Ziegler duplicates Obama voter poll results

posted at 9:12 am on December 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

When John Ziegler first launched his website, How Obama Got Elected, his poll showing that Obama voters appeared ignorant of the campaign issues touched off a heated controversy over the results.  Ziegler offered a double-or-nothing challenge to anyone who wanted to fund another Zogby survey of McCain voters, but Zogby dropped out of the project instead.  Now John is back with a new survey — and it verifies the first:

The 12 “Zogby” questions were duplicated, one on the Keating scandal was added for extra balance. The results from Obama voters were virtually IDENTICAL in both polls.

Here are the highlights:

  • 35 % of McCain voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
  • 18% of Obama voters got 10 or more of 13 questions correct.
  • McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
  • Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
  • Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
  • Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.

John’s main thrust with these polls has been to show the effects of media bias on the election, and their effectiveness in informing voters.  For that purpose, the new Wilson Strategies survey got structured to ask each respondent which media sources he or she used for information.  The results here are fascinating.  On what should have been the easiest and most non-partisan question of the poll — which party controls Congress — the media outlets showed a significant difference in how well-informed their consumers are:

  • Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39)
  • Those “exposed” to CNN got “congressional control” correct 48-38 (+10)
  • Those “exposed” to Network news got “congressional control” correct 48-39 (+9)
  • Those “exposed” to print media got “congressional control” correct 52-37 (+15)
  • Those “exposed” to MSNBC got “congressional control” correct 55-35 (+20)
  • Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32)

Talk radio listeners and Fox News viewers answered that correctly far more often than any of the others.  MS-NBC viewers actually answered that better than CNN viewers, but network news consumers did the worst.  CNN and network news viewers couldn’t even get a majority of their consumers educated enough to answer that fairly simple question.

I’d say that Ziegler gets his vindication.  Be sure to read all of the data, including the crosstabs from Wilson Strategies.

Update: Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid.  It’s that they were ignorant of the campaign issues raised in the election, and that directly relates to the media that supposedly informs them.  When over half of CNN’s viewers can’t identify which party controls Congress just after a national election, that speaks volumes about how well CNN informs the public on public affairs.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If you can’t get 75% right on the US citizenship test you should not be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

liberrocky on December 3, 2008 at 9:16 AM

That, but more appropriately w/b – if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote. Otherswise…this is the result. Those at the trough will always vote against those who fill it.

Don’t put your hopes into the citizenship test, though. I went through the real process and the officer held me over, asking me question, after question, including who my Representative, Senator, and Mayor was at the time. In the end he said “I asked you so much because it was a pleasure to know that my job is not completely a loss any more”.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Can’t wait for John Ziegler’s Documentary on this……..

………….. I am sure it will win an Oscar just like Al Gore.

Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Don’t put your hopes into the citizenship test, though.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Yeah, no kidding, that might disenfranchise the fraudulent vote.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid.

It may not be his point, but point is still valid. They are indeed terribly stupid.

TMK on December 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM

All polls are racist.
/sarc

Glenn Jericho on December 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM

They are indeed terribly stupid.

TMK on December 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM

That’s a given. They can’t be helped. They must be exploited and punished.

The real turds are the conservatives, Republicans and ‘independents’ who voted for O, stayed home, voted for Barr, or for their goat. They deserve him and may he totally ruin their wallets. Too bad for the country, the children, and the fact that we all have to pay for it.

Be accountable and put the blame where it belongs. We are the fools. The entire Congress needs to be thrown out, from the left to the right.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Outlander on December 3, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I agree about Keating being less important. And I think that the relative lack of traction on both Keating and Ayers as arguments reflects that neither were particularly easy. For those who are conservatives it was cut and dry “terrorism = bad = Obama bad.” But that assumes a world where people see Ayers as a terrorist and THAT was the hard sell. And it wasn’t a hard sell because people are “deluded” or “sheeple” It was a hard sell because, like it or not, Ayers was integrated into the “respectable” parts of the Chicago community. He is a university professor at a PUBLIC school, not a private one. The Annenburg Challenge may have not been effective, but it was bi-partisan, very hard to claim they were doing terrorist type things. Americans understood that Ayers was part of late sixties radicalism, but they had a hard time connecting Al-Qaeda, the popular reference point for terrorists, with Bill Ayers. People tried the McVeigh thing, but there’s no comparison in terms of scale between the two individuals, and that actually matters.

