Yesterday was the Illinois primary. On Tuesday we heard news report after news report discussing how low the voter turnout was for the primary. Today we're inundated with analysis of how voters voted and why. Newscasters have come up with a lot of different theories about the election results: (1) certain candidates won because of name recognition; (2) voters chose the first name on the ballot. One explanation is surprisingly missing:
THE VOTERS THAT ACTUALLY CAME OUT ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES.
Yep, that's right. Voters researched the candidates and made decisions based on their investigation.
For example it was truthfully reported that Jesse Jackson, Jr. decidedly beat Debbie Halvorson. The reports seem to indicate that the election was a cake walk for Jackson; and Halvorson just wasn't known well enough. With an ongoing ethics investigation how could voters choose Jackson? Those reports fail to mention that earlier polls had Halvorson leading Jackson by 30 points, only to loose by 42 points. I suggest that voters choose Jackson based on the issues where the two candidates differ.
In another example, newscasters are shocked, SHOCKED that Democratic Representative Derrick Smith beat challenger Tom Swiss. After all, Rep. Smith had just been indicted on federal bribery charges. How could voters choose Smith over Swiss??? If it's mentioned at all, its only in passing, that Swiss is a Republican and he called the voters in the district "low information". Why would newscasters expect Democratic voters to vote for a Republican that called them stupid?????
Remember the Michigan Republican primary? Rick Santorum was leading in the polls, then he opened his mouth and the state swung to Mitt Romney.
I have more examples that I can give, I don't think it's necessary. To candidates and newscasters, stop assuming that voters are stupid sheep. THEY LOST MY VOTE WHEN THEY OPENED THEIR MOUTH.