Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Redefining high and low information voters.
I wonder if the internet has changed the metrics of today's high and low information voters.
Think about the personal internet experience. On your homepage, you have general news headlines from around the world and it automatically refreshes 24 hours a day.
Click on one of those headlines and you'll get the full story plus links to other stories on the same topic. And maybe you'll come across incidental information that peaks your curiosity.
If you want specific information, google it. Obama's health care policy, comparisons to McCain's, etc.
And with online communities, social networking, video chats, youtube, email, blogging (not to mention cell phones) people share more information.
Maybe low info voter no more now than before, but maybe the rate at which they've changed is slower or faster than high-information voters.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Comments (3)
Low information voters are just as low information as they've always been. It's high information voters that got a leg up. Indeed, this may be the first election cycle with a sizable number of truly high information voters. Back in the day, a lot of crucial information went down the crapper just because TV news failed to cover it.
May 7, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The webpage/e-mail example certainly fits with the idea of older voters swinging Hillary's way, along with non-college-educated whites, while more educated and younger voters swing toward Obama. Older people are marginally less likely to be online--certainly less often than people in their 40's and younger (who took part in the PC boom of the 80's)
May 8, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, one of the more annoying trends is Obama voters claiming that the reason Clinton supporters are still with her is a lack of information or education. I am both highly educated and quite well read and still believe that Obama is both the weaker candidate, less skilled to lead us over the next eight years and building a campaign on the false and impossible premise of actually changing politics (look at his own campaign over the last couple of months).
I don't want to rehash the usual arguments, I just want to point out that with things coming to an end, don't make the arrogant presumption that supporting Clinton is somehow indicative of some sort of deficiency. Bringing the party back together is more than just saying the word "unity", it is actually trying to understand our perspective and incorporating it in to the fold. It's this kind of silly and wrongheaded arrogance on the part of Obama supporters that will lead to a McCain win.
May 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment