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.)
