Top political scientist: U.S. voters are 'pretty damn stupid'

[red states rule]

I tend to enjoy this type of fear coming form the liberal elites. There power is threatened and they cannot defend their ideas




Political reporters often rely on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin for expertise. In just the past few months, his insights have appeared in articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Associated Press, Politico, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and many other publications. He's also a co-founder of the influential website Pollster.com, as well as co-director of the Big Ten Battleground Poll.

So Franklin answered with considerable authority when he was asked, at a recent forum on the November 2 election results, why Republicans emerged victorious in so many races. "I'm not endorsing the American voter," Franklin said. "They're pretty damn stupid."

Franklin was responding to a question from Bill Lueders, news editor of Isthmus, a weekly alternative newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin. In an account published Thursday (H/T Ann Althouse), Lueders says he asked Franklin why "the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who'll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich."

"Franklin, perhaps a bit too candidly, conceded the point," Lueders writes. "'I'm not endorsing the American voter,' he answered. 'They're pretty damn stupid.'"

Lueders writes that he responded, "Thank you, professor. That's the answer I was looking for." The rest of Lueders' account explains that smart voters support things like high-speed rail and higher taxes for the rich, while dumb voters support "an obvious phony like [Republican senator-elect] Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold."

But Franklin is the real star of the story. If you read his quotes in mainstream publications, you'll find a series of measured statements on political trends. Democrats appealing to the youth vote in the run-up to the midterms are "betting long odds, given the very long history of low turnout in midterms among young voters," Franklin told the Washington Post recently. Final pre-election polls suggested "a Republican wave of genuinely historical proportions," he told USA Today. Feingold's problems had "more to do with the mood of the country than with Feingold himself," he told the Boston Globe.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/top-political-scientist-us-voters-are-pretty-damn-stupid?utm_source=feedburnerdcexaminer%2FPolitics&utm_medium=feedExaminerPolitics&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20dcexaminer%2FPolitics%20%28 Ex

[Kathianne]

he responded a bit:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/byron-york-tipped-off-by-post-of-mine.html


...ADDED: Professor Franklin appears in the comments section of yesterday's post and says:


Sigh. Bill's Lueder's quote is exactly accurate. I said exactly what he says I said. Normally I would just let it go at that since once such a quote is out it will spread no matter what. The only complaint I have is that Lueder's subsequent conclusions from that quote are his own and not mine.

The context was the Senate race and the point I was making, which I've made numerous times before, was that voters embraced Ron Johnson before they knew much about him. In a June 26-27 poll by Public Policy Polling, Johnson trailed Feingold by just 2 points, yet in the poll 62% said they had neither a favorable nor an unfavorable opinion of Johnson. I've used that poll frequently to illustrate the fact that voters were ready to embrace a Republican they knew almost nothing about over a three term incumbent Democrat. The race wasn't about specific details of Johnson vs Feingold, it was a rejection of Democrats more or less regardless of what voters knew about the GOP candidate.

That was the context in which I said voters are "pretty damn stupid". Too hyperbolic indeed, but I said it and have no complaint that it was quoted when I knew I was speaking to journalists.

But I wish what I said next had also been quoted. I went on to say that despite not knowing the details of Johnson's policy positions, the voters did NOT make a mistake in choosing Johnson as the more conservative candidate and certain to be more favorable to cutting government. That was indeed the correct connection by an angry electorate, even if the details were quite vague.

Voter's often act on little information and can be astonishingly unaware of things one might consider "facts". A post-election Pew poll finds less than half (46%) know the GOP won only the House but not the Senate. And at times voters appear to vote for candidates who are likely to take positions at odds with the voter's interests.

But in the Johnson-Feingold race, I think despite lack of details about Johnson, a majority of Wisconsin voter's picked the guy they wanted, and for basically the right reason. Dems may be astonished at the rejection of a favorite son, but in making this choice I think voter's properly expressed their preferences and matched them to the right candidate.

So I wish I had phrased this differently but that's my bad, no one else's. But I do not agree with the conclusion that voter's were "stupid" to pick Johnson over Feingold. In fact I believe a majority got the Senator they wanted, and that is always good for a republic.

Posted by Ann Althouse at 8:59 AM

[red states rule]

Now Gov Rendell of PA shows he also has Sore Loser Syndrome

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG2Gnz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUqG2Gnz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[Palin Rider]

I'm interested in hearing why having a Congress that's bought and paid for by big oil, big insurance, and big banks is an intelligent way to go.

[Gaffer]

I'm interested in hearing why having a Congress that's bought and paid for by big oil, big insurance, and big banks is an intelligent way to go.

