Please stop using the phrase "low-information-voter(s)"

[ColbertWatcher]

These people do not have less information, they have the wrong information.

I suggest we call them "talk radio information voters."

Just please stop calling them "low information voters," it sounds almost as condescending as "wrong information voters."

By using the term "talk radio" in their name we can remind people that the lies they so fervently believe is nothing but propaganda, while at the same referring directly to their ideological brethren in Rwanda (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924)

[Suji to Seoul]

1. Idiot works fine for me.

[EFerrari]

2. What about no information voters?

[Eric J in MN]

3. Those are two different groups.

People who regularly listen to conservative talk radio will almost all vote Republican.

Low-information voters are people who don't pay attention to the news or listen to political talk-radio much and may vote for the Republican or Democrat.

[susanna]

4. Very interesting. I see your point. I will try really hard to do that. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

7. Thank you! n/t

[orleans]

36. so, then, what should we call them?

mccain goes after the ostrich vote

[vixengrl]

5. I will still use it--and here's why--

it sounds bad and like something that should be addressed, like B.O. or the "heartbreak of psoriasis". If "Low information voters" ever got the message that they had a problem, they might try to address it. By calling them "Talk Radio Information Voters", we aren't telling them anything new about themselves. They would cheer "Love me some Limbaugh!" "Glenn Beck---woot!!!!!" But by admitting they don't know shit, maybe they will come to question how it is they came to not know shit.

Maybe they will even come to seek shit out. That would be great.

Ad of the future: Are you a low-information voter? Want to get informed? Not sure where to begin? Well, put down that remote control and turn off that radio, and do what millions of others are doing--they seek opposing points of view online--:

Here's how to search news: and don't start with blogs.

I predict the election in 2012 will be unrecognizeable from a wedge issue point of view. People have so much better tools, like the Obama tax cut calculator and stuff that future candidates could craft on their potential websites, and will be just more capable of finding what they need to know. Not what they want to hear.

It would be neat if we had that kind of shift.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. People who get their information from talk radio don't have less information ...

... like I said in the OP.

Instead they have the bad or wrong or incorrect or unsubstantiated information.

To call them "low information voters" (like I said in the OP) is condescending.

Is the use of the word "low" to mean they have less information than others? Or is it to mean they are on a lower level than others?

I say don't refer to how much information they have attack where they got their information: talk radio.

Also, here is a link from the OP to a thread about the dangers of talk radio: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924

[vixengrl]

8. I don't know that all these people are getting it from talk radio--

and I think the problem is thinking about the information, not where they get it from. Yeah, talk radio is poisonous, and so is the internet, and tv can pretty much suck, too. Any source could be bad, the issue is the ability to discern what is and what isn't bad. Right now, talk radio is the worst of shills, and tomorrow, O-Reilly, and tomorrow again...a direct mail campaign. It's passive acceptance of the things they hear that people need to defend against, not just any particular source. They need to figure out how to become active listeners, or readers, or viewers, and engage a thinking aspect when they receive a given missive. They can only really do that if they get educated--come to know that they don't know enough, and engage the right resources.

It is right to say "low information" isn't accurate. I think I do prefer "wrong information voters"--but without further study, how does that person come to know they're wrong? If they have a lot of perceived "facts"--then however wrong they are, they are complacent about setting anything straight. If they don't know they are wrong, they still can only be told, they don't know enough--as in, they don't know enough to know that they are wrong.

It's not so much a put-down as a challenge to them, if phrased right.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. "It's not so much a put-down as a challenge to them, if phrased right."

I agree.

And I also agree that direct mail and talk radio are as poisonous as they are passive-making sources for information.

Which is why I would rather make the connection between these voters, talk radio and the link I posted in the OP (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924)

Nothing the GOP is doing now is any different than the situation described in the post I linked to in the OP (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924)

I want people to begin associating talk radio with what happened to the people in the link in the OP (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924).

Where the GOP is pushing their talk radio is a dangerous place. We have modern-day examples of how dangerous it is (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4255924&mesg_id=4255924)

[snake in the grass]

23. Even if you call them 'wrong information voters'...

...they will feel talked down to. You imply that all that they've 'learned' is questionable and that you have the truth. Either way they will be offended. I find low information voters appropriate considering how little actual substance can be found in the garbage they poison themselves with through AM radio. In any case, I prefer to call them what they really are, namely 'walking turds' and I don't really care if this bothers them. We've been too nice and too accommodating to these people. It's time to send them back under their rocks until some of the damage they have caused is repaired. Some will join in when they see the benefits. Others cannot be helped but that's ok. Fuck them!

[hfojvt]

16. i think Bush may have had a tax cut calculator in 2000 if memory serves

I am not a huge fan of Obama's. For one thing, it only went down to $20,000, and I happen to make less than that. For another, it did not seem accurate for the various plans. It said I would get nothing under McCain's plans. However, since McCain promises to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, I should save at least $400 at the $20,000 level. Finally, I hate the whole Reagan-type pandering of everyone running has to promise tax cuts, and the bigger, the better.

[JI7]

9. no, Low information voters are likely to vote Democratic also while wrong information

voters are strongly Republican.

but the low information types are easily fooled into voting Republican many times.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Another reason why I don't like the term "low information voter(s)" is ...

... because many people are too damn tired from the three jobs they have to work to read as much news as we on DU do.

In my reply #6, I said,

Is the use of the word "low" to mean they have less information than others? Or is it to mean they are on a lower level than others?

That's why I prefer it not be used; it really is insulting.

[JI7]

12. it refers to information specifically

we aren't calling them "low level" voters, but "low information" voters.

[EFerrari]

17. Maybe, but it's accurate.

Who do you have to be not to admit that you don't know something?

Misnaming it just feeds into the alternate reality that Faux promotes.

