Polls in American politics are funny things. Early on pollsters like to cast a wide net and hit everyone. Registered voters are usually the target, and when they do that, they get poor results that usually tend to favor Democrats more so than reality would ever reflect. Why? Because there are far more registered voters than actual voters out there. The difference comes down to two groups, those who are incapable of voting for whatever reason, and those who are simply lazy or indifferent.
President Obama is supported big time by the latter.
The group that I will refer to as Lazy Americans are apparently in support of the President by a margin of 40 to 23 over Governor Romney, and that should not surprise anyone. No its not because people in cities are lazier, no its not because any particular group is lazier, no its not even because Democrats are lazier! Its because the lazy tend to also be the indifferent and politically uninformed.
I would like to think that at this point in our society, where information is all around us and the effects of the continuing Obama recession can be seen everywhere, people would be able to open their eyes and easily recognize what a failure the current administration has been. However, sometimes the blind (and lazy) will remain just so.
When asked who they support for President by USA Today pollsters, the Lazy Americans who choose not to vote for no other reason than their own laziness support the President in a big way, and that should scare us. This nation will need some serious help if the Obama campaign finds a way to tap into this unused resource.
Ok…. I understand where you're coming from. As a researcher though…. I may have some issues here. What exactly do you mean by "lazy voters"? Furthermore, how do you differentiate these voters from not-so-lazy voters? For the Reuters article you linked you seem to be making an incorrect correlation to non voters (those who are not registered to vote, but who otherwise could vote) and people who are registered to vote but don't. I understand why a Republican would be troubled by polls in New Jersey (because the amount of blue voters outnumbers that of red voters almost 3-1). However, this bit of news could be good or bad for Obama depending on how you approach the situation. Good, in the sense that he may have a number of undecided votes in his court. Bad, in the sense that these people don't vote. Just saying….