speakingcorpse writes:

After an entire episode of CNN's Inside Politics hosted by the brain-damaged-pseudo-terrorist Candy Crowley, nearly all of which was devoted to discussing the question of Dean's electability, the following poll numbers were mentioned parenthetically.

"Welcome back. I'm Candy Crowley, sitting in for Judy [Woodruff, aka a skeleton covered in wax, radiated, and frozen into a permanent toxic sculpture with a mouth that simulates word-emission].

The race for the White House has been under way for months, and the first caucuses and primary will be held this month. But beyond the activists and the true believers, are Americans really watching what's going on?

According to our new CNN-"TIME" Magazine poll, fewer than half of Americans say they're playing close attention to the race. Against this backdrop [Blicero asks: How exactly is "this" a "backdrop"?], President Bush is holding a five-point lead in a head- to-head match-up against Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean. He has a six-point edge and one-on-one with Joe Lieberman. Mr. Bush leads Dick Gephardt by nine points, Wesley Clark and John Edwards by 10, and John Kerry by 11 points."

They gave the lie to the entire discussion, including Joseph I. Lieberman's on-air claim that he was the only "electable Democrat." There was no commentary on or context for these numbers, which are actually unbelievable. As was pointed out on Dean's blog yesterday, Clinton was 20 points behind G.H.W. Bush at this time during the 1992 election cycle. I guess fat-slut-deadender Crowley couldn't acknowledge these numbers more directly, or she would have had to figure out something meaningful to say during her half-hour television emission.

Anyway, there are two key points. One is that Dean is doing better than all the Dems against Bush, although several are in a near dead-heat with him. Two is that more than half of Americans aren't paying close attention at all to the race. For a Democrat to win, he has to somehow interest a small number of these normally uninterested people. They are not now "undecided," agonizing over whether to move to the right or to the left. This demographic has been invented by Frank Luntz for his TV focus groups; it has no real independent existence. How hard is it, really, to decide, once you give the matter some attention? Either you're a fascist or you're not. The real "undecideds" are those who haven't yet given the matter any attention at all. They simply don't give a shit.

Every election, a small number of these people eventually begins to pay attention--exactly who pays attention probably varies from election to election; and what finally draws them in probably varies as well. A Dem won't draw some of them into the process by "moving to the center"--that will in fact ensure that these people will remain, understandably, uninterested. Nor will a Dem attract their attention, necessarily, by moving to the left. He will attract their attention by being attractive and interesting--by saying something new, and saying it well, by stirring up trouble, by striking a memorable pose. Only Dean is doing this thus far. He can win.