My conclusion from all of this is that most low-information voters really do make their decisions based on personality and message, rather than ideology or policy.
Dems always shoot themselves in the foot by putting up candidates that middle america just can't seem to relate to.
Trump might be the epitome of what middle america hates: a privileged city landlord who lives in opulence. But it doesn't matter, because he speaks their language.
Kamala only sounds smart and educated to other smart and educated people. She sounds snooty and condescending to everyone else.
I also think calling them "low-information" is incredibly ethnocentric, to the point of offense. Perhaps they just weight their information differently, especially when they exist at different levels of Maslow's hierarchy? It is hard to be "enlightened" (which probably in and of itself means different things to different folks) when youre hustling for food and rent. Poverty is exhausting; poverty impacts higher cognition.
Meanwhile, the Dems are seen as the party of DEI, which are wayyyyy above base survival needs, accoring to that hierarchy.
Edited, to respond more substantively with a quote from your source:
>Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against what liberals assume to be their own interests and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.
I get your point: condescension against low-information voters doesn't help.
But I think that your argument that the term "low-information" has no use just because it's been used with condescension by some is incorrect.
Instead of wasting cognitive energy of finding a new term for the same exact group of people, I think we should focus on treating them with the respect their sizable number of votes deserve.
Of course -- I don't expect people grinding paycheck-to-paycheck to be spending time mulling over their political ideologies or the merits of proposed policy proposals. And in fact, that's exactly my point. I'm not disparaging their situation, I'm describing it.
No one said a thing about race. Look up a definition of "ethnocentric" please; ethnocentrism also refers to cultural normativity. Specifically, I was referring to the following idea which can be found on the Wikipedia article on the term "low information voter":
>Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against what liberals assume to be their own interests and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.
It seems to me you are the one applying racial priors to my comment.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that she is. My point is the opposite: that many people do not. If you don't, then great, that's what I'm talking about.
