Why is our Democratic Presidential candidate being selected, according to all the pundits, by "white, working-class, voters"? Aren't these what we call Reagan Democrats?
Aren't these the people whom we refer to as "low-information" voters? People who historically can't identify their own interest? People who vote on the basis of beer, and bowling? People who, in spite of every indication to the contrary, in spite of both historical and current trends, lose their shirt every time a Republican is elected to the Presidency?
I spent several hours on Friday digging around both the US Census site, and the University of Michigan site, trying to find out who these people are. The information is there, of course, but without the funding, the voter lists the party has accumulated over the past decades, and many hours of dedicated effort, I will not be able to tease the data to gain any further understanding of the "facts" that media pundits, and talking heads throw around with such facility.
There is a report circulating this morning that 53% of whites without a college education, in Indiana, will not vote for Obama. This is not surprising. This is a core group of Republican voters, in a Red State, that has voted for the Republican candidate since 1964. These are the folks who are suffering the most from the divisive tactics of modern politics, but who do not have the skills, or investment, to see beyond the TV ads, and their own limited world view.
Interestingly, a new poll is reporting that Clinton's approval ratings among these voters is only 43%. This is clearly a group that will not vote for the Democrat.
Why then, are their opinions being touted as definitive, or even worthy of comment in the Democratic Primary, unless the media is so determined to block an Obama victory that they will grasp at any bit of information to influence the low information voter? "People like you don't vote for Obama!", is the subtext. The real message, and the facts on the ground, drum the message that, "Folks like you don't vote for the Democrat!".
So, CNN's Howie Kurtz is devoting time to the manufactured "shock and outrage" over Hannah Montana showing her belly to a photographer. The MSNBC Idiots are still frothing over Reverend Wright, while wringing their hands over the "effect this "ongoing scandal" will have on Obama's campaign". And, both make continued references to those "White, working class Republican voters" who will derail the Democrat's hopes.
As a Cognitive Psychologist, I have long been annoyed at the violative language used by media. Any educated reader, or listener, will discern personal bias, corporate intent, and water carrying for the power brokers, designed to maintain the status quo. I'm quite used to the blood pressure raising distortion of information created by selective commentary, video loops, and the coy choice of adjectives employed. I see these paraded daily.
But. This is the first time I have ever seen Republican voters being used to shape the opinion of Democratic voters in a Democratic Primary. Shaped by using group identification and base ignorance, to lay the ground work for a Republican victory in November.
UPDATE: This diary is not about you. This diary is not about voters. This diary is about the media portrayal of voters for their own nefarious ends.