I know so little about Indy Car that I thought it was pretty amazing that they were still having a Grand Prix in Russia. Then I realized it was Florida.
I discovered recently that I could become one of those people, sort of: I limit my reading of news headlines to once every few days and I stay away from the think piece/opinion section. It’s definitely enhanced my quality of life!
I’m sure you are a well meaning person, but when people find out you think they are “low information” then they dismiss any ideas you may have and go back to doing whatever they do that is more important- then they vote for whatever you don’t want them to. This is the mid 2000s mistake of people like Jon Stewart, which while funny initially, seems to keep living on as a rump of not funny anymore comedy that makes people angry and leads to things like Trump and populism.
Try a different approach- show respect for people and make cogent arguments. Anything else will not lead to results that you desire.
Do you disagree with what I'm saying, or the fact that I'm saying it? I know plenty of low information voters. We don't talk about politics. If I were to ask them whether they follow politics they would cheerfully say "no."
It is the whole concept of calling someone who doesn’t follow politics as sport “low information.” It is a completely rotten way to think about the situation, and yet there is journal article after journal article about it in the polysci literature. In the end though, it is just cope for people who pay too much attention to this stuff for a living. “Why don’t more people care about this subject where professionals using motivated reasoning try to manipulate them constantly?!?” I think the answer to that question for healthy people is pretty obvious.
Is the typical pharmaceutical company employee or farmer or auto mechanic who likes to just watch baseball or go to book club after work with their buddies really “low information?” I would argue that they likely have a lot higher level of information about many subjects and have a better understanding of the policy behind their subject matter expertise than most “political” discussions about policy ever reach. They generally don’t get exercised about things that don’t affect them much and that is a luxury of living in a free society.
“Low Information Voter” is a pejorative term used by people who clearly think they know better. I would implore all the politics fans to think differently about how to approach the classically liberal idea of convincing other people that the ideas they support are good/beneficial/cost effective/etc. without resorting to scare tactics and sensationalism instead of just complaining that people who don’t care about their pet issues are somehow defectives.
I think this is broadly aligned with the point Jeff was making in the post, but you somehow felt it necessary to imply that hoi paloi like me just skip to the comments.
Rationalista, I think you’re reading a lot more into this than is there. “Low-information voters” simply refers to people who are too busy or not interested enough to learn a lot about the political candidates. The people Jeff is talking about. You can choose to consider that a pejorative, just as you can choose to call yourself a low-information voter even though you are literally reading a political article. It's a democracy, and you all have the right to vote, and that is as it should be.
The problem relates to the fact that in the electoral college system a very small percentage of voters determine which way the vote goes in the swing states that determine the outcome of the presidential election. It’s a small enough number of people that some will not know much about the candidate or what their policies are. Some people feel that is suboptimal – and it seems to me that the less informed you are the more likely you are to be manipulated – and it’s frustrating for those of us in non-swing states when our votes count for nothing, while the less informed voters in other states carry so much weight.
Great piece, as always. Let's hope that the New York Times doesn't spend the next nine months poisoning the information well, such that voters who don't pay attention to politics don't make the leap from "Biden is old" (true) to "Biden is senile" (false).
What Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns, and Money in 2020 is relevant:
The Ariana Grande Theory of Politics is this: The large majority — maybe the vast majority — of people in this country know things about politics like I know things about Ariana Grande. I know Ariana Grande is a pop music singer. Can I sing any of her songs? No. Could I pick her out of a lineup of young women pop singers? No. But I do know she’s a singer.
...
The vast majority of Americans think about politics the way I think about contemporary pop music. They can recognize a few prominent names. A very few is what I’m guessing. For example: what percentage of people in this country could correctly identify exactly who Nancy Pelosi is, let alone what sort of ice cream she has in her freezer at this moment? (Don’t ask).
...
And here’s my happy thought: While there’s no denying there are millions of fanatical supporters of Donald Trump’s ethno-nationalist griftomatic Fascism for Dummies (redundant obviously), there are many, many more Trump voters who are like me and Ariana Grande. They don’t know really know anything about politics. They don’t really pay attention. They’ve heard a few things here and there, but that’s it pretty much it.
...
I could be wrong [HA!]. I could be badly understating the typical level of commitment to Trumpism among typical Trump voters. I can definitely imagine that’s the case.
I think the people governing for a senile, incompetent Biden are worse for what's left of this country than the people who were governing for an incompetent, disinterested Trump. If Trump was interested in governing I'd potentially be more afraid but he's just looking to get elected for the stage time.
Count me in for another boring, middle-of-the-road Republican presidency featuring insane and hilarious social media posts from both Trump and his legion of wokester haters.
It's amazing that the New York Times continues to wield so much influence, maybe more than ever. They went far down a path that culminated with the James Bennett and Donald McNeil Incidents - which turned out to be even less controversial than the String Cheese Incident - but they turned back and those things would not happen now. Phew.
It seems likely that age is the main reason Biden's poll numbers are so low. The Times is grabbing its readers by the collar, and saying, "You should know this." It's probably not going over well. Jon Stewart is getting bashed in the comments section for daring to criticize Biden, no matter how tepid or obvious it was (and funny too). So Times readers may be pretty heterodox on the woke issues, but on the partisan issues, there's no room for anything other than Trump bashing, and criticizing Biden is viewed as the crime of helping Trump.
Great writing on the dubious coverage of the election . We have miles to go and you're right there could easily be a major health event which changes EVERYTHING.
I know so little about Indy Car that I thought it was pretty amazing that they were still having a Grand Prix in Russia. Then I realized it was Florida.
Man do I envy people who pay no attention to politics until they have to. It must be nice.
I discovered recently that I could become one of those people, sort of: I limit my reading of news headlines to once every few days and I stay away from the think piece/opinion section. It’s definitely enhanced my quality of life!