I think that if the right continues to believe that the problem with the Ayers story is that people “didn’t know” they aren’t *getting it* about this election. And will continue to lose.

DeathToMediaHacks on December 3, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Don’t put your hopes into the citizenship test, though.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM

It would never happen. There’s (rightfully) very very strict scrutiny applied to any measure which would potentially disenfranchise people. We have an egregious history in this country of using little tricks and tests to depress turnout. Sure, many (perhaps most) voters are low-information, single issue voters, but despite this, things have worked out pretty well for us so far.

Before you get a superiority complex, or feel magnanimous, erudite, open, bipartisan, admit that you come here mostly for the thrills of belittling others. Sometimes you do add substantive comments, and that is when I like you the most. The rest of us, for the most part, don’t go over there to comment. Some go to watch the circuses. It’s no fun to poop in other people’s living rooms.

For objectivity, you are one of the smartest lefties who visit here.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 11:48 AM

I didn’t mean to be self indulgent, I was simply pointing out the irony in his/her post. Anyway yeah, I’ll admit I do enjoy picking on and belittling dimmest of the HA posters, often just to pick their brains and see how their thought processes work. But it’s not the main reason I read and post here. I think sometimes you go a bit off the deep end ( I think I remember you passionately arguing that Obama is a Marxist), but still, you and a few others do offer a well-constructed and reasoned conservative worldview which I didn’t understand or even knew existed until I began posting here. So thanks for that.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM

+1 – the most impossible are those who persist in their ignorance, don’t seek help/information, and then blame you for everything.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Sounds like a pretty good description of stupid.

That’s a given. They can’t be helped. They must be exploited and punished.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM

I’m for forced reeducation camps. :)

Kini on December 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM

“Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid”

yes they are

notagool on December 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Due to the fact that one of the misguided core tenants of the Democrat platform is to oppose any restriction to voting rights, we will continue to be faced with not only ignorant voting, but illegal voting. Show a picture ID? Nonsense, we can’t do that, it will disenfranchise the poor!

This is one of the few cases that I actually think there needs to be some kind of amendment to the constitution. It seems to me that we need to change our thinking, and law so that people must first be willing to give something to the country before they can participate in its governance, or reap the benefits of its non-general services.

It’s incredible to me how willing people seem to be to give up their money and freedom, when it’s non-specific. How they can be almost willingly ignorant to how much the federal government takes from us, and how inefficient and out of touch it’s programs are.

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM

DTMH – A post-grad degree could just as easily be seen as a desire to either be recognized or to be able to get a job in that field. My roommate is fluent in 12 languages and conversational in another 5-7. His passion is linguistics, and he has a self taught knowledge in that field that is easily on a PhD level. During under-grad at NYU 5 years ago he collaborated with his professor on a paper that prof was writing. When I’m playing video games, he’s reading advanced linguistic’s text books for fun.

Everyone tells him to go to grad school but he refuses because there’s nothing he can get at school for a ton of money that he can’t get at the library for free except a title.

Perhaps he’s a bit unique, but I don’t see a difference between him and someone that learns how to rebuild cars or a civil war buff that can tell you everything about Gettysburg. Heck, one of the top Lincoln biographers is a man with a passion for history but no post-grad degree.

I think that for most people post-grad work is a career related decision rather than an indication of intellectual curiosity.

