There are a few things that I've never understood about the "endorsement" process. Theoretically, I guess the way it's supposed to work is a candidate wins the endorsement of an individual voter's favorite politician, actor or talk show host, and the endorsement causes the voter to support the endorsed candidate.
It always seemed to me that this would only work for the most weak-minded and disengaged voters. If you're withholding your support waiting to see who gifted actor Viggo Mortensen goes with, odds are that you're neither a high-end news gatherer nor a particularly serious voter. (In case you're wondering, Mortensen endorsed Dennis Kucinich - cast your vote accordingly.)
So here's the paradox -these endorsements are supposed to sway the most disengaged and frivolous of voters. But, thinking rationally, how are such people supposed to even learn of the endorsements in the first place? I don't imagine such voters sitting by their TVs on a Saturday night hoping that Charlie Crist will finally reveal his intentions. For instance, a rumor circulated last night that Crist would share Tim Russert's desk with McCain this morning. That's all well and good, but disengaged voters don't watch Meet the Press.
Specifically regarding the Crist endorsement, I can only offer my perspective as a part-time Floridian. Crist is a popular governor. I've also heard some stuff about him trying to slash property tax rates by a percentage point, something that will surely win friends and influence people in the Sunshine State. Then again, our collapsing property values are already in the process of giving us some relief on that front. (You have to look on the bright side of things.)
Because of what I do, my friends and neighbors seek me out for horserace conversations somewhat frequently. Many of the Republicans I've spoke with in Florida have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the field. But I've never heard anyone say, "You know what I'm going to do? I'm just going to vote for whoever Charlie Crist tells me to."
Don't get me wrong - I can understand the practical advantages of getting an endorsement. I guess Charlie Crist could unleash the massive Crist machine to do Senator McCain's bidding over these final frantic 48 hours. And an endorsement from Ted Kennedy might well win you an invitation to play touch football at Hyannisport. Lucky Obama! In a rare case, an endorser can become a particular campaign's perfect surrogate. Think Chuck Norris.
But what I don't understand is why so many people in the media hear about an endorsement of the Crist variety and burble, "This is huge!" It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis to see what correlation late-in-the-day,high-profile endorsements have with the eventual results. My money would be on slim to none.
I would even wager there's an inverse correlation to winning late endorsements and winning elections since the very act of endorsement seeking sometimes reflects a campaign's desperation.