I recently read a phrase that now haunts me: "The presidency will be decided by a handful of low-information voters."
American democracy is much stupider than we were led to believe in school.
I’m sure you are a well meaning person, but when people find out you think they are “low information” then they dismiss any ideas you may have and go back to doing whatever they do that is more important- then they vote for whatever you don’t want them to. This is the mid 2000s mistake of people like Jon Stewart, which while funny initially, seems to keep living on as a rump of not funny anymore comedy that makes people angry and leads to things like Trump and populism.
Try a different approach- show respect for people and make cogent arguments. Anything else will not lead to results that you desire.
Pretty sure the low-infos don't read Jeff, but yeah, they might skip to the comments
I have revised my level of certainty that you are a well meaning person to 0%.
Have a great day!
Do you disagree with what I'm saying, or the fact that I'm saying it? I know plenty of low information voters. We don't talk about politics. If I were to ask them whether they follow politics they would cheerfully say "no."
It is the whole concept of calling someone who doesn’t follow politics as sport “low information.” It is a completely rotten way to think about the situation, and yet there is journal article after journal article about it in the polysci literature. In the end though, it is just cope for people who pay too much attention to this stuff for a living. “Why don’t more people care about this subject where professionals using motivated reasoning try to manipulate them constantly?!?” I think the answer to that question for healthy people is pretty obvious.
Is the typical pharmaceutical company employee or farmer or auto mechanic who likes to just watch baseball or go to book club after work with their buddies really “low information?” I would argue that they likely have a lot higher level of information about many subjects and have a better understanding of the policy behind their subject matter expertise than most “political” discussions about policy ever reach. They generally don’t get exercised about things that don’t affect them much and that is a luxury of living in a free society.
“Low Information Voter” is a pejorative term used by people who clearly think they know better. I would implore all the politics fans to think differently about how to approach the classically liberal idea of convincing other people that the ideas they support are good/beneficial/cost effective/etc. without resorting to scare tactics and sensationalism instead of just complaining that people who don’t care about their pet issues are somehow defectives.
I think this is broadly aligned with the point Jeff was making in the post, but you somehow felt it necessary to imply that hoi paloi like me just skip to the comments.
Rationalista, I think you’re reading a lot more into this than is there. “Low-information voters” simply refers to people who are too busy or not interested enough to learn a lot about the political candidates. The people Jeff is talking about. You can choose to consider that a pejorative, just as you can choose to call yourself a low-information voter even though you are literally reading a political article. It's a democracy, and you all have the right to vote, and that is as it should be.
The problem relates to the fact that in the electoral college system a very small percentage of voters determine which way the vote goes in the swing states that determine the outcome of the presidential election. It’s a small enough number of people that some will not know much about the candidate or what their policies are. Some people feel that is suboptimal – and it seems to me that the less informed you are the more likely you are to be manipulated – and it’s frustrating for those of us in non-swing states when our votes count for nothing, while the less informed voters in other states carry so much weight.
It
Great piece, as always. Let's hope that the New York Times doesn't spend the next nine months poisoning the information well, such that voters who don't pay attention to politics don't make the leap from "Biden is old" (true) to "Biden is senile" (false).
What Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns, and Money in 2020 is relevant:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/04/the-ariana-grande-theory-of-politics
The Ariana Grande theory of politics
The Ariana Grande Theory of Politics is this: The large majority — maybe the vast majority — of people in this country know things about politics like I know things about Ariana Grande. I know Ariana Grande is a pop music singer. Can I sing any of her songs? No. Could I pick her out of a lineup of young women pop singers? No. But I do know she’s a singer.
...
The vast majority of Americans think about politics the way I think about contemporary pop music. They can recognize a few prominent names. A very few is what I’m guessing. For example: what percentage of people in this country could correctly identify exactly who Nancy Pelosi is, let alone what sort of ice cream she has in her freezer at this moment? (Don’t ask).
...
And here’s my happy thought: While there’s no denying there are millions of fanatical supporters of Donald Trump’s ethno-nationalist griftomatic Fascism for Dummies (redundant obviously), there are many, many more Trump voters who are like me and Ariana Grande. They don’t know really know anything about politics. They don’t really pay attention. They’ve heard a few things here and there, but that’s it pretty much it.
...
I could be wrong [HA!]. I could be badly understating the typical level of commitment to Trumpism among typical Trump voters. I can definitely imagine that’s the case.
I would prefer not to.
I think the people governing for a senile, incompetent Biden are worse for what's left of this country than the people who were governing for an incompetent, disinterested Trump. If Trump was interested in governing I'd potentially be more afraid but he's just looking to get elected for the stage time.
Count me in for another boring, middle-of-the-road Republican presidency featuring insane and hilarious social media posts from both Trump and his legion of wokester haters.
It's amazing that the New York Times continues to wield so much influence, maybe more than ever. They went far down a path that culminated with the James Bennett and Donald McNeil Incidents - which turned out to be even less controversial than the String Cheese Incident - but they turned back and those things would not happen now. Phew.
It seems likely that age is the main reason Biden's poll numbers are so low. The Times is grabbing its readers by the collar, and saying, "You should know this." It's probably not going over well. Jon Stewart is getting bashed in the comments section for daring to criticize Biden, no matter how tepid or obvious it was (and funny too). So Times readers may be pretty heterodox on the woke issues, but on the partisan issues, there's no room for anything other than Trump bashing, and criticizing Biden is viewed as the crime of helping Trump.
Great writing on the dubious coverage of the election . We have miles to go and you're right there could easily be a major health event which changes EVERYTHING.
Nobody MAGA will support a Democrat or traditional GOP candidate. The uniparty is over.