Jim Jones cared about people like the 60 odd million who voted for THE Ø too.
//shakes head, opens beer, and decides to return to the garage in order to fix something that is within the control and capability of the old hun to fix//
I wonder how these people understood the distinction between "shares my values" and "cares about people like me"? I can see how you could care about people like me and not share my values, but I'm not sure you can share my values and not care about people like me. Most people care about people like themselves, so insofar as I share your values, caring about people like you ought to follow.
Either that, or 55% of 27% of American voters are bastards. "Romney really shares my values, which is why he can't be trusted anywhere near the Oval Office."
Grim, I read that differently. That 55% of the 27% voted for Romney. I question the intelligence of the 81% of 21% people who voted for Obama based on him "caring" about people like them. Just because someone "cares" doesn't mean they're competent to actually *help* you...
Well, clearly these are different groups of people. Still, I'm surprised that there's such a delta on "shares my values" and "cares about people like me." Normally I'd have thought that, at least in the one direction, these were impressions likely to be closely aligned.
But it could be that the people who were most focused on "caring" and the people who were most focused on "values" were just very different people.
What these numbers tell me is that Obama voters are "feelings" voters more than "substance" voters and it is the reverse for Romney voters (substance being "shares my values, being a strong leader and having a vision vs. "they care").
Also, they could only pick one as the most influential reason. That someone would pick "Obama cares about me" vs. the "substance" options is mindboggling to me. Some Romney voters fell into this category, too, but it isn't even 2 out of 10 of that 21%...
For me, this about the difference between wishful and critical thinking. The polls all show me that most people have almost no idea what concrete actions by society or government will yield the results they want. They mostly choose a party or a candidate on the basis of some kind of inchoate appeal. For many voters, the most appealing thing is a sense that a candidate has their best interests at heart, or at least does not consider them (or their cohort) with outright enmity. They may not know or care what the candidate is likely to do that will help out their situation. They are the very antithesis of "ideological" voters. They care more about "working together to solve our problems" than about making sure than any work that gets done is in service of a program than will do more harm than good. It reminds me of the attitude people had toward 18th- or 19th-century doctors, who might not be washing their hands between examining infectious patients and who might do nothing more useful than letting blood or adjusting "humors," but they were active, involved, and seemingly sympathetic to their patients. Witch doctors, in other words. Enduringly popular.
10 comments:
Jim Jones cared about people like the 60 odd million who voted for THE Ø too.
//shakes head, opens beer, and decides to return to the garage in order to fix something that is within the control and capability of the old hun to fix//
I wonder how these people understood the distinction between "shares my values" and "cares about people like me"? I can see how you could care about people like me and not share my values, but I'm not sure you can share my values and not care about people like me. Most people care about people like themselves, so insofar as I share your values, caring about people like you ought to follow.
Either that, or 55% of 27% of American voters are bastards. "Romney really shares my values, which is why he can't be trusted anywhere near the Oval Office."
Grim, I read that differently. That 55% of the 27% voted for Romney. I question the intelligence of the 81% of 21% people who voted for Obama based on him "caring" about people like them. Just because someone "cares" doesn't mean they're competent to actually *help* you...
Well, clearly these are different groups of people. Still, I'm surprised that there's such a delta on "shares my values" and "cares about people like me." Normally I'd have thought that, at least in the one direction, these were impressions likely to be closely aligned.
But it could be that the people who were most focused on "caring" and the people who were most focused on "values" were just very different people.
"it could be that the people who were most focused on "caring" and the people who were most focused on "values" were just very different people."
Yup.
Ask yourself if the left cares about people who don't share their values.
What these numbers tell me is that Obama voters are "feelings" voters more than "substance" voters and it is the reverse for Romney voters (substance being "shares my values, being a strong leader and having a vision vs. "they care").
Also, they could only pick one as the most influential reason. That someone would pick "Obama cares about me" vs. the "substance" options is mindboggling to me. Some Romney voters fell into this category, too, but it isn't even 2 out of 10 of that 21%...
"Obama cares about me"
39 months of 8% + unemployment from Truman- George W Bush.
43 months of 8%+ unemployment from Truman-George W Bush.
As Miss Ladybug says, these are "feelings" voters.
For me, this about the difference between wishful and critical thinking. The polls all show me that most people have almost no idea what concrete actions by society or government will yield the results they want. They mostly choose a party or a candidate on the basis of some kind of inchoate appeal. For many voters, the most appealing thing is a sense that a candidate has their best interests at heart, or at least does not consider them (or their cohort) with outright enmity. They may not know or care what the candidate is likely to do that will help out their situation. They are the very antithesis of "ideological" voters. They care more about "working together to solve our problems" than about making sure than any work that gets done is in service of a program than will do more harm than good. It reminds me of the attitude people had toward 18th- or 19th-century doctors, who might not be washing their hands between examining infectious patients and who might do nothing more useful than letting blood or adjusting "humors," but they were active, involved, and seemingly sympathetic to their patients. Witch doctors, in other words. Enduringly popular.
Post a Comment