Over at The New Republic Noam Scheiber writes this of recent Mitt Romney as veep nominee speculation:
What I don’t understand is this idea that Romney helps McCain on the economy, which everyone concedes will be the nominee’s greatest vulnerability. The basis for this claim is that Romney was a very successful consultant and private-equity fund manager. And there’s no question that this would help him make economic policy. But that’s hardly the same as winning over voters who are struggling financially, which is what most people have in mind when they say the economy will be a challenge for McCain.
Get that? “Most people,” when they say that the economy will be a challenge for McCain, actually mean that his real challenge is whether or not economically struggling voters pick McCain.
This is so obtuse that I want to think that Scheiber has made an error of wording. Anything but to acknowledge that he actually revealed the worst that beltway horseracism can be.
But just in case, let’s slowly say this all together: “Most people” are actually concerned about McCain (and his future running mate’s) economic plans and skills.
“Most people” think Obama will be “better able to improve economic conditions” by a 20% margin over McCain (51%-31%) according to a new CBS/NYTimes poll. Maybe that’s why 60% of voters (“most people”!) thought it most important that McCain name a running mate with economic expertise, according to a recent NBC/WSJ poll.
Maybe “most” horserace watchers, well equipped with blinders, see it Scheiber’s way. And to be fair, the post would be fine if he’d just swapped in the word “pundit”; it makes a good data driven point about Romney’s limited electoral appeal.
But it reads like Scheiber’s forgotten that there’s a world of voters outside of the VP specularium, one where “most people” still think about how a candidate’s positions on issues will effect them—not how it will effect that candidate’s chance of winning.
Clint Hendler is the managing editor of Mother Jones, and a former deputy editor of CJR.