JadeNYU on December 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM

How about that for a bunch of us Hicks from Podunk? What is the difference between real educaion and the left leaning indoctrination we get from colleges and the major news outlets? Ziegler’s poll is one of them…..

DL13 on December 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Due to the fact that one of the misguided core tenants of the Democrat platform is to oppose any restriction to voting rights,..

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 PM

That is generous.

we will continue to be faced with not only ignorant voting, but illegal voting. Show a picture ID? Nonsense, we can’t do that, it will disenfranchise the poor!

When you examine the cross state demographics of where fraudulent voting has occurred, it is definitely skewed toward the benefit of one party. The cynic in me would state this is why the platform is there.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM

we will continue to be faced with not only ignorant voting, but illegal voting. Show a picture ID? Nonsense, we can’t do that, it will disenfranchise the poor!

Could you show me any kind of evidence that there is large scale illegal voting going on in the U.S. at any point in the recent past?

When you examine the cross state demographics of where fraudulent voting has occurred, it is definitely skewed toward the benefit of one party.

And the reverse is true as to which party would benefit from Voter-ID requirements…even though there is little to no evidence of voter fraud in the U.S.

Where’s the cynic in you in regards to that?

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM

crr6 @ 12:27 PM:
What are you saying? Does the Republican party benefit from stricter voting requirements and why?

Vince on December 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM

What are you saying? Does the Republican party benefit from stricter voting requirements and why?

Vince on December 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM

Yes, because poor and minority populations (who vote heavily democrat) often do not have government issued photo-ID’s. Thus, a Voter-ID law would disproportionately disenfranchise these groups and depress Democratic voter turnout.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM

When you tell ‘the big lie’ often enough and long enough it will begin to register with some people. When your sole goal and mission during the campaign is to spread disinformation and propoganda to get your guy elected and you are single-minded in that regard, it is no wonder that certain segments of the population, especially Obamatrons, think what they think. Because it is American, we think the MSM is only tainted, not corrupted. As far as I’m concerned the only difference between the MSM and the Goebbel’s led propaganda machinery of Nazi Germany was the language it was uttered in and the content it spewed; other than that it served the same purpose and got the same results-to present the impression that Obama and the Dems are the good guys and Bush and Palin are the bad guys and as the bad guys must be destroyed. Ask yourself this one question and reply honestly: “If free speech was not guaranteed by the first Amendment to the Constitution, how vigorously would Obama, the Democrats, and the MSM fight for and defend the rights of Republicans to speak freely and against the lefties? If you honestly believe that Obama, Emanuel, Reid and the Keith Obermann would stand up for Sarah Palin out of principle I can set you up with a Nigerian who wants to communicate with you via the internet.

technopeasant on December 3, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Could you show me any kind of evidence that there is large scale illegal voting going on in the U.S. at any point in the recent past?

I can’t. This is due to primarily the fact that I haven’t taken the time to research that specifically. However that doesn’t change the fact that the requirement of the use of a picture ID would significantly reduce whatever voter fraud there is. It is not a burden that isn’t already present to function in our society, and the only logical reason to oppose such a requirement is that the fraudulent voting that does occur is advantageous to the party opposing it.

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

I get why illegal immigrants would not (although many do!), but why would the poor not have government issued photo-ID’s?

I grew up poor and I never had that problem.

latinchic on December 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

and the only logical reason to oppose such a requirement is that the fraudulent voting that does occur is advantageous to the party opposing it.

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

because poor and minority populations (who vote heavily democrat) often do not have government issued photo-ID’s. Thus, a Voter-ID law would disproportionately disenfranchise these groups and depress Democratic voter turnout.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM

I get why illegal immigrants would not (although many do!), but why would the poor not have government issued photo-ID’s?

I grew up poor and I never had that problem.

latinchic on December 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Well off the top of my head, the obvious reason would be that many poor people do not drive or own a vehicle (they use public transportation) so they don’t get a driver’s license. I read somewhere that it is estimated that 20 million adult Americans do not have a government issued photo-ID. I’ll try and dig up the link.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I read somewhere that it is estimated that 20 million adult Americans do not have a government issued photo-ID. I’ll try and dig up the link.

