Republicans Know More About Politics Than Democrats, Says Study - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bobie;35701318]i meant more this[/QUOTE]That's the shitty article, but you can make judgements on those qualities based on their policies in comparison to those of other parties.

[QUOTE=Stonecycle;35701250]Quite. Both sides, republican and democrat, are a little too far on their far sides. Not only do the liberal sides of each take the bad rap, but they are also rising. Their original intentions have been changing over the years. For example, the republican party, believe it or not, was in favor of abolishing slavery back in the day. Now, there's the majority-democrat biased media that keeps slamming anything remotely right-wing. The poor choice of leaders is partially due to fault of democracy itself. You have idiots who vote for idiots. And to be fair, every one on the ballot for this year's elections are idiots.[/QUOTE] Eh, no. Two things wrong with this. The democratic party is not as lock-step as the republican party. While there are certainly some far-left politicians, they just don't have the same amount of support or backing that the republican party has in respect to far-right ideologies. Also there is no democrat-biased media. The "liberal media" idea is one of the greatest lies neoconservatism has ever spun.

[QUOTE=MBB;35701339]Most nonpartisan studies have shown a bias in favor of the Democratic party among mainstream media.[/QUOTE]Got a source?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701218]He's not obligated to talk to you. The rating system is a very quick way of someone expressing their opinion without needing to delve in to a five page fight with someone.[/QUOTE] The rating system was more to avoid posts like "stfu!" or "I agree" or "lololol"

[QUOTE=MBB;35701339]Most nonpartisan studies have shown a bias in favor of the Democratic party among mainstream media.[/QUOTE] Probably because Democratic-elected presidents and congresses get more done. It's not bias; it's reporting to the truth.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;35701349]The rating system was more to avoid posts like "stfu!" or "I agree" or "lololol"[/QUOTE]I didn't claim what its intentions were, just how it functions.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701348]Got a source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.journalism.org/node/8187[/url]

I find it hilarious how most of you are scoffing and crying fowl at this, but if there were a study that said the exact opposite, you guys would all be saying "Well duh! No surprise there! Hehe!".

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701218]He's not obligated to talk to you. The rating system is a very quick way of someone expressing their opinion without needing to delve in to a five page fight with someone.[/QUOTE] so this discussion board has a feature designed to make discussion unnecessary yeah thats cool

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;35701384]I find it hilarious how most of you are scoffing and crying fowl at this, but if there were a study that said the exact opposite, you guys would all be saying "Well duh! No surprise there! Hehe!".[/QUOTE] so you just read the title and imagine the thread instead of actually reading it, didn't you

[QUOTE=MBB;35701382][url]http://www.journalism.org/node/8187[/url] [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/27/nation/na-onthemedia27[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat. During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.[/quote] From your own article. The entire thing is about how the networks are more critical on the Democrats than the Republicans. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35701410]so this discussion board has a feature designed to make discussion unnecessary yeah thats cool[/QUOTE]Basically, yes.

I took the quiz, got a perfect score. Most of the quiz was ridiculously easy, but the questions about what party Roosevelt and Lincoln were in were unfair. Most people never learn that the parties' positions have changed and it's not THAT relevant to modern-day politics which parties Lincoln and Roosevelt ran under. Also, one of the questions were definitely biased: what party GOP is referring to.

[quote] The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.[/quote] This...... [I]This is a joke right?[/I]

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35701474]This...... [I]This is a joke right?[/I][/QUOTE]As we've said, the article is shit.

[QUOTE=MBB;35701382][url]http://www.journalism.org/node/8187[/url] [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/27/nation/na-onthemedia27[/url][/QUOTE] If you actually read the articles you would understand the bias wasn't because Obama was a Democrat but because he was an energetic newcomer to the national political scene. Reporting on him was a huge ratings boost because he was actually interesting. Hell the second on you link outright denies the idea of a liberal media.

Politics they may know more, but not when it comes to actual government.

[QUOTE=General Stanley;35701508]Politics they may know more, but not when it comes to actual government.[/QUOTE]Just to be clear, this is an evaluation of voters, not politicians.

I'm not saying there is no liberal bias in media; obviously there is. But the idea that there is this giant conspiracy behind several independent news outlets to bring down the conservative establishment is ridiculous. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701528]Just to be clear, this is an evaluation of voters, not politicians.[/QUOTE] To be fair there would be a lot less confusion if OP's source wasn't horse shit. Though with MBB you gotta go in with low expectations.

