The New York Times wants me to be stupid

That is the only explanation I can come up with for why they continue to employ David Brooks. Here is the opening from today’s effort in the Paper of Record.

Why isn’t Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two- or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead?

OMG that is a lot of stupid to absorb in just the lead paragraph but I cannot let this nonsense slide so into the chasm of dumb we go. To begin with, national tracking polls at this point in the race are beyond pointless when attempting to judge the horserace. As Al Gore proved so painfully in 2000, the popular vote which the national tracking polls measure is irrelevant. This is a state level contest now. Brooks, a presumably astute political observer, should understand that but what the hell, he has a column a write and a false premise to prove.

Second, his assumption that the race is within two or three points is not just wrong but supersized, double deluxe wrong. According to Pollster.com, their state by state electoral vote aggregation shows Obama up 284 to 157 with 94 votes undecided. Furthermore, all of the tossup states, with the exception of Florida and Missouri, are traditional Red states in which McCain should be way ahead. Now, it only takes 271 electoral votes to win the race so by that standard (the only one that matters BTW), Obama is not just winning, he is kicking McCain’s ass. And yet Brooks sees a virtual tie. That is some awesome punditry.

Finally, I must concede that Brooks has a point in that Obama is underperforming vis-à-vis the Democratic brand but I am not sure how important that is, especially prior to the convention. Brooks argues that because people have a hard time pigeonholing Obama, they are not comfortable voting for him. I think there are two more likely reasons for that. One, there are, unfortunately, some people that will not vote for a black man. And two, there are a lot of bitter former Hillary supporters out there that have not yet gotten behind Obama but when faced with the prospect of a third Bush term, they will get over it and come home. After a rancorous primary, that seems more plausible than Brooks's sojourner thesis but then again, what do I know. I am just some jerkoff with a website while David Brooks writes editorials for the Times.