Subject: Re: The party of Lincoln...
JMHO, but I think many (most?) of them have fallen victim to anger/rage media. So FAUX Noise and OANN and others have them whipped-up to a frenzy of rage, often about things that aren't things. So how can we expect them to process events and policies when they don't have accurate information? Even evaluating through a conservative lens, if they don't have accurate data then they will reach erroneous conclusions. And, if sufficiently enraged, then the response will be emotional with little or no evaluation.
Interesting piece in the Times today about Christian Nationalism. If I may extrapolate to the larger red/blue divide, it opines that the number of people aware of - or who car about - Christian nationalism has not changed in 25-30 years. What has changed is the fringes on the left and the right who care even more . But the mass on both sides is detached. Tuned out. Not paying attention. Doesn’t care.
To some degree this is expected, if you look at the participation levels on Election Day, it’s just interesting to me to see it statistically validated here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0...
It’s not often that a poll result causes me to do a double take.
This month, however, a Pew Research Center survey grabbed my attention.
As part of a comprehensive poll on the importance of religion in public
life, Pew compared Americans’ knowledge of and support for Christian
nationalism between September 2022 and February 2024 and found no meaningful
change at all. The exact same percentage of Americans said they’d heard or
read about Christian nationalism — 45 percent in 2022 and 45 percent in 2024.
The exact same percentage of Americans said they’d never heard or read about
Christian nationalism — 54 percent in both years.
I’m reminded of one of the most illuminating studies I’ve ever read. It came
from the Hidden Tribes of America project, which was put together by a group
called More in Common. It surveyed 8,000 Americans to try to explore their
attitudes and conflicts beyond the red-blue divide, and one of its central
conclusions is critical to understanding the modern moment: Only a minority
of Americans are truly active in political debates, and they’re exhausting
and alienating the rest of the country.
In 2019 my Times colleagues Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy used this data to
expose the vast difference between online and off-line Democrats. One-third
of Democrats post political content on social media; two-thirds do not.
And the differences between the two groups were significant. Online Democrats
were far more liberal, disproportionately white and far more likely to engage
in activism, such as attending a protest or donating to a candidate.
—more—-