With just 12 weeks to go before the election, the percentage of undecided voters in the presidential race is "only a sliver of the electorate." While there are usually more voters who haven't made up their minds at this phase of the race, in 2012, "undecideds" are far and few between.
And what, pray tell, are these folks waiting for? I don't know any undecided voters personally, so I was fascinated to see this interview John Harwood did with a woman -- a former Democrat, a former Republican, and current independent -- just south of Cleveland.
She said she "mostly" turns off coverage of the election, mutes the television ads, hangs up on everyone who calls, and won't watch the conventions. She's unfamiliar with the candidates in her House district, and she also doesn't "know anything" about her senator, Rob Portman. It led to this exchange:
Q. Do you see big philosophical differences between Obama and Romney, and what difference might it make in your life?
A. They're on their own agendas. Romney's going to push through for big business. I'm not sure what Obama's doing. I don't see either party giving me any benefits whatsoever in my life, because there's such a deadlock. They're equally to blame. You've got Congress and the Senate and the Republicans and the Democrats -- they're not going to meet in the middle. They don't care about the middle-class person. They've got all the lobbyists in their back pocket. We elect them, but they don't listen to us.
Here's the thing I don't quite understand about this perspective: how does this voter know? How does she know "all" the politicians ignore regular folks' needs if she's completely disengaged from current events?
Obviously, it's unfair to extrapolate any major lessons from one interview with one person, but the interview is a reminder of a common problem: undecided voters tend to be deeply uninformed voters. That creates a related challenge for both sides of the political divide: how do you connect with millions of Americans who deliberately don't pay attention?
Leave a Comment:
I have some neighbors that would fit that description of the "uninformed voter", and I do not see anything that will compel them to get informed unless people that are informed and that are close to them help them. That means that I have work to do, and that others have to do. Word of mouth, talking to them at the Sunday BBQ, or when our kids play in the front yard.
"...., but the interview is a reminder of a common problem: undecided voters tend to be deeply uninformed voters."
Exactly! I get that she turns off and mutes the television, but she's not even READING anything obviously that might help her be informed! The interviewer should have asked if she's noticed more money in her pay-check and let her know that that's how President Obama "helped her"!
Interesting perspective. And if she said, "yes" - she would vote for Obama. And if she said, "no" - she would vote for Romney. I guess her answer might be "what paycheck?"
If her answer is "what pay-check," the best course would still be to vote for Obama, since Republicans have done jack-all to help the economy and their level-best to stall it.
And she would know this ... how?
Steve: Maybe uninformed, but what was not true in her answer? She seems to know a lot for being uninformed. How much does it take to figure out what she figured out?
I think this is pretty much the case. Even if you try, as this person does, you cannot escape a certain amount of cultural saturation in "gridlock" and "politics as usual" and "everybody does it" that permeates the mass media and even a lot of casual discussions you overhear in airports, bars, the barber shop, the grocery store, etc.
Moreover, you know the economy was, generally speaking, bad under W and remains bad under Obama. If you did the research and looked at stats, you'd blame Bush, you;d know it is getting better under Obama, but for millions of people that improvement is not yet personal, so it looks like whichever party is in charge, the result is the same.
You hear ads that are a lot like the ads you heard in 2008 and 2010; people with deep dark voices saying the other guy lied, or voted wrong, or doesn't care. And even as you turn it off you insinctively know that's a hell of a lot of money being spent that isn't helping me or anyone I know. And even in your own town or state, you know the rich seem to count for a lot more, and get away with a lot more, than you and your family. You hear about people spending amounts you can't fathom on elections, and understand they are buying a piece of the country that is out of reach for you.
If you live anywhere but but the 10-or-so swing states, you figure your individual vote wont make a difference anyway, and if you do live in Ohio (as in this piece) or another controversial swing state you figure your vote may not matter because the deck is stacked: the lines will be too long at the polling place, you're scared your ID will be rejected, the polling place is too far away, the electronic system can't be trusted.
The reali surprise is not that there are people like this; the real surprise is how many people stay engaged nonetheless.
whaddya: Swing-state voter suppression you describe is the Republicans best chance and they've been working on it since 2009. I like your last sentence and wonder myself. I guess one just cannot "give up".
