I’ve been dismayed by the after-debate interviews of the “undecided voters” performed by the low-level grunts of the various television networks. You know what I’m talking about. Typically, a group of these reluctant individuals recline in some plush stadium seating and are filmed clutching those absurd, pseduo-scientific Luntzian pleasure dials as they watch the debate. After, a reporter will thrust a microphone into the doughy face of some overstuffed slob and ask them what they thought.
The moment of truth.
Invariably they say something like “I didn’t hear any specifics from the candidates” or “I wished the candidates had talked about their views on X.”
Take this guy, Winston Quezada, and his response to the recent town-hall debate for example:
“To me it was like a boxing match that went 12 rounds, and it was kind of a split decision. I was looking for a knockout,” the financial analyst said.
Topics each of the campaigns still need to address with specificity in Quezada’s view: withdrawal from Iraq and energy policy.
“For me a timetable is going to be critical,” Quezada said of the ongoing war.
As far as energy policy, the still undecided voter said he hasn’t heard much more than rhetoric from the candidates, while feeling his wallet continually squeezed by the price of gas.
“Give me some meat. Not just, ‘We need energy independence.’ Of course we need energy independence, but give me some more,” he said.
Why is it that the “independent voter” is only capable of speaking in metaphors involving meat and violent sports?
Listen, Winston, there is a candidate with a clearly expressed view on the topic of withdrawal from Iraq. He even has a timeline. And over at his website there are nuanced and specific — I mean “meaty” — policy positions on everything under the sun, from Civil Rights to Women. Why don’t you put down the Nintendo Wii controller just long enough to figure out the answers to your own questions?
When did we forget that we each have a basic civic duty to do our own research on these candidates? Aren’t we responsible for investigating how each candidate measures up to our values and ideas and hopes? If there are issues that are important to you, shouldn’t you be willing to spend some time reading the candidate’s position papers, doing independent research, and investigating their records? How is it that we got so lazy and incurious that we expect a televised event of dueling soundbites to provide substantive basis for decision-making?
I think that the so-called “undecided voter” isn’t the fussy and meticulous political animal that they imagine themselves to be. The truth is that there are no such things as an “undecided voters,” only unintelligent ones.