It is really incredible how many times a day there are posts about "low educated, low info" voters especially women. My personal opinion is the vote of every person counts exactly the same and should be valued and respected as such but unfortunately there are many in the netroots who look at "those" voters in a very condescending manner.
I want to understand how people think there aren't low information voters. It may not be PC to say so, but that's hardly the point. whether they are women or not, is also irrelevant. However the idea that Clinton is drawing a lot from those types of voters isn't absurd. We still have a high percentage of the population that believes that Saddam H was behind 9/11. In 2004, you had, as I mention aboved, a large number of voters who thought bush was for importing drugs from Canada. And on and on. What does it get anyone to pretend all voters are equally interested in politics or care beyond simply voting on quick rather than indepth impressions of candidates and what they stand for.
If you study the molecules of a glass so intently that you no longer realize its purpose are you really looking in depth? If you ask these lo-info voters what's important to them they'll tell you they want out of Iraq. If you ask them should Hillary and Barack have made gradiose speeches detailing their reasons for opposing the supplemental bill they'll tell you they want out of Iraq. In many ways I think that's a pretty in depth way of looking at it.
Uhm- so you agree that there are low information voters, but you want us to ignore that in our discussions of how people are making their choices regarding candidate selections. yes, everyone has a right in America to be ignorant. But it shouldn't a) be a virtue or b) something we come to accept even when we know it will happen anyway. THats how again we got into Iraq. That's how we get bad bills that don't allow importing drugs into the US. You can act as much as you want like this is rocket science. It's not. It's called reading even a small amount on the subjects and having a natural curiosity. I have a plenty of apolitical friends who don't- and I don't make excuses for the fact they don't whenever they say something based on a lack of knowldge. It's not being better (Which is what this is really about for some of you). It's about honestly understanding who is voting for whom. Who can be reached. Who can not be. It's not the job of a democracy to teach its voters to want to be involved. The assumption of democratic- small d- processes require that the opposite is true, or else we keep getting what we have gotten thus far. But hey, so long as we make people feel good in their ignorance because somehow that means we win, that's great. Until it bites us in the ass.
The thing is there is a huge portion of our populus that only get info from TV, and it is 45 sec, if that. So, whatever they heard is what they know. Many do not read newspapers, do not surf the net, do not watch Hardball, Keith O, and if you asked them about these two shows, they will respond, "Keith, who"? So, this is good for Clinton. They recognize her name, know she is a woman, and was married to Bill. Now ask them about her positions, they would not be able to tell you squat.
i can assure you i know many low info voters who like Obama i.e. my sister - to assume Hillary is the only person with low info voters is, well, low info in itself.
Look, talk to the Clinton Camp. They are the ones who broke out the numbers and coined the expression of "women in need". They were the ones who pointed to uneducated, high school grad/did not graduate from high school, class of women. Don't hate on me for this expression.
Yeah I saw the thing in USA today where they profiled a "typical" supporter of each candidate. Hillary's supporter said one reason she liked her (besides being a strong woman and standing by Bill) is that "she's for the poor". I mean, I suppose in the abstract she is, but what is she proposing to help low-income Americans? John Edwards blows her away but all this woman probably knows about him is that he's a white guy and he got an expensive haircut.
This is why I'm actually glad IA and NH are first. At least the candidates can introduce themselves in a manner other than a 30 second soundbite.
Some of those "low info" voters have things such as children, 2 or more jobs, and other things to keep them occupied all of the 24 hours a day.
That is what the Clinton Campaign implies. These are women that need tax breaks, affordable day care, Head Start, etc.
Please don't presume to think I don't understand the reasons why people have a hard time. This still doesn't change the fact that they are low information or that they need to understand what's going on (especially because they are the most in need in terms of the impact of any policy) when choosing candidates. You seem to be a) making excuses for their low information based on the fact it's hard (to which I respond yes it is) b) telling us that they aren't low information because you don't like how hearing that terms (to which I respond it doesn't change what they are in the process) and c) that even if a and b are true, HRC isn't using this (to which I respond that's naive. Politicians regardless of who they are use whatever is to their advantage. Obama, Clinton and Edwards will all be doing this. This doesn't mean they will not make good Presidents. It means they want to win.)