What we're seeing is the manifestation of the pernicious incompetence and irresponsible nature of our press and media to resolutely ignore its societal responsibility to inform the public.
In almost every way, the media and press is responsible for this apathy and ignorance. And Republicans feed off the brain-deadness of the ignorance the media and press have created.
Primarily this:
Her entire spiel turns on the idea of equal blame, but an informed person knows that is not the case. Yes, there is gridlock, but there is gridlock because one party, the GOP, decided on a course of total obstruction when Obama was elected. It takes two to compromise, but only one to produce gridlock.
More seriously, the belief that both parties are equally to blame is probably what fuels her apathy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without an engaged, informed electorate, nothing will ever have any chance of improving. If you believe there is no chance for change, then you won't engage, and the resulting stagnation only reinforces the original apathy.
How does she know anything? She doesn't. She has ignorance that masquerades as certainty. She doesn't know, and she doesn't know that she doesn't know. And you can't simply blame the media. They are not, as a whole, doing their jobs very well; but nobody should expect to be spoon-fed information. To the extent that people expect to sit in puddles of their own drool and passively absorb wisdom, the media are only fulfilling the demands made upon them.
I know someone or someones like her. This is the type of person the Republican loves. The lack of curiosity to seek information on their own, preferring to have emotions dictate actions, blaming a president for what Congress does or does not do.
Total rejection of any type of conflict and unpleasant things like politics. Asking the lone question "how do I feel" about my own circumstances. Not even willing to watch Jon Stewart, preferring sports, almost any kind of sport to anything political.
It's very frustrating to see her blame Obama (due to her parents being Republican Fox watchers) for losing her job, not seeing that having a serious preexisting condition, the loss of her job might be a big problem for her without ACA.
I was down about all this, until I remembered today just how small a slice of the electorate the undecideds are right now. That's somewhat encouraging; except, as you pointed out, the truly and pathetically ignorant are more or less in the Republican column by default.
On the other hand, Republicans are doing their best to alienate everyone who isn't white, male, heteronormal, and dizzy with a sense of privilege and resentment. They're doing their best to disenfranchise as many people as they can, but while they thought to disenfranchise nonwhites, they didn't think to disenfranchise women as well. Ooopsie! Maybe the 'war on women' will even things out?
Of course, they're not bothering to try to disenfranchise LGBT people, either. Not a very large voting bloc, unfortunately. If 'gay recruitment' were a real thing, we could fix that, but it isn't. That's too bad, as I bet the gift basket you'd get for signing up would be fabulous.
Well, for starters, that they're both to blame for the deadlock and that the real problem is an unwillingness on the part of both parties to meet in the middle.
No, they aren't "both" responsible for the deadlock. The Democrats have tried and tried to negotiate with the Republicans. President Obama has taken a ton of heat from the media pundits and his base for trying to reach a compromise with the Republicans. The fact is that the Republicans are doing just exactly what they decided to do the night the President was inaugurated. They are stopping any thing that he proposes and if he meets their demands, they move the goal line. Thank God the Democrats have finally developed some cojones and are finally standing firm. It's our only hope.
As to voting - I am 74 years old, have no transportation but my open air, 3 wheel scooter, had to work yesterday at 8AM, so went out at 6:30 and darned near froze my hands to vote. Unless you are in a hospital, in a hospice, in prison or unable to leave your bed, you had better get out there and vote, because if you don't you will learn precisely what it was like back in the Medieval times to be a serf with no hope of a better future.
If you are under 55 you had darned well better get out there to vote, because if you don't, that money you paid in to SS and Medicare will go into the pocket of some Corporate bigwig for him to build a bigger and better mansion.
I'm just sayin'.
LOL, the money I paid/pay into the system is paying YOUR benefits. All the money I pay in the next 30 years will pay the Boomer's benefits. Nothing anyone does now will change that.
The SS and Medicare systems will be completely bankrupt by the time I even get CLOSE to retirement age. Neither "side" has done anything to make them more solvent in the long term. In point of fact, both sides have been raping the SS trust fund since 1986.
The republicans want to privatize or eliminate both programs for anyone under 55. The democrats keep saying they will "save" the programs by raising taxes. Neither program scores with OMB, GAO, or anyone else to extend the programs beyond 2035 (give or take).
