What the Public Knows about the Political Parties Pew Research News IQ Quiz

I was one of the 8% who answered all the questions correctly. But what does it really mean, the test I mean?

Only 55% percent connect A. Lincoln to the Republican Party because the GOP of today does not, in the slightest, resemble the Republican Party of 1860.

Neither do the Democrats of today resemble the racist, anti-immigrant, rock-ribbed religious nuts of the 1860 Democratic Party.

Lyndon Baines Johnson saw to it that the Dixiecrats left the Democrats for good (and I mean, real good) in 1964 and headed them out for the GOP. They took with them all of the worst elements of their political ilk, including the gun nuts and English-Firsters, not to mention all of the gaybashers, bible-beaters and the anti-anything/anywhere/everytime dolts.

Much to my father's surprise, his Republican Party of reflective, progressive makers of law welcomed them all in.

It broke his heart.

Joe(and it's just gotten worse since)Nation

I got the 8% score, too. Glad that my creaping Dementia hasn't destroyed my brain---yet.

BBB

Joe I was going to post the same comments so thanks for doing so.

Right Joe. The real problem is the apathy of most of the US population.

As I understand it our dementia dosent affect long term memory, only short term, like what did I do with my glasses. Or where did I go yesterday.

Oops, I forgot what I posted.

BBB

.

I for one do not think for a second that the Republican party is for less government even if they are for less benefits for the working class and the lower classes and more for the wealthy.

If not smaller government when the GOP Florida governor wished to drug test all people who get benefits at a cost of many millions without any showing that drug use is any more common then in the general population and in fact the showing had been otherwise.

With a footnote that the governor at the time own stocks in drug testing companies.

Side note before he became governor of the state of Florida the company he was CEO was found guilty of ripping off a hundred millions or so of over billing to the Federal Government.

So did I, and I'm not an American. I picked up all of that from the BBC.

It's perfectly okay with me if you were to name the weasel.

Joe(apologies to actual, sweet furry, weasels)Nation

I had them all.


Most disturbing results to me would be the large number (39%) that are unaware of which party Nancy Pelosi is with and the high level (45%) that don't know to which party John Boehner belongs. These are current events persons, in the news regularly.

To the history matter, the education system with regard to history has long been a mess. In none of the schools I attended, was there any mention of the Korean War. I realize it was only recent history at the time; but, when in the 1960s our current events lesson included Vietnam, it's hard to know why that stretch of time following the end of World War 2 up to President Kennedy being elected was left out.

The BBC is far above the FOX network.

Rick Scot however he is just one of the many examples of Republican leadership in this country.

Keep an eye on the poor getting government benefits but not banks and insurance companies and health providers and ............

Let them once more ruin the whole economic as it is evil to have government oversight of the wealthy only the poor.

BBC is essentially crap when it gets to the U.S. A filtered down version. With El Paquetazo I now get some actual BBC news. For the longest while all most of us could get was the PBS version which featured an anchor desk in Washington D.C. It was more or less U.S. news with a British name. "BBC World News America" with a listing stating: "U.S. targeted nightly newscast".
For actual BBC I prefer looking at their decently done website.



Fox actually gives the news, all you need to do is believe the opposite of what they air. Then again, that happens with many stories on all the stations, to which is added, news is more of an entertainment report than genuine news.

On fox new veiwers.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/the_most_consistently_misinfor030360.php

The problem is actually getting worse.

In December, PIPA published a report, this time on “Misinformation and the 2010 Election” (pdf). The point was to measure Americans’ understanding of a variety of key developments that news consumers would likely be familiar with. As was the case eight years ago, Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be confused about reality.

Researchers found that Americans who paid more attention to the news were more likely to know about current events. But Americans who relied on Fox News were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe”:

* most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

* most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

* the economy is getting worse (26 points)

* most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

* the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

* their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

* the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

* when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

* and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

This point, in particular, seems especially noteworthy: in some cases, regular Fox News viewers would have done better, statistically speaking, if they had received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims about current events were accurate.

What’s more, this isn’t necessarily about party affiliations — Democrats who watch Fox News were worse off than Democrats who relied on legitimate news organizations (though Dems who watch Fox News were still less confused than Republicans who watch Fox News).