I’ll willingly give you the point without having to look it up, however that is still not a valid reason not to require photo ID to vote. The reason I say this it that the burden of acquiring a gov photo ID is fairly minimal, and completely reasonable. Think of all of the voting drives. Do you not think that they could add a drive to help people acquire ID’s?

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM

So….how do we win this demographic in the next election?

TexAz on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM

I’ll willingly give you the point without having to look it up, however that is still not a valid reason not to require photo ID to vote. The reason I say this it that the burden of acquiring a gov photo ID is fairly minimal, and completely reasonable. Think of all of the voting drives. Do you not think that they could add a drive to help people acquire ID’s?

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM

It may not be a huge burden, but as I stated earlier we have a long history in this country of applying little burdens (poll taxes, literacy tests) which have the effect of disenfranchising targeted groups. Given the large number of those who would be disenfranchised and the minimal level of voter fraud, why would a photo-id law meet the strict scrutiny required to place an obstacle between Americans and the voting booth?

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid. It’s that they were ignorant of the campaign issues raised in the election, and that directly relates to the media that supposedly informs them.

John may not call the Obama voters stupid, but I will. Let’s take another look at the “Before this election, which political party controlled both houses of Congress?” question, on pages 19-21 of the crosstabs. 43% of Obama voters said “Republican”, which was a plurality by 2 points.

It gets worse when one takes a look at the partisan splits. While a plurality of “soft Democrats” barely got the question right (44%-36%, worse than “independents”, “soft Republicans” and “strong Republicans”, in that order), “strong Democrats” got it wrong to the tune of 48%-37%.

One would think that strong partisans would get it right.

steveegg on December 3, 2008 at 1:15 PM

we have a long history in this country of applying little burdens (poll taxes, literacy tests) which have the effect of disenfranchising targeted groups.

Once again, I’ll concede that there is a history, and a precedence which makes any additional restricting laws difficult. However, it is misleading to compare a tax, or test to the simple burden of basic proof of identity.

Just because I didn’t provide proof that there is significant voter fraud, doesn’t mean that we can necessarily take as fact that there isn’t. I think we can agree that voter fraud was a significant issue in this past election. Significant enough that I think it would be of value to pursue reducing the chances that voter fraud is occurring. In fact I would argue that the lack of reasonable identification requirements pretty much requires there to be significant voter fraud in a society without a very high sense of honesty and honor.

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Could you show me any kind of evidence that there is large scale illegal voting going on in the U.S. at any point in the recent past?

crr6

Well yes, thanks to checking ID’s we’ve caught… oh we don’t check ID’s so we can’t know who we might have caught voting twice, or illegally can we.

Without instituting the policy to catch those cheating, we don’t know who is cheating… so crr6 assumes that since we can’t catch people cheating that nobody ever cheats, everyone is trustworthy, and no validation is necessary.

But wasn’t there a story of “snowbirds” in the South who voted in two states? Listing a half a dozen of them? Ah, but hey them voting twice just allows them to vote, and to cancel out your vote. That’s not a problem, right?

http://www.wsbtv.com/politics/17876720/detail.html#-

And the guy who voted for his deceased mother? Probably just fine, I sure letting the dead vote by absentee ballot is ok too.

Naah, just a hoax I’m sure.
http://www.gop.com/missouri.htm

Joel Neal of St. Louis faces up to five years in prison after admitting that he used his dead mother’s absentee ballot to vote in the February election. Neal pleaded guilty on Friday in federal court to election fraud.

But I’m sure there are no news stories about this, so I can’t provide links, right?