So, you tell me, who should I vote for?
Since you've swallowed the Republicans' lies hook, line and sinker, it looks to me like your destiny is set. I know this is wasted effort, but why don't you make an effort to inform yourself? If you took a little effort, instead of sucking up right-wing talking points like a sponge and expecting other people to think for you, you might learn of the few simple things that could be done to increase the solvency of those programs. In the case of Social Security, simply lifting the payroll cap would do wonders. As for Medicare, that would do better if it covered everyone and private health insurance were largely done away with. After all, it works just fine for Canada. And if that's "socialism", then tough.
Yes, John… and I paid 41 years for my Grandparents and parents and Aunts and Uncles. Guess what? It's not going to die if you don't let it.
The Cato institution spent considerable time and energy figuring out how to get people to be against a VERY successful and efficient federal insurance system. The first couple of pages below describe a "how to" divide the people that would eventually demand reform. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf
Interestingly, it is using Lenin as a model.
The Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are products of wealthy people looking to become further enriched by privatizing (cash in on) the system that has worked so well for decades.
Yes, this is what they want you to think, so you will do as they wish. I would also tell you I know several people have died before collecting a dime after decades of paying FICA.
Here's the 2008 report on which Ezra Klein based his piece, and where-in the meme of "raise the income cap" started. There was a similar report in 1995 from the SS actuary, though I can't find it. Personally, I have been aware of SS shortfall since 1992. So please don't tell me I'm "uninformed."
If you bother to read the report you will note that for 75 year solvency, the base income will have to be eliminated AND benefits will have to be capped.
So let us review: In 1986, congress passed a law allowing limited "borrowing" from the SS trust fund. In 1992, they expanded that law to allow unlimited borrowing. In 1995, the SS actuary put out a report warning of insolvency. Congress continued to "borrow" money from the SS fund until there was no more to borrow (2001). In 1999-2000, Al Gore made a national platform of the problems with SS, no one listened. Throughout Bush's term, the solvency problem with SS was known and discussed, no one did anything. In 2008, the CRS put out the report linked above, nothing was done. It's now 2012 and nothing has changed.
For 26 years, the problem with SS solvency has been known and discussed. Neither party, congress or the president, have done anything to fix the problem. Contrarily, they made it worse.
What could possibly make me believe that they are capable or willing to fix it now? The current proposals from BOTH parties only extend the programs to ensure the boomer generation gets benefits. Which, cynically, can be interpreted as voter pandering.
John, they've been raising the income cap for some time now.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.html Scroll down to Figure 1 "maximum taxable dollars" aka income cap went up beginning in 1951.
You're not going to convince people to privatize SS who are near it. The issue is that you seem to blame Boomers and resent paying into other peoples' retirement. WHere did people get such ideas? Oh, Cato and Heritage.
You save in a 401K you give your money to pay for other peoples' retirement. Insurance, annuities, bonds, stock all have the same chance of collapse. Just look at Q3 2008 and the Great Depression.
Did you bother reading my link? How about this that shows changes that death with reality and yes, there are estimates based on actuary tables and estimates of how many workers, so how about fixing the number of workers, first? Then "fix" as they always do, as needed.
You're way of speaking and trying to say "fix", when the "fix" eliminates it and even more risky than federal government, a very LARGE pool of insured, This privatization "fix" does not bode well for convincing ANYONE that is nearing eligibility. That's why they appeal to you and the methodology was laid out in the link I provided to capture your attention and make you feel despair over baby boomers and your own self.
Nor does it seem promising for SS to pay out those that paid into it for their lifetimes to invest their own.
The "fix" Just sounds good to libertarians that hate government, as they are taught. The Ayn Rand solitaries (she was lonely and died of cancer with nobody but her paid nurse) that would be hermits and stuff money in mattresses and guard it with a shotgun and pit bulls.
Well, yes, I got a little nasty-back, you started it with your dialog. You sound pretty self absorbed, but I can see why people are becoming that way. Glorifying Ayn Rand and Individualism. By cooperating and pooling resources on SOME things, we are all better off. But you have been programmed that somehow being United is now a bad word.
