On the Enthusiasm Gap That Doesn't Exist

[Content Note: Misogyny; racism.]

I've got a new piece up at Blue Nation Review addressing the false media narrative of the (nonexistent) enthusiasm gap among Hillary Clinton supporters, and how it's not merely wrong but harmful:
Gallup did what (apparently) none of the people repeating ad nauseam the "enthusiasm gap" narrative could be bothered to do: They simply spoke to Clinton voters and asked them if they are enthusiastic about her. And, as it turns out, they are.

Which, really, should not be surprising, since Clinton is leading by a large margin in primary votes. The people who participate in primaries, which is a relatively small portion of the number of qualified voters, tend to be enthusiastic participants in the electoral process. Most people who are indifferent, or would have to hold their noses to vote, aren’t always motivated to vote in primaries.

It was always the more reasonable assumption that someone who is winning the primary has enthusiastic supporters.

So why is it, then, that this particular media narrative took hold? Why, in spite of the safe assumption that primary voters casting their votes for Hillary were enthusiastic for her, and in spite of the fact that it was easy enough to discern by asking, have the media continued to cling to this narrative about an "enthusiasm gap" haunting Hillary?
I have some ideas about that! Click through to read the entire thing.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus