Where did the term "Low Information Voter" even come from?
Originally it was invented to describe ignorant redneck conservative voters. But after a few revealing videos surfaced, it quickly migrated to the urban bumpkins who make up the majority of the voting base of the liberal Democrats. The free cell phones lady being the ultimate expression of the true jocko homo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllX... Harlem Voters on Howard Stern's Show http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pelosiv... Pelosi's Daughter Enrages Left with Welfare Video "Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who courted conservative controversy with a video short showing the sometimes racist views of toothless Mississippi rednecks, has enraged liberals with a second video: New York welfare recipients. "But Alexandra Pelosi admits it wasn’t easy getting the video on television. “All the people I work with at HBO, all the people I grew up with, said, ‘You can’t put that on TV.’ “Somehow [I was] allowed to do it to the toothless rednecks, but when it was our neighbors, it was wait a second, they got defensive,” she told Bill Maher on his HBO show, “Real Time.” " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOX... Real Time in Mississippi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-VpgpE3uw Welfare Queens
Are people who voted “leave” low-information voters?
That is a massive generalisation, but it is certainly true that Leave voters are significantly more likely to get their information from low value sources, such as the Daily Mail, the Sun, or the Express.It is interesting that, even though the Telegraph supported Brexit, its readers were much less likely to vote Leave than Sun or Mail voters.The Sun had the highest percentage of Brexit voters than any other newspaper, new research saysI would be cautious before drawing a causal link, but the information is there for you to judge.Leave vote by newspaper read:Sun - 70%Express - 70%Mail - 66%Star - 65%Telegraph - 55%Mirror - 44%No newspaper - 41%Other paper - 33%Times - 30%Financial Times - 22%Independent - 15%Guardian - 9%
How can we best get low-information voters to understand the breadth of corruption with Hillary and the DNC/Media without triggering information overload?
Most low information voters are voting Trump and are highly indoctrinated. Why else do you think that they believe everything Trump says? And why do they ignore information that disagrees with them?For that matter, why do Trumpsters keep banging on about HRC? The election is long over and NOBODY else has gone on about the person who lost in an election.If you want to convince voters about the corruption of HRC, first prove it actually exists outside Republican smear tactics. (So no Uranium One etc)
Which side of the political aisle has more low-information voters?
This is not an easy question, and in considering it I realized that "What makes a bad answer" is really more interesting than the actual answer.A bad answer to this question:"The Democrat party has more low information voters than the Republican party." Source: Party Affiliation by Education LevelWhy this is a bad answer:It assumes that voter's information level correlates with education.It does not identify how old the data is. The source data is from surveys dated 1972-2000.The source is "some guy on the internet".The graph, the part with impact, is cherry-picked and scary-scaled to manipulate your perception.To the last point, here are some other graphs of the same data, tweaked and grouped in different ways.A better answer to this question is "For data from 1972 to 2000 with an unspecified uncertainty, The Quantum Pontiff indicates that Republican voters were slightly more likely to have a High School or College Diploma. Democratic voters were slightly more likely to have a graduate degree or no diploma." Any answer that doesn't have that kind of specifics is unlikely to be an objective picture of the truth.
Are the key supporters of 0blunder Low Information Voters?
Pretty much, low information voters who were supported by our unbiased and impartial press. Consider what was not -courtesy of the unbiased mainstream press- part of the election this year: - Gas prices doubled in four years. - Obama's 's promise to cut the deficit in half instead added 5.4 trillion dollars. - Medium income dropped ~$4k during the past four years. - Long-term unemployed went from 2.6 million to 5.8 million individuals. - Labor force participation rate down to 63%, lowest since the Depression. - By government poverty guidelines, in four years this went from 37 million to 46.7 million. Remember, no one ever lost a presidential election because they underestimated the intelligence of the average voter. .
How do real journalists explain to low information voters the difference between information they don't like and "fake news"?
That’s the problem. “Real journalists” and facts can’t get to low-information voters, and people tend to think, right or wrong, that the only real journalists are the reporters they agree with. They increasingly tend to get their news from a handful of places, usually local TV news or online sources or social media, which are fairly superficial or tend to confirm people’s worldviews. And one of the worst aspects of this is that if you actually present someone with facts that contradict his position, it actually only cements his biases.I have no silver bullet on how to deal with it and it’s only getting worse. Facts do have a way of catching up to people no matter how much they obfuscate. The one thing I will recommend is getting out and talking to people in person who are completely different from you. Americans actually agree on far more things than they disagree on, although politics and partisan media tend to focus on the differences. So go find that uncle you’re always at risk of getting into a massive fight with at Thanksgiving, have a beer with him, and see if you can find some common ground to start from.
If Obama had a great economic recovery like low information voters claim, then why did Obama fail to get Hillary Clinton elected?
Remember Bidens Summer of Recovery that never happened.
Why are the Democrats constantly "Grubbering" their low information base?
It is simple for Conservatives to see. But beyond the grasp of even the brightest Liberal. Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like "social justice" and "The Brotherhood of Man" to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely benign and beneficial. However at the root, like the Prince in Machiavelli's greatest work, the single moral principle that Liberals adhere to is the continual accumulation and centralization of all power. How could anyone morally use low information voters like slaves. Low information voters are the trickle-up-poverty downtrodden ignorant folks that blindly vote by race or basic needs for a Democrat who not only does not help them, but feeds on their very existence for votes.
Low information voters are bad. Voter registration drives are good. For people that hold both positions, how do you integrate these two ideas?
People that register to vote during a registration drive are not necessarily low information voters. College campuses have registration drives every year in my area, there are political party booths at many campus events and only those most motivated will take the time to fill out the paperwork.There are many people that register to vote near their 18th birthday because it is a family tradition, not because they care about elections. They vote the family’s party their entire lives without once asking a question about issues. They see no need. Daddy’s party is good enough.There are one issue voters that will vote for the politician that supports that issue, even if that candidate is awful in all other ways. There are voters that listen to only one side of an issue, misunderstand issues or deliberately vote as a protest only.That is ok. We are a Republic and each individual voteis important. No matter who is doing it. The will of the people. No the will of only the educated people. Those of us that care about issues understand this and work to educate, not suppress voter registration.