The undecided voter, is that you? Or they are ALL bad, so hell with it?
I don't blame the boomers or resent paying other peoples retirements. The issue is that I don't believe that politicians are being forthright or realistic about their plans to reform the program.
I'm sorry if my comment came off as rude, it wasn't intended to be. It's simply that from my point of view (as an under 55 person) neither party is particularly concerned with what my generations benefits will look like. So your exhortation to "get our there and vote," seems a bit off.
I want people to vote, so yes… I do exhort it, but I also try to let folks know there is a clear choice. Medicare and SS are beloved programs by MOST people across party lines. It's clear to me the issue is not requiring the dismantling of them, dressed up in language like "save", "fix", "preserve", "reform" means dissolving it into private markets to enrich themselves and risk your retirement.
I want youth to have access to Medicare and Social Security, just like I do. There has been much effort by Cato and Heritage (funded by Koch) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute to get people to feel that there's no use in keeping SS and Medicare if it's not going to come to me. That is based on estimates, which are variable.
True, more people retiring soon, but that doesn't mean we can't change things. They have been "fixing" it the entire time, as shown in my link. I truly want to have it for everyone, because it is a very good system to make sure we do not have a whole lot more in poverty when they cannot "get a job". We see people working off the books, which will have more elderly having to work because no SS was paid, not eligible.
There is an outright effort to get younger people to feel they won't get SS, but if they vote to privatize it (the holy grail of many Republicans, but they would not admit that- certain loss of election) very risky.
I would like you to know the Democratic Party is the party for safety nets and the Republican/Libertarians would cut them very easily. Ryan plan was applauded, now they run from it. They still want to cut SS & Medicare, NOT SAVE it. Save is code for cut and privatize, leaving nothing for you if your 401K tanks. A hard lesson learned by many who are thankful to have a buffer IF they pay the FICA for their eligibility.
I am trying to get people to vote, and preferably to their own interests and not say "hell with it", not vote or vote for these guys that care nothing for working people or even those approaching retirement.
I accept your apology and let it be known that baby boomers paid for many, many people besides themselves, so we hope that people continue and do not fall for Cato and Heritage privatization schemes. Yes, they are schemes and they see a way to profit from this. Like many Republican ideas, they tap into public resources to enrich themselves by taking from the public.
Republicans have been against Social Security and Medicare since those programs began. The only thing that has changes is the excuses they make. Nobody should ever make the mistake of every believing them, no matter how plausible-seeming they appear. The good news is that the Republican Party is turning inward so fiercely they're in danger of falling into their own navels. We can only hope they continue on the course they are on quickly enough that the party can fail before doing too much damage on their way out. The bad news, John, is that your disenchantment is food and drink to the GOP.
"My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."
Steve, you call these disinterested folks "uninformed voters".
Is there any evidence that they vote?
You know what they say about opinions. And it isn't that you need information to form them. This woman sounds pretty typical.
Yet she was surprisingly spot on.
What lobby groups does she think control the Democrats? Unions? Planned Parenthood? Big... solar? She's absorbed the MSM "both sides do it" to such a degree that there is nothing she can do but throw up her hands.
I'd also note that the conservative "I've got mine, this doesn't concern me, so everyone else can bugger off" philosophy seems to be ingrained as well.
Well that's the whole issue. She doesn't know. She assumes that it's big corporations and unfeeling interest groups on the Democratic side as well. She doesn't know that this is not the case because she's uninformed. And she thinks her assumption is correct, and thus feels no need to make sure, and thus become informed.
the "independent" or "undecided" voter is the most selfish human being alive. "how has Politician X helped ME?" is the only question they ask before the enter the voting booth.
that we allow these people in Ohio and Florida to decide the election is appalling.
"how has Politician X helped ME" is a much better question to ask then what some people base their votes on, i.e. "which candidate believes the same things I do and panders to those beliefs the most?"
IMO people SHOULD be more concerned with a candidate's actions rather than their words
the "undecided" are willfully ignorant and it seems, likely simply lazy and selfish. If *they* don't get what *they* want perfectly, then screw everyone. I could also see it as one is simply disillusioned with politics but that would require being informed so you can have that disillusionment.
