Explore Harvard's Nieman network Nieman Fellowships Nieman Lab Nieman Reports Nieman Storyboard

What is it they say about assuming things?

DISCUSSIONS | April 10, 2004

Q. Many Democrats take for granted that the religious right and Southern white men are voting blocs that are out of reach for them. Are they?

Q. Is this a campaign story worth looking into? What's your view? And if you think there's a story there, how would you go about reporting it? For starters, what do past voting returns show in your area?

[What they say about assuming things, of course, is that if you assume something and put it in the paper (or on the air) it's wrong. Maybe that also applies in politics.]

We'd love to hear your views on this.

Posted by Patrick McGonegal -
06/03/2004, 06:15 PM

I am not convinced so much that Democrats "come off in a condescending and vitriolic manner" so much as people in the South have just decided to interpret them this way.

This ties back into the whole "Bush just acts dumb for the dumb vote" idea. There is a lot of rural sentiment in this country (not only in the South) that politicians are a bunch of wordy, psuedo-intellectual blowhards. This sentiment is further exascerbated by the glaring class distinctions between the average politician and the average American worker (especially blue-collar workers). Many claim that this is why Bush also avoids mention of his own family's vast wealth while drawing attention to the fortunes of the Kerry (and his Heintz-heir wife).

What these people need to realize (referring to those who are stuck on simple class distinction) is that basing your vote on whether or not you relate to someone (and with complete disregard to what the individual will or will not do to improve your quality of life) is not only not very smart, but quite possibly detrimental to your future hopes and dreams.

The NiemanWatchdog.org website is no longer being updated. Watchdog stories have a new home in Nieman Reports.