Michael Hoover wrote: > > On 11/12/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wasn't this true even in 1936? That is, FDR's huge majority that year > > was made up more of new voters than of Republicans who switched? > > Carrol > <<<<<>>>>> > > yes, particularly first and second generation immigrants... > > interestingly, most of the portion of the urban working class that had > been voting republican prior to the new deal continued to so during > and afterwards... mh
What seems to me an almost tautological observation here has been, in the past, seemingly difficult for some to grasp (or else I don't know how to express it clearly, since it's simple in concept but awkward in exposition). Apparently, competent and trustworthy opinion research has demonstrated that (for example) if the non-voting public had voted last week, it would not have changed the results, because non-voters divided in their electoral preferences in the same way that voters do. Let's accept that as valid. Does it follow that if non-voters became voters, their choices would be the same as their choices when they were non-voters? I say NO. When a non-voter becomes a voter, she does so because _something_ has happened that changed her from a non-voter to a voter, and when in a mass way non-voters become voters, it is ALMOST CERTAIN that as voters they will vote THE OPPOSITE of what they would have 'voted' (in response to a poll) when they were non-voters. In other words, events which would cause non-voters to become voters are events which angered them, i.e., events which changed their Passive Opinion X to their Active opinion NOT-X. The previous Republican VOTERS among urban workers STAYED Republican. The previous Republican NON-VOTERS among urban workers CHANGED to become DEMOCRATIC voters. Could one of the social scientists on this list restate the above ramble in more concise and elegant terms? Carrol