"...how do you connect with millions of Americans who deliberately don't pay attention?"
Easy - Have them listen to Doocy's simple minded pablum while staring at Carlson's tits.
.
Don't sweat the low-information voters. Sweat the high-misinformation voters.
I'm thinking she isn't as "uninformed" as she led the reporter to believe.
And I can understand her frustration with TV ads. All the Romney ads during my morning news makes my blood pressure go up. After the fifth, "No, he didn't" in response this morning, my daughter turned off the TV.
I'm afraid that I'll wear out the mute button on my remote control. Every time Romney (and now Ryan) begins to speak on whatever channel I'm watching, I mute the sound. That's going to give the 'ol mute button quite a workout between now and November 6.
I think more people should intentionally mute the ads, hang up on robocalls and avoid watching the party platform advertisements, i mean conventions. Then people can concentrate on asking the important question, "What has X Candidate done for me?" If you can consciously think of beneficial things they have done, then they get your vote.
The problem is with a political atmosphere that rewards people for obstruction, literally preventing people from being able to say "I did this and it helped you!" because not much is actually getting done.
The only counter to that is properly messaging your accomplishments over and over, which is why our president has taken to using the formerly derisive term "Obamacare" in order to positively spin that around and change the message. Now we just need the media to properly report on the positive aspects of it and drive the message home!
The reporting, especially poor attempts at getting answers, has been abysmal but it showing some recent signs of improvement.
I'm fairly informed and I tend to agree with her assessment of current political system.
The question isn't "how does she know if she's not informed" but rather,
"how blatantly corrupt and self-serving is our political system if it's evident to even an uninformed person?"
Math teacher: "1 + 1 = 2"
Student: "Math never really did anything for me, and I think it might as well equal 3, anyway."
Stupid voters elect representatives who don't give a crap about them. Willfuly stupid voters deserve what they get...Over and over again.
However blatant, it is not so necessarily evident to quite a few "informed" people within this illusion where the media is contains so much confused communication.
Correction: However blatant, it is not so necessarily evident to quite a few "informed" people within this illusion where the media contains so much confused communication.
"Stupid voters elect representatives who don't give a crap about them. Willfuly stupid voters deserve what they get...Over and over again."
The problem is that the rest of us don't deserve what happens because of those voters.
These are precisely the sort of nincompoops that show why the Dems should have been out ahead of the Medicare issue. They "know" what the ether transmits to them. Once they think they know something about an issue, it can't be dislodged. That's why the Republican lies work.
They transmit feelings more than information. The information doctored to make people feel outrage about something, like someone is taking something from them. Yes, take a peek without defense first, it's entitlement they are being told is being taken from them. They don't come out and say it, but that ethereal cloud of "it" (country, job, money) is entitlement. I am entitled to Medicare, but they are not. I am entitled to run this country, they are not. I am entitled to my job, they are not.
Me, me, me… all together now… Hey, you… get off of my cloud!
If you're an "undecided voter" (not in the "well, my state is going reliably this way so I'm not sure if I'll vote Democrat or Progressive / Republican or Libertarian") and literally don't know if you're going to vote for Obama or Romney, you're basically just an attention-seeker. You want to be pandered to, and you want people to interview you on the TV to try to find out what makes you tick. You probably HAVE decided who you're voting for, you just don't want to say because you want to play coy and get people to talk to you about it.
And if you're that uninformed about the candidates (that you turn your head and mute and do everything you can do to avoid getting information about the election) that you don't understand the basic philosophical differences that they have and how that might impact your life, then I'm sorry but you have no business voting. I know we should be encouraging people to vote but people making dumbass "He seems like a nice guy to have a beer with" voting decisions is what got us GWB.
This woman says a lot of things I hear over and over again. I have a hard time locating anything she says that is irrational or not reflected daily on radio and television.
The "they are equally to blame" meme for example is a direct result of the unrelenting work of our lazy "he said/she said" media. Who among us can argue that virtually every member of congress isn't tied to some lobbyist or other and senators are tied to lobbyists in droves. This season I have given several hundred dollars to my senator. All I have received is a nice thank you and a request for more. The Koch brothers own senators and congressmen by the score. Except for the fact that we worked together years ago when we were both young and ambitious why should I think my senator gives a rats ass about me? And I have a good senator. My congressman is a Republican back bencher whose staff doesn't even return phone calls.