Not this election, but within my lifetime (1982)…
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm23.cfm

Locker was shocked at the sheer magnitude of the number of fraudulent votes and the fact that fraud occurred in every single Chicago precinct.[21] More than 3,000 votes had been cast in the names of individuals who were dead, and more than 31,000 individuals had voted twice in different locations in the city.

the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.

But hey, what’s 100,000+ fraudulent votes between friends, right? We don’t want any more safeguards; those safeguards might help Republicans; so instead lets keep fraud, safe, cheap, and legal.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.ssf?/base/news/1224231312136740.xml&coll=2

MONTGOMERY – Six Alabama counties have more people on their voting rolls than they do people of voting age, according to voter registration numbers and U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

Meh, I’m sure that’s fine. So they have more voters than people. That happens all the time, like above in Chicago… except the Alabama story was from this election, not a couple decades ago. I’m sure there’s no fraud though, crr6 is convinced there can’t be any fraud.

And if you think there is fraud, and believe something should be done to make elections more fair and accurate? What, are you a Republican or something? Only a Republican could be against voter fraud, illegal voting, or want a fair election… right crr6?

gekkobear on December 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Democrats have opposed voter ID laws even in states where the law makes it free to get a government issued photo ID if you’re poor.

If it’s no longer economically out of their reach and they are smart enough to fill out a form to register in the first place, how is it an unfair burden to also ask them to fill out another form and have their picture taken for an identifying document at the same time?

I find it hard to believe that either party loses in the long run when the rights of citizens are protected and secured.

JadeNYU on December 3, 2008 at 1:27 PM

And the reverse is true as to which party would benefit from Voter-ID requirements…even though there is little to no evidence of voter fraud in the U.S.

Where’s the cynic in you in regards to that?

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Ok, I will concede that I’m talking more about the ACORN activities, and the historical dissatisfaction I have with the 1994 MD Gubernatorial race’s court decision. (Republican had evidence that deceased voters participated, and this was swept under the rug in my opinion.) There’s also the WA governors election, but I’ve lost my link for that one.

However, to speculate that requiring ID would benefit the Republicans is complete sophistry. Does honesty benefit one party more than another? Honesty does not require cynicism.

Look at how many times in this society you’re required to show some kind of photo ID. For example, you can’t write a check, fly, open a bank account, or even get a movie rental card without showing ID. You mean to tell me that these voters are so out of touch with reality that they haven’t bumped into the need to have a photo ID yet? Bus lines do go past the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Come on. This was true in the early 20th century, but I’m much more skeptical of the veracity of that statement in today’s society. I would say that if a voter has too little concern to go get a photo ID, then the question begging to be asked is how important is it to them to vote?

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Franken anyone, for crying out loud!

Bambi on December 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Franken anyone, for crying out loud!

Bambi on December 3, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Unfortunately, that is a suspicion. Proving these kinds of allegations is almost impossible to achieve because there is no identification tied to each ballot. (i.e. your voter number on the ballot, and a verified ID check that you voted.)

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 1:36 PM

I think sometimes you go a bit off the deep end ( I think I remember you passionately arguing that Obama is a Marxist),

Heh, it’s lots of fun in that “deep end” of mine. I stand by my “Obama is a socialist/Marxist, with an anarchyst wife” statement. Just watch for the 2nd term.

but still, you and a few others do offer a well-constructed and reasoned conservative worldview which I didn’t understand or even knew existed until I began posting here. So thanks for that.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM

You’re welcome. I thought I was an independent, as I’m still a registered one, but the term is now dead, along with “liberal” and “progressive”. Now it’s ‘independents’ only, as they are the biggest fools of all, ahead of the conservatives and Republicans who voted for Obama, Barr, or their spitting llamas.

I’ll never give up my independence, as I know from first account what it means not to be free. It’s real hell on earth. You just have to believe that part.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM

I know from first account what it means not to be free. It’s real hell on earth. You just have to believe that part.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM

What country?

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Could you show me any kind of evidence that there is large scale illegal voting going on in the U.S. at any point in the recent past?