Who ever said it was an intelligent way to go? It's how our government is run now days. Both D's and R's get there funds from corps and uber rich who lobby constantly. The Tea Party, who you hate so much, is all about stopping that. It's a David and Goliath match up tho.

[red states rule]

I'm interested in hearing why having a Congress that's bought and paid for by big oil, big insurance, and big banks is an intelligent way to go.

I find it interesting how libs blame corporate money for their loss when the biggest doners in the last election were unions trying to save Dems

Liberals still do not get it. The election was a rejection of their policies




snip

The industrial heartland. The longstanding rule in American politics is that in times of economic distress the industrial heartland -- the Rust Belt -- trends toward the Democrats. Voters evidently see more government spending as a solution.

Not this year. Republicans won Senate or governor races or both in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan. They captured five House seats in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, two in Indiana, four in Illinois and two in Michigan. You might want to add the five they captured in Upstate New York. That's 23 of the 39 seats they needed for a House majority.

Republican gains in state legislatures were even more impressive. They will control the redistricting process in four of the five states in this region. The exception is Illinois, where Rod Blagojevich's successor as governor, Pat Quinn, held on by a few thousand votes -- helped perhaps by the refusal of some Democratic county clerks not to send out military ballots in the time required by federal law. They did manage to send unrequested ballots to inmates of the Cook County Jail, though.

But the dominant message here is that government spending is the problem, not the solution.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/25/in_2010_sweep_even_the_finns_voted_republican_1080 60.html

[SassyLady]

I think all political donations should be banned.

If someone wants to donate money .... give to a worthy cause. Also, ban all political tv and radio advertising. Have the politicians make a speech, or tape a debate, put it on DVD and let those that are interested in that candidate buy the DVD and watch it. The candidates can also have a website to get their message out. If people want to help a candidate they can hand out flyers at the local supermarket ... and the volunteer can print them out on their own printers. No TV ads, no radio ads....should cut down on the cost of running ... therefore, cut down on the need for donations.

[Palin Rider]

Who ever said it was an intelligent way to go? It's how our government is run now days. Both D's and R's get there funds from corps and uber rich who lobby constantly. The Tea Party, who you hate so much, is all about stopping that. It's a David and Goliath match up tho.

If that were accurate, the Tea Party would have a real, FEC-recognized organization instead of just calling itself a bunch of Americans with noble "ideals."

[Palin Rider]

I think all political donations should be banned.
I agree 187%. Problem is, you run into a sticky First Amendment quagmire.

[BoogyMan]

The first amendment was designed to make sure that no idea like yours gets implemented and that they tyranny that follows it will never be suffered on our soil.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I think all political donations should be banned.

If someone wants to donate money .... give to a worthy cause. Also, ban all political tv and radio advertising. Have the politicians make a speech, or tape a debate, put it on DVD and let those that are interested in that candidate buy the DVD and watch it. The candidates can also have a website to get their message out. If people want to help a candidate they can hand out flyers at the local supermarket ... and the volunteer can print them out on their own printers. No TV ads, no radio ads....should cut down on the cost of running ... therefore, cut down on the need for donations.

[Gaffer]

If that were accurate, the Tea Party would have a real, FEC-recognized organization instead of just calling itself a bunch of Americans with noble "ideals."

The Tea Party is a bunch of Americans with noble ideals. It's why congress changed hands. It's why there are more conservatives in the state governments. It's going to happen again in 2012. All in spite of the liberal doom sayers like yourself.

[Palin Rider]

The Tea Party is a bunch of Americans with noble ideals. It's why congress changed hands. It's why there are more conservatives in the state governments.

Very convenient that there's absolutely no objective evidence to support any of those statements, isn't it?

In spite of blanket declarations from doomsayers who are afraid of a dark lord.

[red states rule]

Very convenient that there's absolutely no objective evidence to support any of those statements, isn't it?

.

This from the same poster who said Sarah Palin did not do well on Election night

[Palin Rider]

This from the same poster who said Sarah Palin did not do well on Election night

I suppose you think George W. did well on Election night, too. And Glenn Beck.

Sorry, but you can't "do well" if you're not a candidate. It's just not possible.

[red states rule]

I suppose you think George W. did well on Election night, too. And Glenn Beck.

Sorry, but you can't "do well" if you're not a candidate. It's just not possible.

A large majority of the candidates she endorsed won. She played a large role in the success of Tea Party candidates - much to the dismay of Obama and the left

[Palin Rider]

A large majority of the candidates she endorsed won. She played a large role in the success of Tea Party candidates - much to the dismay of Obama and the left

Still not the same thing as saying "she did well in the election."