I am simply amazed that most of us still care about our country and its politics at all.
@Ron Byers: very well said. While I can appreciate some of the commenters dissing this woman for her apparent disengagement, she says a lot of things that I feel are accurate. As you said, most of the senators and congresspeople are bought and paid for. They may not all be aware of it, but the cost of running for office every 2 or 6 years prevents the incumbent & aspiring candidate from running from a principled position. "Who among us can argue that virtually every member of congress isn't tied to some lobbyist or other and senators are tied to lobbyists in droves." The answer does not lie in the present system; the system is broker and its reformation is the only way through. Whether enough of us have the will to make the changes or not is the challenge. I believe that there are, indeed, millions of conscious people and we are making our voices heard. One just has to be open to the possibility.
Think of two children. Brothers, who routinely attack each other, try to one-up each other and generally make each other miserable.
After a while, a friend or family member could be forgiven for their incessant "nuh-uh, HE started it!"
Now imagine one of them could make decisions that will affect how you live.
Why WOULDN'T you try to ascertain "who started it?" Why WOULDN'T you try to figure out who's to blame, and give credit if one or the other was doing something - ANYTHING - to try to make it better?
Because the less you pay attention, the worse things get. The decision you make when you vote is the closest they get towards a consequence for their actions (or inactions).
As far as I'm concerned, "both sides are equally to blame" is just a blatant admission to either a: voter apathy or b: stupid fear - you don't want to make a choice as to who to for, not because both sides are equally to blame but because YOU don't want to be "wrong." You don't want to vote for the guy who will throw us into a war based on lies, or who will be ineffectual against a Congress who will stop at nothing to keep you from being an effective leader. You don't want to vote for the guy who will give MORE tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the poor, and you don't want to vote for the guy who makes one side so angry they start shouting about the end of the world and arm yourselves because a revolution is coming...
no, it's easier and psychologically safer to assume everyone's an a-hole and you're doing the responsible thing by not giving these 2 parties a second more of your time.
It also makes you kind of a yutz.
Some of the political psychology research I've seen suggests these voters -- if you actually try to dig beneath the surface to discover their preferences -- have at least a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong candidate. These finding are still in the process of being confirmed.
What we know for certain is that these voters are disengaged, extremely ill informed, hard to reach, generally uninterested in anything politicians or campaign ads have to say, lack any kind of organized thought process about politics, are all over the map in terms of their ideology and politics, and are by leaps and bounds the least likely voters. Why any candidate would base their campaign upon persuading them and turning them out is a mystery.
There really should be an IQ test for voting, which would mean most Republican voters and idiots like this woman would not be wrecking the country with their willful ignorance.
By the standards of our relentless, falsely equivocating media narrative, she's perfectly well-informed.
I find the people who say they are turned off by the ads, and hate the partisanship they are bombarded with on their TV, difficult to fathom. If they are so annoyed, then why are they watching CNN/FOX/MSNBC? There's music, movies, even infomercials with uplifting entertainment!
"...how do you connect with millions of Americans who deliberately don't pay attention?"
Hire a Republican ad agency and promote Mitt Romney as it's chief ad writer, lie about anything and everything Obama, and tell the same lie, tell the same lie, and tell the same lie. They'll then have all that they need to make an informative decision.
It is here where the Democrats are at a disadvantage.
Undecideds are in two categories.
1) They don't know, don't care, and have no intention of voting anyway, and
2) They don't want to talk about it, so they say they don't know.
What we know is, 0% of actual voters are undecided after they leave the polling place. But plenty of folks refuse to talk to exit pollers.
I do not see independent voters as some bell weather for the electoral tide. My take, these people are already going to vote for one or the other ticket, and are simply disingenuous when being polled, seeking a kernel of being consequential, because the status allows them sway and say, and polls spin.
Romney is a false choice, Obama did what he could with the testosterone held in check by the MN recount, and McConnell's n' hating and habitual learned ethos of non compromise with blatant misuse of the Fillibuster.
Sorry, that was the Wisconsin recall.