I mean, how is favoring bigger government and more services in alignment with that kind of thinking? I don't think it is. Also, on some of these questions, the margins are awfully close - so close as to be within margin of error. Whereas on a question like big v small government, the difference is very large. (Which is where, I suspect, the nonvoters get their rep for being likely democratic voters and/or radicalizable, as ravi says)
For example, on the question is government inefficient and wasteful, the proportions are really close, but the non-voters are more like (by only very slightly) to think the government isn't as wasteful:
58% of non-voters vs 62% of voter ( given the traditional +- 3% margin of error typical in most polls... what do you make of that Woj, since you are bigger statistical survey geek?
Again, still close, but on the question of whether the government does a better job, isn't this interesting (though probably too close to matter):
36% of non voters think the government does better job than given credit for vs. 34% of likely voters.
They are also more likely to trust the government - though, again, by such close margins that it's not significant:
25% of non-voters trust the gov't vs 23% of voters
Now, where it really matters - where there are huge differences is here:
Only 39% of nonvoters favor smaller gov and fewer services vs 61% of likely voters who favor smaller gov and services
(the obverse: 52% of nonvoters want bigger gov and more services v. 32% of voters)
At 10:23 AM 3/13/2012, Wojtek S wrote:
>Marv: " the least inclined to vote are typically the most oppressed,
>atomized, and least politically conscious sectors of the population"
>
>[WS:] This is my impression too. However, I would like to add an
>important caveat - selective mobilization of non-voters can have a
>significant impact on election outcomes, especially in a duopolistic
>system in which the electorate is more or less equally divided (such
>as in the US.) Selective mobilization of non-voters can easily tip
>this balance in favor of those who are more effective in that
>mobilization.
>
>Both parties seem to understand and use this by appealing to different
>fractions of non-voters - Repugs to the looney wingnuts, racists,
>conspiracists, love-my-country-but-cannot-pay-my-bills jingoists and
>what not that are dime a dozen among the lumpen and Democrats to the
>"bread and butter" sentiments of the working class. I think that the
>Repugs are more successful due to the sheer bombast they use. Dems do
>not have that many salient bread and butter hot buttons anyway outside
>the Obamacare which seems to be more of a liability than an asset. So
>at this historical moment, mobilizing non-voters is likely to have a
>reactionary rather than a progressive effect. This of course could
>change if Dems came out with a strong progressive message, but it is
>unlikely to happen due to the "shadow cast on the US politics by big
>business."
>
>Wojtek
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)