[red states rule]

Still not the same thing as saying "she did well in the election."

Considering people like you dismissed her endorsements and the Tea Party - it is hard for you to digest your large portion of crow

[SassyLady]

Still not the same thing as saying "she did well in the election."

Yes, it is the same.

Are you saying a football coach didn't do well when his team wins because he wasn't actually on the field playing? After all....the coach wasn't actually IN the game.

[SassyLady]

The first amendment was designed to make sure that no idea like yours gets implemented and that they tyranny that follows it will never be suffered on our soil.

I know that BM....wishful thinking only.......just like I would like to eliminate foul language ...... will never happen, but doesn't mean it wouldn't make the country a better place if it was banned.

[logroller]

Very convenient that there's absolutely no objective evidence to support any of those statements, isn't it?

In spite of blanket declarations from doomsayers who are afraid of a dark lord.
H.S. Thompson said " Call on God, but row away from the rocks."
I don't understand why anyone would argue ANY side of a political point using the tenents of heavenly endeavor-- Where's your objective evidence? What happens when you get to heaven and God says "You missed the point. I am for all, not just you."
So far as a "dark Lord" my friend, I pray we share a cell in hell -- you'll make for good company.
Political change -- I vote for my pocketbook!
Sincerely though, make it locally in a community, not just for you and yours, but everyone -- friend and foe alike. If we can't make a change at that level, we're screwed. The design of representative gov't provides a conduit for voicing many independent localities, not blue state/ red state BS -- That's just a tool for elitist interests. They think, (and maybe correctly), that Americans would rather vote for a team than ourselves. Hopefully we wake up America, our dream is who we will ourselves to be; not who we vote for. Until then... Peace, love and climate change!

[Palin Rider]

Yes, it is the same.

Are you saying a football coach didn't do well when his team wins because he wasn't actually on the field playing? After all....the coach wasn't actually IN the game.

The analogy doesn't work. Palin wasn't hired as anyone's campaign manager.

[Palin Rider]

Considering people like you dismissed her endorsements and the Tea Party - it is hard for you to digest your large portion of crow

Not me; I never try to predict elections. Voters are just too damn crazy. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Not me; I never try to predict elections. Voters are just too damn crazy. :laugh:

Yea, you just sit back and dismiss the results when they go against you

[Palin Rider]

Yea, you just sit back and dismiss the results when they go against you
Not at all. I get disappointed in the results when they go against me, but that's it.

[red states rule]

Not at all. I get disappointed in the results when they go against me, but that's it.

Then you must be in a deep and severe depression since the morning of November 3, 2010

[Palin Rider]

Then you must be in a deep and severe depression since the morning of November 3, 2010

You forget (if you ever knew), I vote in California. :laugh:

[logroller]

PalinRider cracks me up!

I, too, vote in CA. Atleast I think I'm voting; sometimes I feel like I'm in a double blind experiment -- where not even the candidates really know who's voting for what.
I hope I'm in the placebo group, then I not vote, join a rally to criticize without actually having to take responsibility for the outcome!!!

What's that you say? People already are.

It's like a game of Jeopardy -- I'll take fruitless endeavors for 8 billion:

There were two CA propositions where one continued a policy, and the other took away funding. It doesn't really matter what the policy was, or how you feel about the outcome; the fact that voters are expected to weigh-in twice on what was clearly the same issue is a testament to how accepting we have become of government wasting taxpayer time and energy.

[Palin Rider]

PalinRider cracks me up!

I, too, vote in CA. Atleast I think I'm voting; sometimes I feel like I'm in a double blind experiment -- where not even the candidates really know who's voting for what.
I hope I'm in the placebo group, then I not vote, join a rally to criticize without actually having to take responsibility for the outcome!!!

What's that you say? People already are.

It's like a game of Jeopardy -- I'll take fruitless endeavors for 8 billion:

There were two CA propositions where one continued a policy, and the other took away funding. It doesn't really matter what the policy was, or how you feel about the outcome; the fact that voters are expected to weigh-in twice on what was clearly the same issue is a testament to how accepting we have become of government wasting taxpayer time and energy.

Don't get me started on the initiative process - big money interests have abused it to the point of a total farce. The state is in serious need of a constitutional convention.

[logroller]

Don't get me started on the initiative process - big money interests have abused it to the point of a total farce. The state is in serious need of a constitutional convention.

I know, we should have a ballot initiative for a constitutional convention! and then another one not to, and another one to decide rather to accept the outcome. -- a farce indeed! :laugh2:

Sorry if I sound sarcastic but it takes the edge off my frustration.

BTW - I noticed the new avatar;)