This doesn't surprise me honestly. America is driven by a theocratic, organized, and well-informed right wing. The left wing in America is less organized and has no "core" like the right does (that core generally being christianity). Church goers especially would be recieving updates and information (passed through the right wing censors mind you) from their religious leaders, while the majority of left wing voters have no such analogue (except perhaps the Internet for those few who choose to follow the news) [QUOTE=MBB;35693620]"The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party."[/QUOTE] hahaha nice little snipe at the end there. "Intellectually consistent", "open minded", "empathetic", and "receptive to criticism" are NOT ways I'd describe the GOP. lol guy rates me dumb, posts right after me, doesn't explain why he thinks this is dumb.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35701258]Out of curiosity, where does it say that in the text of the Second Amendment?[/QUOTE] It's not explicitly stated but rather implied by the text "...necessary to the security of a free State." To my eyes it says that if a State is no longer free, whether by enemy occupation or government suppression, the people have the right to an armed revolt.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35701673]It's not explicitly stated but rather implied by the text "...necessary to the security of a free State." To my eyes it says that if a State is no longer free, whether by enemy occupation or government suppression, the people have the right to an armed revolt.[/QUOTE]It doesn't say anything about that. Its actually saying that, to keep our budding nation from dying under assault from other aggressors, the people need to be able to effectively form militias so as to protect the nation overall, during a time when a standing army wasn't exactly a big thing. But that is simply what the text says, the reasoning was far greater, and included everything from protecting the state and allowing revolt to providing effective law enforcement, allowing self-defense, and suppressing insurrection.

One of the major questions that put the republicans in the lead according to the study, is the one about which party is more inclined to reduce federal spending. Given the current political climate, you really can't blame democrats for getting that one wrong. The republicans have never been as eager to spend as they have the past few years. You can't start 2 wars with an ever-growing "defense" budget, and still maintain an image of conservative spending and government reduction.

Either way, all the current republican candidates are jokes.

[QUOTE=dvc;35702031]Either way, all the current republican candidates are jokes.[/QUOTE] racist jokes at that

They probably do, because they never stop fucking banging on about them. They have to know the topic to be completely stuck up and annoying about it, after all.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;35701535]To be fair there would be a lot less confusion if OP's source wasn't horse shit. Though with MBB you gotta go in with low expectations.[/QUOTE] It was either the Daily Caller or Reason Magazine and I decided Reason was a slightly better source. [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] I found a way more in depth report: [url]http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/?src=iq-quiz[/url] Here're the parts relevant to the original article: [quote]Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge. The largest gaps are in awareness of which party is more supportive of reducing the size and scope of the federal government (30 points) and which party is more conservative (28 points). Republicans also are 21 percentage points more likely than Democrats to know that the GOP is more supportive of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is only one policy question – which party is more supportive of cutting defense spending – on which Democrats are more knowledgeable than Republicans. Two-thirds of Democrats (67%) identify the Democratic Party as being more supportive of reducing the size of the defense budget, compared with 59% of Republicans. On the remaining issues – expanding the rights of gays and lesbians, increasing taxes on the wealthy, restricting abortion and providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible “path to citizenship”– there are no significant differences in knowledge between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans also are more familiar with the partisan affiliation of two leading Democrats – one from the present, Nancy Pelosi, and one from the past, Franklin Roosevelt. Three-quarters (75%) of Republicans know that Pelosi is a Democrat, compared with 59% of Democrats. And while 73% of Republicans identify FDR as a Democrat, just 58% of Democrats do so. Independents also are less knowledgeable than Republicans about the parties’ positions on a number of issues and the affiliation of some political leaders. Notably, independents (71%) are less likely than Republicans (85%) or Democrats (84%) to know that John F. Kennedy was a Democrat. The partisan gaps in knowledge are at least partly a consequence of demographic differences. On average, Republicans are older and more affluent than either Democrats or independents, and both of these are associated with knowledge about the parties’ positions and leaders.[/quote]

These studies are all fucking bullshit. Even the ones that support a left wing viewpoint.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;35701347]The "liberal media" idea is one of the greatest lies neoconservatism has ever spun.[/QUOTE] Nowadays it seems like the media is exclusively sensationalist

[QUOTE=MBB;35702286] I found a way more in depth report: [url]http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/?src=iq-quiz[/url][/QUOTE] you are so inept i posted the actual report ages ago

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35702433]Nowadays it seems like the media is exclusively sensationalist[/QUOTE] Pretty much. The press on both sides are in it for the money. Sensationalism sells stories.