Well, tell the Clinton Campaign to stop, they were the ones initially who identified this group, as low income uninformed women. Women who only graduated from HS, or did not. Make less than 30-35K a year. No college. They identified this group, but now call them "women with needs". Which I don't like, either.
Women with needs sounds much better than low info which comes across as offensive and insulting. Hillary Clinton was working pro bono for women like that back when some other candidates were still in elementary school.
They aren't picking these women because of their needs. That's your spin. They are picking them because they know they are low information. My comparator to low information voters in 2004 (which you keep avoiding to make this about being PC) is dead on accurate. I am sorry you have a problem accepting the nature of politics, the fact there are low information voters who are women or that your candidate would idenitify voters she knows will be more likely to not know where she stands with regard to their needs.
It's nice to know what she did for them in her past, but completely irrelevant to whether she's going to actually rep them, whether her campaign has identify them for that purpose and whether they indeed understand the differences between the candidate other than the fact her last name is Clinton. This more than anything else seems to bother HRC's supporter.
Name recongition is one of those cornerstones of politics. HRC knows this. She also know that many voters will not check to find out if she really reps them or not. She counting on the fact that they do not. Hence why low information is important. The more they found out, they less likely they are too support her. She knows this.
It really has nothing to do with the reality of what's going on to pretend this is about 'needs.' That's one of those test group terms that you can find Frank Luntz using on the right being flipped to use it on the left. It's cute, but it's not the underbelly of what's really being said and done. Nor does ths spin above "but these voters need not know whats going on to know whats going on really make sense." If they don't know that a candidate doesn't support universal healthcare, and they are low income women making less than 35k with a limited education, you can be damn sure it will hurt them. This very group is one of the groups which most needs universal healthcare.
Again, "needs' is the spin by campaigns. If it makes you feel better to pretend this language, 'low information', is somehow made up by those here on the blogs who are against your candidate rather than a segment id'ed by your candidate and other politicians as a group that one can either reach or not reach depending on one's strategy, then that's your choice. I just think it's not a very honest conversation because it covers up the crass truth of whats being said and done.
Low information voters = suckers
No it does not. It equals people who as others explain are busy or have other things etc- I don't think of them as suckers, but I do think of them as vunerable to being manipulated by what they dont know.
By the way- this is what frontrunner status is about. Making sure people don't inquire too much into things that will change their perception. Bush in 2004 didn't want people to think too much about his phrases- also market tested- he simply wanted them to vote their 'gut.' Not realizing gut may or may not be against interest depending on what candidates actually said or didn't say. These voters could decide HRC is the best choice for them based on actual information. The point is the strategy is to not give them that info. Hence why as has been pointed out blurring the lines of her record and others. She benefits by making it sound like there are no difference- as Bush 2000 benefited from the same tactic. This is by the way a non partisan point I am making. I am not judging Bush for his strategy. Nor am I blaming HRC. I do have question the idea that we are suppose to pretend a duck isn't a duck if we see it.
She has zeroed into this group for a reason. They are not like you or I. We ask QUESTIONS. These women do not have time for that. When all you know is that a woman is running and the last name is Clinton and you don't have time for positions. You are just going to vote for her. That is what she is counting on.
Some voters just aren't paying attention yet, a lot aren't and it has nothing to do with intelligence. Obviously Hillary does well with people who are not paying attention because everyone knows her name and something significant about her. Also, nothing has yet happened in this campaign, nothing. No ads to speak of. No personal attacks. No campaign shakeups. What is the biggest controversy so far? Edwards' haircut? Clinton's travel arrangements? Edwards' bloggers? C mon!
One thing will be noted. Who supported the war. Who opposed it. And when did they take thier stand?
And if you consider the grammar and spelling of many of these netroots Hillary bashers, it's pretty clear they aren't terribly educated themselves. Nice folks, just the same, I am sure.
