I'm republishing some of my post-caucus analysis in this week between county conventions. I've rethought and come to the same conclusion, and my audience has expanded enough these past two months that some of you may have missed it. Just insert "convention" everywhere it says "caucus" and the analysis still holds.
Ed Fallon is claiming "victory" but I suspect that's dubious at best...
I think what's really happening is that Ed Fallon is a candidate who is attractive to issue-oriented party activists. That base is highly concentrated in a setting like an off-year caucus, and heavily diluted in a high-turnout primary.
Let's say there's 15 of these folks in a precinct. Ten of them go to an off-year caucus, where a grand total of 20 people show up. That's 50%. That's great. So now it's June 6. All 15 go to vote in the primary - but 200 people vote in the precinct. That's 7.5%. A bigger shot of gin, but diluted with a lot more tonic.
Let's switch analogies. Last year Jimmy Buffett released a new album. It hit the charts at Number One its first week - without making any impact on the contemporary music scene, and sank from sight like an old pirate boat the next week. And without a major hit in 25 years, Jimmy continues to sell out shows across the country. Why? Because of the Parrotheads. He has a devoted, loyal base that buys everything he puts out on release day (a cynic might say "that's because they're too old to grasp the concept of downloading"), that follows him on tour and goes to multiple shows.
But in politics, you're not looking for the most LOYAL base of fans. You need the BIGGEST base of fans. And it's rare that the best is also the most popular. I could really stretch this analogy...
Not saying any of this to diss Ed - I like him, and I may still go there. But I think we just need to be realistic about the relative insignificance of the caucuses as a show of support. It just mean Fallon has the most Parrotheads. But depth of support does not equal breadth of support.
No comments:
Post a Comment