Which of these common political fallacies annoy you the most?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'd have to say option 4, since the allegation is not only wrong, but borderline racist.  However, option 5 is also up there because the media perpetuates it the most.

Also, feel free to post more popular fallacies.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Eh, none of them particularly annoy me in a specific way. Mine are more based on history as you could probably see from my posting history.

[Miles]

Being where I'm from, Option 4.

Although, I was watching an election night video recently and one of the anchors talked about Reagan Dems and specifically cited western PA. I wanted to scream.

[TNF]

capitalism is a good system which must be preserved

[Lambsbread]

Option 4 is really, really racist. So that one.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Perhaps what annoys me most about the media during any campaign or huge debate in an issue is the notion that the "Independent" voters are truly these wise, sage-like individuals in the middle, who all people should listen to because they are the mature, serious people, when really 90% of Independent voters are just apathetic/completely uninformed people who know more about reality television than the economy.

[Dr. Cynic]

Being where I'm from, Option 4.

Although, I was watching an election night video recently and one of the anchors talked about Reagan Dems and specifically cited western PA. I wanted to scream.

Well, Reagan never did all that well here. There are socially conservative Democrats here, in fact there are very few social liberals. But Reagan never did well here. Hell, Carter won Washington County and the surrounding areas here in the southwest (Reagan won more up towards Erie) and Mondale actually did even better. So the Reagan Democrats in Western PA thing is a complete myth.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Perhaps what annoys me most about the media during any campaign or huge debate in an issue is the notion that the "Independent" voters are truly these wise, sage-like individuals in the middle, who all people should listen to because they are the mature, serious people, when really 90% of Independent voters are just apathetic/completely uninformed people who know more about reality television than the economy.

Amen.  Plus, the notion that Independents are Independent because they are 'centrist' is almost as annoying.

[DC Al Fine]

The swing voters one. Elections come down to who's side can get their base out more.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

capitalism is a good system which must be preserved

But of the options, #4.

[TDAS04]

I voted for option 4, but all of them are fallacies. 

[Kitteh]

A few write-ins:

That "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" or "socially conservative, economically populist", etc, people are a significant or numerous group.

That people of color turnout to vote less than white people.

That poor people are more religious than rich people (actually most studies show the opposite).

Might think of some more later.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Option 4 is really, really racist. So that one.

[traininthedistance]

That people of color turnout to vote less than white people.

This and Option 2 in the poll are, in fact, statistically accurate even if they might be arguably misleading in that they obscure the massive variation within urban/suburban areas and minority groups.  There are plenty of rich urbanites and poor suburbantites, but on average the suburbs are wealthier than the central cities; likewise while African-Americans vote about as much as whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans all have much worse turnout.

And of course Option 4 is the worst offender in this list.

[Peter the Lefty]

capitalism is a good system which must be preserved

But of the options, #4.

This.

[Kitteh]

That people of color turnout to vote less than white people.

This and Option 2 in the poll are, in fact, statistically accurate even if they might be arguably misleading in that they obscure the massive variation within urban/suburban areas and minority groups.  There are plenty of rich urbanites and poor suburbantites, but on average the suburbs are wealthier than the central cities; likewise while African-Americans vote about as much as whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans all have much worse turnout.

And of course Option 4 is the worst offender in this list.

I was under the impression that the difference in apparent voter turnout for Latinos/Asians was due to lower % of citizenship, and that among citizens the rates were basically the same. Which actually would mean that people of color are more likely to vote than whites of similar class/education, given the huge racial gap in those. As for Native Americans really idk, small sample sizes and all.

[barfbag]

Most presidential elections do come down to a few swing votes. I guess it does depend on your definition of a few though. Also, a lot of Reagan Democrats are now Republicans.

[H. Ross Peron]

Option 4 easily

[ElectionsGuy]

Option 4 is really, really racist. So that one.

I'm sorry, but stating a fact, even if its wrong, is racist? That's like saying most Rednecks are white. Is that racist?

Anyway, I would probably choose 4 as well as Its probably false and totally stereotypes blacks. The election one with independent "swing" voters is pretty bad too. 

