Even if all of the audience is Republicans, they can have an extremely large
audience and still not come close to being the majority of Republicans.
Also, it has not been proven that those Republicans who do listen believe
any or all of what they hear on those shows.

So what Gould was guilty of is making generalization concerning the
Republicans based upon
"slogan, rumor, insult, and easily remembered but out-of-context sound bytes
to attract
that portion of the electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally
adept

smile.


....
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:JdG4d.245117$mD.123682@attbi_s02...
Doug,
I am glad you got a good education and have continued to learn. My point
to
Gould was the two surveys below showed that Republicans have a better
formal
education than Democrats.

See link: http://plsc.uark.edu/arkpoll/fall99/party/PAGE4.HTM

And the higher the education level the more informed the voters a

http://www.policyattitudes.org/emsappxb.htm

So the higher the education, the less they will be influenced by sound
bites, slogan's, rumors and insults.

So if Gould is going to make statements such as " " the right wing relies
on
slogan, rumor,
insult, and easily remembered but out-of-context sound bytes to attract
that
portion of the
electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally adept."

It is not supported by any facts. In fact, two independent surveys show
the
opposite to be true.

Gould believes most Republicans get their facts from Rush and Hannity. I
have not seen any surveys that show most Republicans listen to either
one.

Well, then find a label for the enormous audience enjoyed by idiots like
Rush & Hannity. We know the audience is large because companies like Clear
Channel never EVER carry programming unless it turns a profit.
Incidentally,
I suspect the audience is not primarily Dems.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:WZG4d.101817$D%.8316@attbi_s51...
Even if all of the audience is Republicans, they can have an extremely
large
audience and still not come close to being the majority of Republicans.
Also, it has not been proven that those Republicans who do listen believe
any or all of what they hear on those shows.

True, but the audience seems to be extremely vocal about their beliefs,
which happen to match the bull**** spewed on those programs. This may seem
harmless, but those people repeat things like "Kerry voted against increased
intelligence funding", without knowing if the legislation in question had
riders for the building of a useless dam in North Dakota. They tell these
things to everyone who will listen, including their children. Therefore,
they are like a virus.


So what Gould was guilty of is making generalization concerning the
Republicans based upon
"slogan, rumor, insult, and easily remembered but out-of-context sound
bytes
to attract
that portion of the electorate that is more numerous, but less mentally
adept

Gould's generalization seems to be true, since your president was, in fact,
elected (if you choose to ignore the Florida debacle and continue to use the
word "elected").

But, let's assume you're correct, and the majority of Republicans are
smarter than the morons who shape their views around scum like Rush. How do
you explain the FACT that this enlightened and educated majority voted for a
boy who can barely get through a press conference without repeatedly
stumbling over his native language.

Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

Gould 0738 wrote:
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.



You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?



Perhaps the poster whose name got lost in your repost thinks that
Republican principals have nicer teats.

Vote for Bush? Sure...if you're into reality denial, as he is.






--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is
because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

You mean the Republicans all like Bush's small government and fiscal
accountability?

Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............

I'm voting for change.
The most realistic chance to get the New American Century crew out of the WH is
to elect John Kerry.
Even if Kerry proved to be a *miserable* president for four years, (as I
believe he well might), it will put a stop to the malicious damage wrought so
far by the current brigands and the additional malicious damage planned for
their next term.

I could never support an administration that
ponders which freedoms and principles can or should be compromised next to
create an illusion of security in the country.

Is it just possible that those voting for Bush believe that Kerry is a worse
alternative to Bush?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould, you said Kerry would never be your choice for president, but
considering the alternative it is the best option for you. Is it just
possible ...............

I'm voting for change.
The most realistic chance to get the New American Century crew out of the
WH is
to elect John Kerry.
Even if Kerry proved to be a *miserable* president for four years, (as I
believe he well might), it will put a stop to the malicious damage wrought
so
far by the current brigands and the additional malicious damage planned
for
their next term.

I could never support an administration that
ponders which freedoms and principles can or should be compromised next to
create an illusion of security in the country.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:sNW4d.16134$He1.4381@attbi_s01...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president
who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.



This is vague, but I mean comfortable in more than one way. Perhaps they're
financially comfortable and have the mistaken belief that one candidate or
the other is going to take something away from them. After all, that's the
usual campaign spew. Or, they're ideologically comfortable and believe the
spew about how a candidate's going to turn control of the country over to
the United Nations. Remember that crap?

Yes.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:sNW4d.16134$He1.4381@attbi_s01...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Is it possible (and think carefully here) that they wanted a president
who
would leave things as they are because his supporters are comfortable?

My guess is the only reason anyone would vote for Bush or Kerry is
because
they support the principals of their respective parties.

I am not sure what you mean they are comfortable.



This is vague, but I mean comfortable in more than one way. Perhaps
they're
financially comfortable and have the mistaken belief that one candidate or
the other is going to take something away from them. After all, that's the
usual campaign spew. Or, they're ideologically comfortable and believe the
spew about how a candidate's going to turn control of the country over to
the United Nations. Remember that crap?