(http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2008/0229nj1.htm)
I have read this gentleman many times on many topics and he is not this stupid. He just thinks that we are. He gives us an article doing a demographic comparison of the people who voted in the Dem caucuses and primaries 2004 and 2008. Sounds valid on the surface doesn't it.
Little things the nice man leaves out:
1. The contest was effectively over in NH last time. So the turnout was essentially political junkies and older people to whom voting is still a civic duty after SC [which Edwards won but without enough momentum to change the coronation march. An apt comparison would be 1992 which was the last time the Dem contest went on for months and most of the states actually mattered. Now I could write a multi-volume work on why the front loading this year was a bad idea for all sorts of reasons. However turnout isn't one of them. A two person race between two well funded candidates about equally balanced [so far] in voter appeal and financial strength makes the sort of horse race the media love and the media excitement gets people to vote because they are paying attention to politics earlier in the year and feel their votes actually count for something. Most years the early primaries settle everything and the rest of the country gets to have a set of meaningless contests with little media attention and less voter interest.
2. Even with the higher turnouts and massive media attention most people simply are not paying attention to politics this early. The disconnect is there for all to see. Give or take McCain is running even with the two Dem possibilities. They mostly show small leads but well inside the error margin. Yet actual turnout in primaries and causeses shows a massive surge to the Dem side. The money coming in also leans massively Dem. What does this mean? It means among the minority who are paying attention there is a major break to the Dem side of the aisle but the bulk of the apolitical public is still in the 1994-2004 50/50 mode. There can be no proof before next September - October of whether the 2006 break is a one time or a trend. The early signs look good for the Democrats and abysmal for the GOP [one can make a strong case that W was worse for the brand than any President since Hoover]. However the early signs have been wrong repeatedly before. Dukakis had a huge early lead that evaporated as the public started paying attention after Labor Day. So extrapolating what the national electorate looks like from primary votes is bogus and Brownstein knows better. He just thinks we are too dump to catch him. Welcome to the modern media world. They count of us being stupid and shallow.Labels: How Stupid Do They Think We Are?
posted by scott 3:22 PM