NPR: Many Voters Won't Pay Attention Until '08 World Series

Many Voters Won't Pay Attention Until '08 World Series

For people who've been following the two presidential nomination campaigns for several months now, and are looking forward to see what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, the suggestion that many Americans won't even start to pay attention to who is running for president until after the 2008 World Series might seem wildly mistaken. But that what Charles Cook — the writer of the nonpartisan newsletter, the Cook Political Report, which has been analyzing national elections since 1984 — believes.

Cook made the remark as part of a speech he gave at Fordham University about the 2008 elections. He also called the current political environment the "weirdest" he has ever seen.

New York political consultant Jerry Skurnik, who went to hear Cook's talk and blogged about it on his website, Room 8. Skurnik says this notion of Cook's that people start to pay attention to politics at different times supports a theory that he has.

For people who follow everything in politics, there has never been a better time. Thanks to 24x7 cable, the Internet, broadcast radio, satellite radio, newspapers, magazine, etc. political junkies (apologies to Ken Rudin) can follow almost every door-to-door visit of a candidate in Iowa or New Hampshire.

But there is a dark lining to this silver cloud, Skurnik suggests. For people who don't follow politics, those many folks who don't pay attention until after the last pitch of the series, this is the worse time. In the past, when there were fewer choices, they would rely primarily on the evening newscast, or their local paper, to relay the latest political information the needed. But now, with the wide range of choices of media, many people don't regularly watch any newscast of any kind, or even subscribe to a paper.

So in the end, Spurnik argues, this section of the public is actually less informed that they were before, despite all the information available.

He writes that this difference in when people begin to follow an election could explain why some pundits make predictions that are decidedly off the mark, or miss some trend that ultimately propels a candidate to victory.

1:16 PM ET | 12-17-2007 | permalink

Comments

Cook and Skurnik are both right, at least as it applies to me, a resident of a rural part of Washington state. The newspaper here has almost no national news, cable and satellite TV are too expensive, and the election is a year away. I've read a slight bit about the candidates, but the couple who interest me are so far back in the pack already that I doubt either will get the party nomination. So why should I waste time tracking all the minutia of a process in which I'm disenfranchised? I'll get interested sometime after the Fourth of July, definitely by Labor Day, unless both parties' nominees are two sides of the same coin, in which case I'll not bother to vote.

Sent by Jon Jensen | 4:14 PM ET | 12-17-2007

People in this country are stupid. YOu don't vote and don't pay attention, you risk dealings with worthless, evil Repubicans.

Sent by trelos mitsos | 5:30 PM ET | 12-17-2007

A typical Iowa caucus:

At Teddy's Bar and Grill, the neighborhood gathered in Teddy's to have their caucus.

Teddy said, "Everyone for Hillary, go over to that wall over there."

"Everybody for Mike Huckabee, go over to that wall....where there's a glass of free beer for every voter."

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 6:13 PM ET | 12-17-2007

This is why campaign advertising needs reform too.
My sugestions:
1) Each candidate can have ONLY 2 commercials per day.
2) No commercials on Election Day.
3) Media outlets can charge "whatever they can get" for campaign ads.
4) Lies, half-truths, and other "libel" will get you sued! (win or loose)

This should cut-down the amount of money required to run a campaign also!(No more BIG donors to suck-up to!)

Sent by Harold | 5:10 PM ET | 12-18-2007

oh Harold. please.

1) violates first amendment
2) see above
3) Don't they already?
4) Ah, ok I see your real agenda. You're a lawyer, right?

This is why the wealthy decide who gets to run, btw.

Sent by John R. Otten | 10:49 PM ET | 12-18-2007

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.