They are low information voters, tired or stupid or not. When I was raising my kids and working and going to school, I was one. But that was before Faux was there to tell me what I thought and how right I was.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. But the FOX viewers don't have less information.

They have faulty information, or incorrect information.

They have just as much information as any one else, their's is just misguided.

The term "low information voter(s)" came from the alternate reality of the GOP-controlled media just as FOX has.

By avoiding the use of the word "low" we can avoid using their framing completely.

Whether you believe it does describe some people or not.

I say, fuck 'em, I do not accept the existence of "low information voter(s)" or "NASCAR dads" or "Soccer Moms" or any other GOP-controlled media-invented demographic.

[EFerrari]

22. These fake categories always elide human bodies.

I'm with you on that one. What about, hassled tired voters whose kid has a toothache and no insurance? That would be getting close to a real group of people who have to count the cookies they buy on Saturday to make sure they can cover all the lunches for that week. :grr:

[ColbertWatcher]

30. Hey, I do what I can for hungry peoples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4254809&mesg_id=4254809

:P

[EFerrari]

42. Yes, you do! That thread is a brilliant idea!

:applause:

[Lil Missy]

13. There ARE "low information" voters.

Case in point - I encountered a few die hard (R) bigots a few weeks ago that were practically hysterical about a (insert N word here) being considered for President. They also insisted he'd be assassinated, because he's a Black "Muslin".

It gets worse. They asked me who the VP picks were, and WHO IS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT!! I shit you not.

That's fuckin' scary.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Those people don't have less information, they have the wrong information! n/t

[Lil Missy]

26. Are you fuckin' serious?

They didn't know who was running for President on the (R) side? Nor WHO the VP candidates were!

That's not wrong information, that is NO information!

[ColbertWatcher]

27. Even still, "no information" is different than "low information."

Plus, who are you talking about?

I have not heard of any person who doesn't know Admiral McCombover and Failin' Palin are the GOP ticket.



Where did you hear this?

[Lil Missy]

33. You've never heard of it. Thus I rest my case.

You don't really expect me to give you names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., do you?

You can take my word for it, or not. I don't care either way.

[ColbertWatcher]

37. I thought you meant there was some study that said so many people didn't know. n/t

[Selatius]

14. Do you want us to call them "misled voters"? What about the voters who only pay half attention?

Could they be called "low information voters" as well?

[ColbertWatcher]

20. I don't want to accept the GOP-controlled media's terminology.

I like misled voters. That's a nice replacement.

[depakid]

15. Misinformation (or disinformation) voters works for me

It's just astonishing how many of them that there are on the comment sections of the nation's newspapers- and not only that, but their grammar and word usage is appalling, which suggests to me that most of them probably don't read much past the headlines (and certainly don't read books).

My hope is that Obama understands how serious the problem with the media is in this country, and gets the FCC to work on re-regulation pronto, because that's where most of the country's problems stem from.

[ColbertWatcher]

21. "My hope is that Obama understands how serious the problem with the media is ..."

... in this country, and gets the FCC to work on re-regulation pronto, because that's where most of the country's problems stem from."

Oh, I agree.

In fact, the banking industry and the telecommunications industry have suffered the same fate from lack of regulations. It's just that the telecoms did it first and their failure lead to stupider people instead of a market crash.

The telecoms merged and consolidated so much that there's--what, only 5-6 companies running damn near every major media market? Isn't that kinda what happened to the banks?

I just think the bank failure was more obvious to more people than the failure of the telecoms.

[BlueIris]

24. I like "talk radio voters."

That's an adroit assessment if I ever read one.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. I was thinking that having the word "information" in there made the name too long, too. n/t

[Lil Missy]

28. Well, your concern has been duly noted. And filed in the appropriate manner. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

31. Thank you! Love your avatar, btw! n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ColbertWatcher]

32. Well, hello little one! Where did you come from? Didja get lost and wandered in here? n/t

[DainBramaged]

35. Tool is a good defination, hit and run, off the boards

[Lil Missy]

34. Why do you say that? And how do you feel about Caucasians voting for Obama?

Welcome to DU!

:D

[Stinky The Clown]

38. "Talk Radio Voters" ...... excellent phrase to use. I really like it.

It tells a story that is likely more honest than "low information voters". It also implies sheep, followers, inability to think for themselves, stupidity, bigotry.

[ColbertWatcher]

43. Thank you.

Putting the word "information" in there makes it a little too long, too.

[IDemo]

39. Thanks, but I will continue to use the phrase, because it fits many people

Not all those who fail to see the issues the way you or I might do so because they've been fed the wrong info; whether from talk radio, the pulpit, or the boss. Many simply feel content with the idea that "the adults are in charge" in Washington, and aren't interested enough to open a newspaper or involve themselves in any way with the political process. I know more than one person who simply smiles and shrugs when the election is brought up and cannot engage in a conversation about the issues.

And that is not for a lack of an overwhelming amount of the wrong info here in my state.:crazy:

[salguine]

40. How 'bout "slack-jawed mouth-breathers"?

[ColbertWatcher]

44. LOL! n/t

[rucky]

41. There's the Kool-Aid drinkers that forward the mass emails...

then there's the "Low Information Voters" that read and believe these emails.

It's sort of a symbiotic relationship. An army of amateur propagandists who possess the talent of hitting the forward button find the dumbest people in their address book, and the cycle continues. It's like a virus.

[ColbertWatcher]

45. The people who read those emails do not have less information ...

... they have the wrong information.

I'm just not so willing to accept the GOP-controlled media's invented demographic.

[slampoet]

46. Okay. i prefer the term "dipshits" any way.

[ThoughtCriminal]

47. Seems more like Weird Information Voters

There's a threshold where "Wrong" just doesn't cover it.