I am going to try to keep this short, and to keep a lid on the disgust I feel for some of the diaries I have seen today.
What Kos said:
The party's activists are busting their butts for Obama, while Clinton's campaign is counting on low-information Democratic voters selecting Clinton based on little more than name ID.
He indicated people who voted based on nothing but name recognition were “low information voters." This doesn't bother me because he is describing people who voted based on little information.
See how that is ok.
It is not ok to say people are low information voters based, who they are, where they lived, and the level of access to the internet.
The internet is a great tool to get information, but not having internet does not mean you are uninformed. Nor does having internet somehow indicate you are more informed. There is a lot of false misleading and nonsensical information on the internet.
To indicate Clinton relies on states with more “low-information” voters, based on internet access, implies
- Internet access automatically means you are more informed.
- People without access vote in numbers proportional to the general population.
- Those voters will vote in the Democratic Race
- Those voters choose Clinton.
If you don’t see how it is different to say people who vote based on name recognition are low information voters and people who live in the South are low information voters because they have slightly less internet than those is the Midwest, then you are honestly to “low information” for a community like this.
If you think you can post ignorant nonsense and then cower behind something Kos posted, in an entirely different context; then might I suggest the Internet is full of informative place where you can go and self-fornicate.