It would take an unlikely twist of self-reflection, but at a certain point, Fox News and its audience might take a moment to ponder why these viewers are so wrong, so often, about so much. That almost certainly won’t happen, of course, in part because the network and its viewers aren’t quite informed enough to realize they’re misinformed.

That said, Wallace is certainly correct in his observation: the network’s viewers “aren’t the least bit disappointed” with what Fox News airs.

Why would they be? Ignorance is bliss.

Your right on this one Joe.

They should have included Teddy Roosevelt in the quiz. A great progressive republican.

I can't believe that so many people got so many wrong. It was a very easy quiz.

Explains how our politicians get elected.

Thats easily answered Frank. Most of the populace arnt educated to think for themselves. They are taught to think whatever i say and are mainly unable to determine truth from falsehood.

I'm also in the 8%--and I read Faux online--because I read the illinformed, racist, and sometimes hillarious comments.

I'm usually reading the Faux online as I'm listening to "All things Considered" which I've found to be far more informative about pretty much everything as compared to Faux--granted there are exceptions at Faux--I like big guy (Bob Beckel) on the Five (he's the one that doesn't wear too much eyeshadow) as he tends to present reasoned opinions, and even every once in a while I'll concede O'Oreilly is capable of thought (debate no, thought yes), and Beck enjoyable to watch as he could use a blackboard better than any professor I had in College.

However, with watching Faux I've become generally disenchanted with the GOP--in general I seen them dumb themdelves down--as there is no modern equivalent to William F Buckley. Even George Will has dumbed himself down severely, and in general GOP stalwarts have been dammed as RINOs--It is no longer the political party that would welcome Eisenhower, Nixon, Rockefeller, or Goldwater. It is a Party that barely recognizes Ron Paul.

As for the Faux dumbing down--Lies told often become the truth, and if you only listen to the lies of Faux well----Fox Misinformation Effects

Rap

Do you agree or disagree with my opinion?

I think the current Republicans are mostly made of up the new bible belt. What caused it?

After Harry Truman's platform gave strong support to civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "Dixiecrats," led by South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond, who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party. However, few other conservative Democrats left the party.

African Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party," continued to shift to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights—largely due to New Deal relief programs, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried half the South in 1952 and 1956, and Senator Barry Goldwater also carried five Southern states in 1964.

After Democratic President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Republican president Richard Nixon began to implement his Southern strategy to win the Jim Crow states votes by appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South.

Alabama's Democratic governor George C. Wallace launched a third-party campaign and at one point was running second to the Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon. Nixon barely won, with the Democrats retaining control of Congress. The party was now so deeply split that it would not again win a majority of the popular vote for president until 2008.

Southern Democrats abandoned the party in the 1968 presidential election when the electoral votes of every former Confederate state except Texas went to either Republican Richard Nixon or independent Wallace.

Democratic candidate Humphrey's electoral votes came mainly from the Northern states, making a reversal from the 1948 election 20 years earlier.

Then came Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and everything changed. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for Republicans Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George H. W. Bush in 1988. Reagan Democrats were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast favoring his foreign policy, and the Midwest bible belt, who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism and abortion.

The usual moderate members of the Republican party began to feel unwanted in their party. They began changing to an Independent identify. At least 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents as measured by self-identification, but their numbers are continuing to grow.

The governors of these bible belt states reflect the more growing conservative and religious beliefs. Their excessive extreme legislative actions have continued to separate their states from the more moderate states. The result created the inability of their state congresses and the national congresses to work together for the benefit of all the people. Thus a more powerful bible belt.

Another destructive result is more power going into the hands of the wealthy and their corporations. They've always been the Republican's real base. They've used the bible belt voters to assure their elections power by convincing they are acting in favor of the bible belt Republicans. The inability of the congress to work together and the influence of lobbyists means that the influence and corruption of the congress does not serve all of the people's benefit. Until the voters begin to understand this false base of the Republicans, the working classes will continue to suffer.

On top of these problems, there is FOX "news" with it's constant does of lies. Too many people believe their lies and vote based on them. When will they wise up and put an end to FOX "news"? Wake up, dummies! You are hurting yourself and everyone else, especially your children's future!

Again, @raprap, do you agree or disagree with my opinion?

BBB