The Media: "Clinton Supporters Will All Support Obama"

The media could learn something from theoretical physics.

There's a joke I've heard (in nerdy scientific circles) that goes something like this:

Questioner: "How much water is displaced when a cow is placed in a tank of water?"

Theoretical Physicist: "Well, first let's assume the cow is spherical..."

Mention the "spherical cow" to any scientists and they'll know what you are talking about. It references the attempt to over-simplify something real and complex into something that can be defined with nice well-known formulas.

I thought of this listening to several commentators on the Sunday morning talk shows, talking about how crazy it is to think that Clinton supporters will move to support McCain now that he's picked Palin as the VP. I won't bother to even link to any of them. Just listen to any of the shows and you'll hear something like this:

Moderator: "McCain clearly hopes to gain the support of some former Clinton supporters by this pick. Will that happen?"

Pundit: "Come on, that is insulting to women. Palin does not share Clinton's view on the issues. On abortion, she is pro-life."

In making this argument, the pundit is using a "spherical Clinton supporter". For one thing, he is assuming all Clinton supporters agreed with Clinton on all of the issues. This is obviously an over-simplification. People support candidates for all sorts of reasons (including experience, for example), and rarely does a citizen find a candidate which which she agrees 100%. So, while it's true that Palin disagrees with Hillary on most issues, she could still be appealing to some former Clinton supporters who were more moderate than Hillary. Hillary did well with Catholics in Pennsylvania, at least some of which I assume are pro-life, although maybe not passionately so. (Apparently questions on abortion aren't included in the democratic exit-polls, so it's impossible to know for sure, but I think it's safe to assume that not 100% of democrats are pro-choice).

Secondly, using the abortion is as the obligatory example is deceptive. Abortion, compared to other issues, is mostly black and white. Either you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. Sure, there's some gray area (late term abortion, for example), but in comparison to issues such as the economy or national security, there is not much nuance. But on issues other than abortion, there is more room for nuance. For example, Clinton wanted to tax the oil companies. Palin also supported that in her state. Sure, their overall positions on energy are very different, but it can't be characterized as completely opposing because the issue cannot be represented as a line. It is a mult-dimensional issue. Furthermore, abortion isn't really a hot issue this election cycle.

Lastly, some people supported Hillary because they felt she was the most experience candidate and strong on national security. For those people, McCain might be the second choice rather than Hillary. This point is made well here.

Of course no one is predicting that massive throngs of Hillary supporters will flock to McCain because of the Palin pick. That would indeed be insulting to women to suggest. But some minority will move to McCain, either because they like McCain (perhaps because of his experience) or else because of Palin. And in a close election, that could make the difference.