[Sol]

That people of color turnout to vote less than white people.

This and Option 2 in the poll are, in fact, statistically accurate even if they might be arguably misleading in that they obscure the massive variation within urban/suburban areas and minority groups.  There are plenty of rich urbanites and poor suburbantites, but on average the suburbs are wealthier than the central cities; likewise while African-Americans vote about as much as whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans all have much worse turnout.

And of course Option 4 is the worst offender in this list.

I was under the impression that the difference in apparent voter turnout for Latinos/Asians was due to lower % of citizenship, and that among citizens the rates were basically the same. Which actually would mean that people of color are more likely to vote than whites of similar class/education, given the huge racial gap in those. As for Native Americans really idk, small sample sizes and all.

I don't know about Indians in general, but I know that Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota has 90%-ish turnout.

[traininthedistance]

That people of color turnout to vote less than white people.

This and Option 2 in the poll are, in fact, statistically accurate even if they might be arguably misleading in that they obscure the massive variation within urban/suburban areas and minority groups.  There are plenty of rich urbanites and poor suburbantites, but on average the suburbs are wealthier than the central cities; likewise while African-Americans vote about as much as whites, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans all have much worse turnout.

And of course Option 4 is the worst offender in this list.

I was under the impression that the difference in apparent voter turnout for Latinos/Asians was due to lower % of citizenship, and that among citizens the rates were basically the same. Which actually would mean that people of color are more likely to vote than whites of similar class/education, given the huge racial gap in those. As for Native Americans really idk, small sample sizes and all.

The lower citizenship percentage is part of the story, but not entirely.  If you control for both citizenship and for class/education, you get closer to parity but still not quite there (and, at least for Presidential elections, you actually get higher participation among blacks than whites).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 1, because most Reagan Democrats nowadays are either Clinton Democrats, Bush 2 Republicans, or dead.  In other words, Reagan Democrats today are as real as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and UFOs.  When's the last time you discussed politics with someone and they came out sounding like Archie Bunker?

On a related note, I get tired of people claiming that Macomb County, Michigan, has a lot of Reagan Democrats and shifted toward the GOP in the 80s because of that.  It voted for Jim Blanchard (a Democrat) for governor twice in 1982 and 1986, for Gore in 2000, and for Obama twice.  Plus, Mitt Romney carried it in the GOP primary in Michigan last year (and these were the kind of people that Santorum was supposed to do well with.)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Option 4 is really, really racist. So that one.

I'm sorry, but stating a fact, even if its wrong, is racist? That's like saying most Rednecks are white. Is that racist?

Anyway, I would probably choose 4 as well as Its probably false and totally stereotypes blacks. The election one with independent "swing" voters is pretty bad too. 

Well, the term 'redneck,' if my history is correct, was originally used as a slur against working-class whites from rural areas, so all rednecks are 'white' by definition.  But assuming that most SNAP recipients are black without bothering to look at the statistics is pretty racist, even if unintentionally.

[ElectionsGuy]

Option 4 is really, really racist. So that one.

I'm sorry, but stating a fact, even if its wrong, is racist? That's like saying most Rednecks are white. Is that racist?

Anyway, I would probably choose 4 as well as Its probably false and totally stereotypes blacks. The election one with independent "swing" voters is pretty bad too. 

Well, the term 'redneck,' if my history is correct, was originally used as a slur against working-class whites from rural areas, so all rednecks are 'white' by definition.  But assuming that most SNAP recipients are black without bothering to look at the statistics is pretty racist, even if unintentionally.

Bad example on my part. Another example would be that all suburbanites are white rich people. Sure, people in suburbs are richer and whiter than average buts its not correct, so its an incorrect fact. Now we apply the SNAP situation, SNAP recipients are blacker than average, but all of them are not black, so another incorrect fact.

When I say all suburbanites are rich and white, does that make me racist/rich-hating? I don't think it does. Same thing for the SNAP fallacy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The issue is that American Blacks are a minority - the minorities minority in some respects - in a political sense as well as in terms of raw numbers. Therefore making pejorative assumptions is... er... problematic. Follow?