take this inflated figure going around on some news sources that 65% of Democrats say she's highly competent... THAT'S ONLY 20% OF THE VOTERS!!! Big friggin deal!!! Someone ought to embarrassed to cite figures like that for any candidate as proof of anything. LOL!

    And I know for a fact many polls do not include Independents in their math. My lover of 23 years ran an advertising/PR firm that went from a staff of 12 to 40+ during election years simply to do polling.

    I guess my main purpose in this thread is to help people see beyond the numbers thrown to them by the media that are nearly always presented specifically to re-enforce what party voters already believe and sway Independents to take sides in the melee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 7:17 PM GMT
    Bob3. Didn't you just post something about Hillary Clinton sending kids into a coma? You might want to take a look at your own posts.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 06, 2015 7:21 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidBob3. Didn't you just post something about Hillary Clinton sending kids into a coma? You might want to take a look at your own posts.


    Yes I did. If you want to take it out of context and make an issue about it please go back to that thread and try to do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 7:39 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    Ex_Mil8 saidBob3. Didn't you just post something about Hillary Clinton sending kids into a coma? You might want to take a look at your own posts.


    Yes I did. If you want to take it out of context and make an issue about it please go back to that thread and try to do it.


    You appear to have all the time in the world to trawl over, analyse and bore us with your views on Woodsmen's posts, yet you are apparently not interested in casting your 'impartial and independent' eye over Southbeach's frigging massive catalogue of dubious, misrepresented and distorted news stories on this website.

    Funny that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    bobbobbob said
    Ex_Mil8 saidBob3. Didn't you just post something about Hillary Clinton sending kids into a coma? You might want to take a look at your own posts.


    Yes I did. If you want to take it out of context and make an issue about it please go back to that thread and try to do it.


    You appear to have all the time in the world to trawl over, analyse and bore us with your views on Woodsmen's posts, yet you are apparently not interested in casting your 'impartial and independent' eye over Southbeach's frigging massive catalogue of misrepresented and distorted news stories on this website.

    Funny that.

    I see no merit to your claim. What I have noticed is when Southbeach quotes a website, it is usually either mainstream, like Washington Post or LA Times, sometimes right-leaning but still reliable such as Daily Caller or Washington Examiner.

    Furthermore, I have never seen him misrepresent or lie about a source, as is the typical MO of woodsmen. What I do notice is your incessant obsession with US politics, odd for a supposed UK resident. Must fill a huge void in your life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    I see no merit to your claim. What I have noticed is when Southbeach quotes a website, it is usually either mainstream, like Washington Post or LA Times, sometimes right-leaning but still reliable such as Daily Caller or Washington Examiner.

    Furthermore, I have never seen him misrepresent or lie about a source, as is the typical MO of woodsmen. What I do notice is your incessant obsession with US politics, odd for a supposed UK resident. Must fill a huge void in your life.


    I hope Woodsmen sticks around for a long time. It is nice to see RJ's conservative rump fulminating over his posts, while hypocritically ignoring Southbeach's long history of manipulating and distorting news stories.

    As usual, sorry, but this is a public website, not the GOP members' forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 8:45 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    socalfitness said
    I see no merit to your claim. What I have noticed is when Southbeach quotes a website, it is usually either mainstream, like Washington Post or LA Times, sometimes right-leaning but still reliable such as Daily Caller or Washington Examiner.

    Furthermore, I have never seen him misrepresent or lie about a source, as is the typical MO of woodsmen. What I do notice is your incessant obsession with US politics, odd for a supposed UK resident. Must fill a huge void in your life.


    I hope Woodsmen sticks around for a long time. It is nice to see RJ's conservative rump fulminating over his posts, while hypocritically ignoring Southbeach's long history of manipulating and distorting news stories.

    As usual, sorry, but this is a public website, not the GOP members' forum.

    You didn't answer any of my points because you can't. You like to call names so I'll tell you what I really think of you. You're mentally obsessed. Someone said you're an overweight would be singer at a cheap bar. Is it between that and obsessing over US politics that keeps your ass busy?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 06, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    socalfitness said
    I see no merit to your claim. What I have noticed is when Southbeach quotes a website, it is usually either mainstream, like Washington Post or LA Times, sometimes right-leaning but still reliable such as Daily Caller or Washington Examiner.