Can you show me any kind of evidence that there is large scale voter disenfranchisement going on in the US at any point in the recent past? The answer is “no”. And so, by your logic, all of the Left’s clamoring about Diebold and vote rigging was just bullsh-t that should have been ignored. Correct?

You Lefties can’t have it both ways. Either you’re for doing everything possible to ensure that voting rights are protected – which includes the right to not have your vote negated by fraudulent votes – or you’re not. But what we see consistently is that you’re only interested in ensuring that there are no obstacles in the way of people who vote for Democrats.

And the reverse is true as to which party would benefit from Voter-ID requirements…even though there is little to no evidence of voter fraud in the U.S….Where’s the cynic in you in regards to that?

The “party” who would benefit from voter-ID requirements is the legal US voting electorate. Are you saying that other parties should benefit?

It may not be a huge burden, but as I stated earlier we have a long history in this country of applying little burdens (poll taxes, literacy tests) which have the effect of disenfranchising targeted groups.

Except in the case of voter ID, everyone would be subject to the same burden.

The notion that it is discrimanatory is laugable. Federal elections occur, what, every two years? In that time, even the poorest person would have to come up with maybe $5 for a round-trip bus ride and maybe $10 for an ID. Over the span of two years, if you can’t come up with $15 to participate in the electoral process, I submit that you a) are unconcerned with participating in the electoral process or b) have problems that are going to preclude you from showing up on voting day anyway.

The bottom line is this: voting is not a come-one, come-all event. There are all sorts of restrictions placed on voting that are “discriminatory” in one form or another (e.g. age limits, criminal records, residency, etc.).

Fighting voter ID efforts has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting minorities rights”…if that were the case, you should be fighting all ID requirements (e.g. driver’s licenses, check cashing, etc.) because it places the exact same burden on the prospective ID holder (i.e. it requires them to a) get to the ID issuer and b) pay for the ID). What it has everything to do with is increasing Democrat vote tallies.

rvastar on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM

What country?

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM

His

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Well off the top of my head, the obvious reason would be that many poor people do not drive or own a vehicle (they use public transportation) so they don’t get a driver’s license. I read somewhere that it is estimated that 20 million adult Americans do not have a government issued photo-ID. I’ll try and dig up the link.

Hum. I don’t know about other states, but in Texas you can get an Texas I.D. card that is just for the sole person of having identification, and not for driving. Per DMV.org:

If you don’t happen to have a driver’s license (say you’re too young or your license is suspended―or you just don’t wish to drive), you will probably want to get a Texas identification card instead. This will serve to identify you for most purposes in the State of Texas.

Without a driver’s license to show, a Texas ID card is your ticket to boarding an airplane, checking into a hotel, entering a bar, cashing a check, and many other day-to-day activities that require state-issued ID.

The basic procedure is similar to obtaining a driver license, but without any testing requirements. Furthermore, there are no age restrictions. Any Texas resident can get one as long as they can provide proof of identity. In fact, many parents get them for their children.

If this doesn’t happen in other states, it should.

latinchic on December 3, 2008 at 2:02 PM

rvastar on December 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Masterful. Thank you,

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Does this “new” survey prove that his original hypotenuse was, in fact, wrong?

The original survey was to show how the “mainstream media” had failed to inform the public bout real issues.

Not to show that Obama voters are stupid.

With this survey it kinda sorta says ya know, like, ya know what I mean, uhm errr Obama voters are infact uhmm errr ahhh

Stupid.

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 2:09 PM

His

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 1:58 PM

Welcome to the United States of America.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM

“p.s. I still vote for a Basic Civics Test when registering to vote”

Good point!

After all we have to take and retake test for our drivers license, why don’t we have test for voters?

Opps, no, wait, Voting is a right, driving is a privilege.

So why do they want me to take test before I buy a gun?

