For the Trump voters:

[yellowstone123]

I hope people understand that some people just think differently: you can assess the same situation and come to a different conclusion. I grew up with a guy in our ward and he and his family voted Republican every time, except for his younger brother who was born a year later. His younger brother always defended Democratic positions when Reagan was President. He just felt Democrats represented what he believed in. I never questioned him about it or said he was wrong because I knew that people see things differently. I think people have a certain disposition to religion or politics. It's not cast in stone but when you are in your early 20's it's apparent and it's there. Today all three of us are in our early 60's and pretty much voting the same way.

[Binger]

He has his core of low-information MAGA base,

Hear! Hear!

My sentiments exactly.

Well, if in fact these are your exact sentiments, perhaps you can explain this.

What is a high-information MAGA base? What is a high-information Democrat base? What is a low-information democrat base?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

He has his core of low-information MAGA base.

Explain this.

What is a high-information MAGA base? What is a high-information Democrat base? What is a low-information democrat base?

The Trump votes I know are all solidly in the Fox bubble. As we know Fox is more propaganda than news.

It is becoming apparent, however, that Trump’s potential coalition is being augmented by low-information voters with a hazy understanding of the Trumpier features of the 45th president’s record, character, and agenda.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... oters.html

[Some Schmo]

I hope people understand that some people just think differently: you can assess the same situation and come to a different conclusion.

This is only really true if you disallow facts to influence the way you think.

If only one person could come up with a data driven reason to conclude Trump is competent, you might have a point, but every defense of Trump I've heard is based on lies, faulty premises, and an obvious lack of acknowledgement about his past.

[Binger]

Explain this.

What is a high-information MAGA base? What is a high-information Democrat base? What is a low-information democrat base?

The Trump votes I know are all solidly in the Fox bubble. As we know Fox is more propaganda than news.

It is becoming apparent, however, that Trump’s potential coalition is being augmented by low-information voters with a hazy understanding of the Trumpier features of the 45th president’s record, character, and agenda.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... oters.html

It is becoming apparent, however, that Trump’s potential coalition is being augmented by low-information voters with a hazy understanding of the Trumpier features of the 45th president’s record, character, and agenda. By that I do not mean the non-college-educated voters who make up so large a part of the Trump base. Many if not most of them are pretty educated about their candidate. But there’s evidence that disengaged and/or deeply alienated folks who may nonetheless vote in a presidential election (if not any others) don’t know as much about Trump as you might assume, as the New York Times’ Patrick Healey has observed:

Our latest Times Opinion focus group discussion with 13 undecided independent voters included a striking result: 11 of the 13 said they would vote for Donald Trump if the election were held now, and only two said they would vote for President Biden. The reason: overwhelming concern about the economy.

But I was less surprised by the big vote for Trump than by this: The group didn’t blame Trump for things he was responsible or accountable for.

For instance, several people linked their economic troubles to COVID, but they didn’t put any blame on Trump for that. Some were upset with the end of abortion rights nationally, but they didn’t tie that to Trump’s Supreme Court appointments. Several wanted bipartisanship, but they didn’t blame Trump for his hand in sinking the recent bipartisan border deal. One person, a Latina, blamed Trump for worsening racism in the country and recounted a searing incident that happened to her — but she was among the 11 who would vote for him anyway.

Interesting, and not factually accurate, information in your link.

Please describe high information voters from both sides and low information democrats. I understood your description of the low information voter that fits the deplorable dumb uneducated fox watching voter. It is a cliché at this point and not factual but still I knew that you would provide that answer so I did not ask the question.

[Kishkumen]

Please describe high information voters from both sides and low information democrats. I understood your description of the low information voter that fits the deplorable dumb uneducated fox watching voter. It is a cliché at this point and not factual but still I knew that you would provide that answer so I did not ask the question.

We can only defend the constitution if you admit that Democrats and Republicans are equally sinners, Dr. Sunstoned. Remember that. After all, we know your point was only to find a way to denigrate a Trump voter. You weren't trying to understand the phenomenon.[/sarcasm]

[Binger]

Please describe high information voters from both sides and low information democrats. I understood your description of the low information voter that fits the deplorable dumb uneducated fox watching voter. It is a cliché at this point and not factual but still I knew that you would provide that answer so I did not ask the question.

