4 ms·

I don't understand your point. I think it's a general principle that the government is supposed to do a good job regardless of whether the issue at hand is well

I don't understand your point. I think it's a general principle that the government is supposed to do a good job regardless of whether the issue at hand is well-understood by the public. It's a valid observation if somebody points out that the public was sold a bill of goods by the government.

emodendroket 10y ago
My point is nobody is going to connect the dots and say "I can only access certain Web sites at certain speeds now... this is because of Trump's FCC guy gutting net neutrality" unless they already are keyed into and concerned with the issue in the first place.
ssharp 10y ago
The point is getting the public to care about this stuff. I don't think the average person spends much time thinking about politics. I think most may see some stuff online or on TV but are largely locked into their beliefs. You probably have +1 std. dev. who "pays attention" to politics as a bit of a hobby and +2 std. dev who make it one of their top priorities. That still leaves a lot of people who care far less than the average person does. If you want to effect change in Washington, you either have to make people care more or find a candidate who people who don't care will still rally behind. I think both Trump and Obama fit that bill well but for much different reasons. edit: I wonder how it would play if during a debate, a candidate really drilled down into how the incumbent's policies negatively affected people in small ways they may not realize. This net neutrality thing may be one of them. "Your cable provider won't let you stream Netflix at full quality? That's Trump's fault".