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Welcome to the United States of America.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Thank you. I liked her much better until now, but I’ll fight for her, until my last sane moment, crr6’s take on my sanity, aside :)

No worries crr6 – sincerely, I never wish to be 100% sane. It w/b way too boring.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM

Update: Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid. It’s that they were ignorant of the campaign issues raised in the election, and that directly relates to the media that supposedly informs them. When over half of CNN’s viewers can’t identify which party controls Congress just after a national election, that speaks volumes about how well CNN informs the public on public affairs.

For the record, I agree with this.

“p.s. I still vote for a Basic Civics Test when registering to vote”

Opps, no, wait, Voting is a right, driving is a privilege.

I’m very aware that voting is a right and driving a priviledge. I think it should be both.

latinchic on December 3, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Thank you. I liked her much better until now,
Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I grew up during Kennedy, Johnson then Nixon. I came of age under Carter and Reagan which shaped my political views. I’ve always loved my country but the leaders have risen and fallen in my eyes at times. This season is no different and shall pass.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I think we can agree that voter fraud was a significant issue in this past election. Significant enough that I think it would be of value to pursue reducing the chances that voter fraud is occurring. In fact I would argue that the lack of reasonable identification requirements pretty much requires there to be significant voter fraud in a society without a very high sense of honesty and honor.

aelhues on December 3, 2008 at 1:18 PM

No, there was some voter registration fraud in the last election, not actual voter fraud. There’s a huge difference.

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Heh, it’s lots of fun in that “deep end” of mine. I stand by my “Obama is a socialist/Marxist, with an anarchyst wife” statement. Just watch for the 2nd term.

Yeah, I definitely don’t see how that is off the “deep end” by any means. I mean, in what way is the big O not a Marxist? And his wife? Puhleeze. From Zombie Henny Youngman; Take her. Please!

wccawa on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM

This season is no different and shall pass.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM

May it be so!

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM

This season is no different and shall pass.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM

However, the question that remains is will it pass normally or will it be like passing a kidney stone?

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM

“You’re main problem is that you’re operating under the assumption that most of the smears which the surveyor asked about are”
A. Newsworthy.
B. True.
So knowing who currently is in charge of Congress is a smear?

Newsworthy is a good point, and one that the Zogby poll address, namely

93.8% of the Obama voters knew Palin’s daughter was pregnant.

Newsworthy? Yes, No.

86.3% of the Obama voters knew the RNC had bought Palin clothes.

Newsworthy? Yes, No

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM

However, the question that remains is will it pass normally or will it be like passing a kidney stone?

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Only time will tell but best to prepare for the stones! Remember : Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

thomasaur on December 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM

You need an id to buy ciggies, liquor, and cold medication. You need an id to cash a check, some places ask for id when you use debit/credit card.
You need an id to rent a stroller at the mall.
Voting should require prior registration with proof of citizenship and residence, then proof of id on day of voting.

conservativegrandma on December 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM

You need an id to buy ciggies, liquor, and cold medication. You need an id to cash a check, some places ask for id when you use debit/credit card.
You need an id to rent a stroller at the mall.
Voting should require prior registration with proof of citizenship and residence, then proof of id on day of voting.

conservativegrandma on December 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM

You need to read to take the right bus, find a street, read a menu, and get nearly any job, why not have a literacy test to vote?

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM

You need an id to buy ciggies, liquor, and cold medication.

conservativegrandma on December 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Outstanding.

Anything to say about these or the other points posted above conservativegrandma’s crr6?

I think that there is a good argument to be made that the threee I pasted above are more frequently encountered by these poor voters who don’t have a car or ID, than a voting booth.

Face it. ID is not a hiderance to the poor voting. Unless they have no desire to get a buzz in the bar or pick up a 40 at 7-11.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 3:10 PM

You need to read to take the right bus, find a street, read a menu, and get nearly any job, why not have a literacy test to vote?

