Let's face it, just about anyone who is an undecided voter at this point is... well, not especially bright. Some are genuinely stupid, and some may be smart people who just don't think paying attention to current events is a valuable use of their time. Obviously from the perspective of predicting election outcomes it's useful to know what these people are thinking. However, it's not clear why handing a debate over to 80 of them and letting them write the questions (chosen by Brokaw, of course) is supposed to enlighten the rest of us.
I'm listening to an interview with an undecided right now. He says -- after watching the debate last night -- that he "doesn't have enough information yet," and he admits that he'll need to do some reading before the election. The urge to reach through the radio and choke the life out the guy is overwhelming -- I had to put the radio on a high shelf, lest I do harm to myself. I'm convinced there's a class of voters out there -- none very bright -- who just want to be on the radio and the teevee. And they've realized that loudly hemming and hawing their way through October -- "I am undecided! Woe is me! Who shall I vote for? Who?" -- will attract the attention of candidates, pollsters, reporters, etc.
Here's what I don't get: How does endlessly interviewing undecideds about their indecision help undecideds make up their fucking minds already? Wouldn't it be better for undecideds to listen to interviews with, oh, the candidates and voters who have been paying attention, have enough information to speak intelligently about the candidates, and have made up their minds?
Get the best of the Mercury each week in your inbox!