It’s been a long day but I’ll close it out by making a few points about this thread. It contains one valuable insight and two misnomers (1/7).
The valuable insight is that people who follow politics often have no idea what will register with people who barely follow politics. It’s absolutely true and a it’s a nearly impossible bias for a politics junkie or political scientist to shed (2/7).
That said, there are two big misnomers. First, just because folks in Kenosha don’t care about the scandal du jour doesn’t mean that the scandal doesn’t matter. Trump’s appalling behavior matters plenty, both intrinsically and as a clue to what he’ll do in the future (3/7).
Saying “the swing voter doesn’t care about x” as an excuse not to talk about or cover x is a bullshit argument. Stories like Trump’s disregard for POWs are good stories no matter what. (4/7)
Finally, the idea that polling analysts are handicapped because they don’t talk to people seems more than a bit off. The ones I follow also look at focus groups and campaign coverage. They just don’t give these things the same weight (5/7).
Furthermore, to be blunt, some reporters don’t get polls, and misinterpret them wildly when they do look at them. So there’s disagreement about the proper weighting. That’s a healthy debate to have! (6/7)
So, to sum up: coverage of marginal voters is important. Doesn’t mean it’s more important that polling analysis, or that issues that don’t shift voter preferences are unimportant. #fin.
P.S. my apologies, I thought I’d published all these tweets last night, but apparently some of them failed to send. Hence the seven-hour gap.