    Furthermore, I have never seen him misrepresent or lie about a source, as is the typical MO of woodsmen. What I do notice is your incessant obsession with US politics, odd for a supposed UK resident. Must fill a huge void in your life.


    I hope Woodsmen sticks around for a long time. It is nice to see RJ's conservative rump fulminating over his posts, while hypocritically ignoring Southbeach's long history of manipulating and distorting news stories.

    As usual, sorry, but this is a public website, not the GOP members' forum.

    You didn't answer any of my points because you can't. You like to call names so I'll tell you what I really think of you. You're mentally obsessed. Someone said you're an overweight would be singer at a cheap bar. Is it between that and obsessing over US politics that keeps your ass busy?


    ^^^
    I addressed the issue of fact checking SouthBeach last evening on another thread about fact checking & honesty that SoCal started. I'm not going to repeat myself on it just to appease petty and inconsequential people who contribute nothing but redundant detritus to the forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2015 9:46 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    I addressed the issue of fact checking SouthBeach last evening on another thread about fact checking & honesty that SoCal started. I'm not going to repeat myself on it just to appease petty and inconsequential people who contribute nothing but redundant detritus to the forum.


    Doubtless it was buried somewhere in one of your tedious essays. I'm not sure where you find the time, but I have a job and other things to do beyond this website. As you and Socal are seemingly oblivious to Southbeach's crimes against journalism, I will find the time one day to dig out some of his gems. There is a rich seam to be mined.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14389

    May 06, 2015 9:48 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    socalfitness said
    I see no merit to your claim. What I have noticed is when Southbeach quotes a website, it is usually either mainstream, like Washington Post or LA Times, sometimes right-leaning but still reliable such as Daily Caller or Washington Examiner.

    Furthermore, I have never seen him misrepresent or lie about a source, as is the typical MO of woodsmen. What I do notice is your incessant obsession with US politics, odd for a supposed UK resident. Must fill a huge void in your life.


    I hope Woodsmen sticks around for a long time. It is nice to see RJ's conservative rump fulminating over his posts, while hypocritically ignoring Southbeach's long history of manipulating and distorting news stories.

    As usual, sorry, but this is a public website, not the GOP members' forum.
    Manipulatingicon_question.gif if you want manipulating, just observe the behavior and tactics of the extremist liberal hens on here.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 07, 2015 12:48 PM GMT
    It's the primary season. Independents don't vote in primaries. That's why there are so many polls focused on Democrats and Republicans. After the conventions, that focus will shift toward "likely voters" and "undecideds".

    Now, IMO, your point is a good argument for having open primaries.

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 07, 2015 3:00 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidIt's the primary season. Independents don't vote in primaries. That's why there are so many polls focused on Democrats and Republicans. After the conventions, that focus will shift toward "likely voters" and "undecideds".

    Now, IMO, your point is a good argument for having open primaries.



    Yeh. About this time every 4 years here in Florida there's always talk of ending the closed primaries but it always comes to nothing. On the other side of the coin, if you want to understand all the worst and best things about open primaries you only need to watch them as they happen in Alabama just above where I live.

    It was crossover Republican voters that unintentionally broke the 100+ year stranglehold the Democratic party held on all state politics there in 1986. It was hilarious to watch from a safe distance. Until then all winners in state races were determined in the primaries and were always Democrats (mostly Dixiecrats and Yellow Dogs Democats)

    In 1986 the party elite's favorite for governor lost the primary to a virtual unknown DA from Mobile. The loser pouted about Republican crossover voters. The Democratic party convened a committee that overruled the primary results and gave it to "their man."

    Two days before the general election the man who'd been cast out of the winner's seat went public asking his supporters to vote for the Republican candidate for governor. So a rural part-time preacher who sold vacuum cleaners door to door became governor by a huge margin over the state's unbreakable Democratic machine.

    Oh... and the loser of that election was Bill Baxley who'd been caught during the campaign having an affair with an AP reporter... His wife stepped up to defend him during the campaign and divorced his ass and took everything after he lost... Ten years later they went to the White House to help Hillary and Bill through the Lewinsky ordeal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_gubernatorial_election,_1986