« Medienkitik Readers Explain Why They Voted Bush | Main | SPIEGEL's Anti-American Crusade »

Comments

As a matter of fact, The Economist IQ thing turned out to be a hoax. They retracted it the next week.

"It is just that I see many posters here (and also at places like LGF) judge Germans in general by the (indeed often questionable or even mischievous) content of our media."

To even entertain the argument that the notably homogenous German media are unrepresentative of Germen public opinion flies in the face of everything we know about market behavior. We can argue about chickens and eggs, but if there weren't a huge market for this type of hysterical vitriol it would not exist.

The salient fact about the American media market is its increasing diversity as the chimera of objectivity is abandoned and competing media emerge. The further the NYT and their like lean left, the more conservative media outlets increase their market share. Liberal newspapers still dominate, but circulation is declining as consumers abandon them for more dynamic media such as the internet, cable news, and talk radio.

Radio is an overwhelmingly conservative medium; the internet is split evenly, as reflects the balance of public opinion; and the FOX news explosion is the market's response to demand for conservative news as the Nets move left (as for the rest of cable news, CNN and MSNBC combined cannot challenge FOX's ratings). Conservative publications like the The National Review continue to proliferate as well.

Though on balance the liberal media's market share is larger than it should be, conservative media are poised to overtake them -- call it a market correction in progress. In short, the US media roughly reflect public opinion and its divergent views: they all are selling a product directed to a certain market, and the customer is always right.

By contrast, there is little or no market for pro-American view points in Germany, as reflects public opinion polling. The media spew bile and propagate anti-American and anti-Israeli (to use the kindest term) conspiracy theories and calumnies because, in Germany, hatred sells.

Besides the evident 'guessing' explicit in the chart, there are other obvious problems here. The IQ rating by states for/against Bush and Kerry is obviously false, since the average IQs for each state (no matter who won) are attributed to a single candidate. There is no particularity, no analysis of the Bush voters, who may have won plurarity in the suburbs of Blue Kerry states while losing big among the inner cities with significantly lower education and IQ. For example, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey those who voted for Bush were clustered in the affluent suburban, exurban areas by a large plurality, while conceding the lower IQ cities of Philly, Newark, Jersey City and Pittsburg. (Some cities in these Blue States are completely--like Jersey City or Camden or Detroit are 80 plus minorities--all Kerry. Without inner city voters in Detroit, Bush wins Michigan. Without the uneducated poor in Jersey City and Camden, Bush wins NJ. Etc.)

In the small clusters of white voters, urban pioneers with high IQs, Bush won.) In these low white population cities, Bush typically won the elites and the educated while losing poorer ethnic neighborhoods and precincts by 10 to 1. In the Red states, say Texas, the poorer inner cities of Dallas or Houston voted for Kerry by 4 to 1, while the affluent precints and the suburban/exurbs votes 5 and 6 to 1 for Bush. The Bronx voted 12 to 1 for Kerry, so did Harlem. In conclusion, Kerry was 'given' as a gift the higher IQ figures of the average, while only winning the poor by any significant number.


How do we measure and come to these conclusions? The only reliable statistical indicator for 'guessing' here, without better data, is that the poorer, less educated inner cities of Cleveland, the Bronx, Harlem, etc have lower IQs. So do those on welfare throughout all the states, Red and Blue. Germany refuses to point out that even in Red states, minorities voted by huge pluralities for Kerry, while Bush took the white vote everywhere by even larger majorities--hence his victory in Red states.

The most embarrassing part of the 'chart' is that in these high IQ states that voted for Kerry, Bush took the high IQ voters by a significant amount but lost due to the higher amount of uneducated minority voters. Also, did those with high IQs, in for example Massachussets, actually vote? Sit out the election? My friends did (in the academic universe) due to the impossiblity of affecting the vote in a state where the get out the vote effort centers on the poor and minorities, thus invalidating their votes. And we aren't interested in secondary races since Democrats, for example in my precinct, ran unopposed in EVERY single race! Therefore, there was no logical reason to vote for Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians.

joel:

People in Washington, D.C. cannot vote. See:

http://www.dcvote.org/rights/history.cfm

Uh, The people in DC can vote. They have three electoral votes... how do you think they are determined? But, as a federally administered territory, DC doesn't get to have voting Representatives (just non-voting observers) in the House, or seats in the Senate. DC residents do get to vote for president electors and every local office for which the city government lets them.

Oh, and a tangent, a wonderful chart about to compare with the phony IQ chart.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

The above link is an actual tallied ranking of charity giving based by states. Check it out, and keep on scrolling until you get to a red state...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28