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM

This make sense to you? They have to read the candidate’s name on the ballot.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM

crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Well, on second thought, I guess they could receive help at the voting booth as a blind person can. However, that would also apply to your arguement as well about taking the bus…with a net change of zero to the weakness of your argument.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Where will this all end? Maybe Obama could redistribute the voting rights of citizens too educated or knowledgeable to vote. If you’ve read an intellectually challenging book this year you would almost certainly make the wrong choice at the polls and should be disqualified.

snaggletoothie on December 3, 2008 at 3:17 PM

crr6
“Notice the word “most”.
Yes, I did.

“You’re main problem is that you’re operating under the assumption that most of the smears”

“Most of the smears”

Your claiming the questions are smears, that are untrue or not news worthy.

So tell us which smears are true and newsworthy?

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 3:17 PM

crr6
“Notice the word “most”.
Yes, I did.

“Most of the smears”

Your claiming the questions are smears, that are untrue or not news worthy.

So tell us which smears are true and newsworthy?

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Update: Once again, just to clarify, John’s point isn’t that Obama voters are stupid.

Uh, well if it isn’t Ed, it Should Be…aaand in all 57 states, uh, “with one left to go” too.

Nice grammar Barky. Pick that one up at Harvard, did you?

Teddy on December 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM

why not have a literacy test to vote?

Because neither the 15th Amendment, nor the National Voting Rights Act, includes a requirement for literacy. What they do require, is that the person voting be a “citizen of the United States”…as such, it is completely legal for the govt to require that someone showing up to vote be able to prove that they are, indeed, a citizen of this country.

I’m sorry, but I don’t just see the amendment or clause that states that voting is open to “whoever can make it to a polling station and vote Democratic”.

rvastar on December 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Heh, rvastar, the laws are just for the conservatives. No need to be born here to be president, nor a citizen to vote, if you are a liberal, or if you vote for a liberal.

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Heh, rvastar, the laws are just for the conservatives.

While I know that you’re being facetious, Entelechy, what you say is actually the truth.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, commie Saul Alinsky – hero to Hillary and Obama – wrote:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

Meanwhile, Dems never have to. Why? Because information that the US news media would use to excoriate any Republican candidate is simply ignored or actively suppressed when it’s a Democrat.

rvastar on December 3, 2008 at 5:44 PM

rvastar, yes, but would you ever want to live like, or be them? Never!

Entelechy on December 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM

crr6
Well off the top of my head, the obvious reason would be that many poor people do not drive or own a vehicle (they use public transportation) so they don’t get a driver’s license. I read somewhere that it is estimated that 20 million adult Americans do not have a government issued photo-ID. I’ll try and dig up the link.

Right, 20% of the voting age American citizens don’t have a photo ID?

I can’t possibly see how anybody can function in this world today without a photo ID.

Anyway your point is pointless as this has already been through the courts and your side lost.

High court lets states force voters to present photo ID
David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The 6-3 decision upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, the nation’s strictest, against a challenge from those who predicted it would deter thousands of poor, disabled and elderly people from voting.

But the plaintiffs failed to show that even a single voter had been blocked from exercising his or her rights in Indiana because of the 2005 law. That lapse probably doomed the legal challenge

Alternative ID
Many states with voter ID laws make it easier for people to comply by allowing them to furnish alternative forms of identification – such as a Social Security card, a utility bill or a student ID. But voting-rights advocates say the mere existence of such laws could cause
many eligible voters to stay home if they do not have an up-to-date driver’s license, a passport or another government-issued ID card.

Stevens said that number appeared to be quite small, because an estimated 99 percent of Indiana’s population had the necessary ID cards, according to the judge who tried the case.

DSchoen on December 3, 2008 at 8:27 PM

My dime for voter eligibility is simple, one must have paid federal taxes to vote in national elections, state taxes for state elections and local taxes for local elections. These records already exist, generating lists would be straight forward.

dmann on December 3, 2008 at 9:15 PM