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.