We can only defend the constitution if you admit that Democrats and Republicans are equally sinners, Dr. Sunstoned. Remember that. After all, we know your point was only to find a way to denigrate a Trump voter. You weren't trying to understand the phenomenon.[/sarcasm]

There is no defense of the constition required. We understand that a low information voter didn't go to college and watches Fox.

So, who are the rest of the voters and who makes up the high and low information not-republican voters?

Through the second quarter of 2024, FNC delivered 89 of the top 100 telecasts in cable news, while CNN netted just three and MSNBC only had eight. In total day, FNC delivered 1,304,000 viewers, 154,000 with 25-54 demo and 96,000 with 18-49 demo, securing a 176% advantage over CNN viewers and 61% over MSNBC

Assuming every Fox viewer is an uneducated POS. That is 1.3 million voters. Now, what about the other 70 plus million voters? And, what is the high and low criteria for democrats?

[yellowstone123]

I hope people understand that some people just think differently: you can assess the same situation and come to a different conclusion.

This is only really true if you disallow facts to influence the way you think.

If only one person could come up with a data driven reason to conclude Trump is competent, you might have a point, but every defense of Trump I've heard is based on lies, faulty premises and a obvious lack of acknowledgement about his past.

Sometimes a vote is nothing more than a big eff you. Many voters were - to use the word dehumanized by being told that they were racist, misogynistic et al when there was no data to to suggest that. They worked hard, bought a house, married, reared children all to find out they are and have always been the reason of societies ills.

[Binger]

This is only really true if you disallow facts to influence the way you think.

If only one person could come up with a data driven reason to conclude Trump is competent, you might have a point, but every defense of Trump I've heard is based on lies, faulty premises and a obvious lack of acknowledgement about his past.

Sometimes a vote is nothing more than a big eff you. Many voters were - to use the word dehumanized by being told that they were racist, misogynistic et al when there was no data to to suggest that. They worked hard, bought a house, married, reared children all to find out they are and have always been the problem of societies ills.

This is sorta correct.

They were called racist - when they were not racist. They were called Nazis - when they were not. They were told democracy would end - and it did not. They were told the Republic would end - it did not.

If anyone would understand how credibility in an instition matters - exmos should understand. Instead, we are back to converting to ideologies and getting rebaptised.

[Kishkumen]

Sometimes a vote is nothing more than a big eff you.

Unfortunate, but true.

Many voters were - to use the word dehumanized by being told that they were racist, misogynistic et al when there was no data to to suggest that. They worked hard, bought a house, married, reared children all to find out they are and have always been the problem of societies ills.

Now this I get. I can easily understand that denigrating a large portion of our citizenry for their failures to live up to the high aspirations of identity politics is a failing approach to politics writ large. It is strange how people who pride themselves on being intelligent and nuanced can be satisfied with the simplistic cudgels they use against those who disagree with them. I am so ready to see people drop the suffix -phobe and its definition as "hate."

What would be nice is for everyone, and I mean everyone, to present a public face of tolerance and minding your own effing business. And this is true all around. For example, if someone in your life decides they were born the wrong gender, and they go get an operation to assimilate themselves to the gender they perceive themselves to be, just accept it. It's not your effing business. On the other hand, if someone approves of their daughter getting an abortion four months into a pregnancy, not your effing business. If someone chooses to send their kid to a private school focused entirely on the Bible, not your effing business. If someone chooses to send their kids to a private school advocating 72 genders, not your effing business.

Let's stop pushing social engineering on each other. I have come to the point where I am mightily tempted to say it would almost be best if we just cut the states more slack so that all of the red meat people can live in their gun-toting, Dominionist paradises, while others can use their state tax dollars to pay for 72-genders testing (to replace Meyers-Briggs). Or maybe we can chill the eff out and just leave most of these things for our own privacy and voluntary associations.

You see, I have no problems with Christianity, but I do have a problem with Christians of one sect pushing their views on the rest of us. I feel the same way with all of the super-secular, super-liberal people. I just don't want to have to deal with their stuff in my life all the time. Laughing at people who are "dumb enough" to believe in God, or calling heterosexual couples and homemakers "breeders." Leave all of your obnoxious, pushy crap to your own lives, dinner parties, and clubs. Be Ned Flanders. But don't legislate Ned Flanders. Be Richard Dawkins. Don't legislate Richard Dawkins. Be Ru Paul. Do not legislate Ru Paul.