The 'functional' electorate is divided between partisans of each side who are aware of the issues but whose opinions thereof are vitiated by the taint of bias - these partisans may be paying attention but they view all through distorting glass. There indeed are moderates in each camp of a more reasonable and objective bent who are susceptible to breaking off and adhering to the other if properly motivated, but one suspects that the more ideologically rancorous a campaign becomes the more likely these moderates 'keep the faith' and stay close to home - this no doubt why Obama all along has been running such a negative race based on class warfare rhetoric, character assassination, racist innuendo etc etc. One would hope that moderate democrats would be inclined to shake off their chains and wander given the state of the economy and the sad state of the country in general, but polling suggests these potential 'free elements' can be held in place by blaming Bush - and accordingly Obama's stock response by way of explanation viz current trouble is to blame Bush - witness too Clinton's tour de force of Bush blaming at the convention.
The 'dysfunctional' part of the electorate [these assignations obviously quite relative given that under the cold light of reason the entire electorate is essentially dysfunctional and to a jaundiced cynic like me probably beyond all hope of salvation] belongs to the independents - unlike partisans, these intrepid souls cling to their ignorance of the issues, either because of a native dislike of politics or more likely simply out of laziness or indifference. On the plus side, this lassitude tends to leave them free of ideological prejudices - of course it also leaves them quite vulnerable to simplistic messaging and impulsive rationalizations. The keen insight of this esteemed group decides elections.
Which brings us to the fourth estate and the media in general - if independents decide elections and at the same time are highly vulnerable to easy manipulation - and we add to that the reality that increasingly our perceptions are controlled by simplistic, exploitative media and this media has an undeniable liberal bias and in the case of Obama a bias so visceral that one smells the rank rot of a desperate and utter corruption - well, isn't that a rather toxic and fragile delineation? Are we not straddling the abyss here? Does this election fascinate because the dynamics of it might finally throw into sharp focus just how close we are to a dangerous upheaval or a despairing decline?
[this why I tended to believe that should Obama end up winning when by all rights he should be toast, in the final analysis probably the only person who had a chance to beat him was Christie - the big guy couldn't have reversed media bias of course, but given how appealing a character he is and how that would have made it hard for the media to contain him or falsely pin him to a narrative, these qualities would have stood him in good stead and well positioned to effectively counter-act Obama worship, to level the playing field as it were. Ryan helps Romney in this regard, and should he convincingly destroy Biden in the debate that will help a great deal - but only if Romney also does well in the debates. With the help of media bias painting Reagan as a dangerous, dimwitted right wing extremist, the wholly undeserving Carter was leading well into October of 1980 - but then the debates revealed a Reagan at odds with the media portrait of him and the rest is history. Romney will likely have to pull off the same kind of reveal - unfortunately, Romney is no Reagan - on the bright side, 'undecideds' tend to break against an incumbent, and if one believes recent analysis that suggests the polls are not capturing the true disposition of things, ie Romney is actually ahead, then carrying the bulk of the undecideds should be enough to show Obama the door regardless of the media's fervent desire to not let their cherished liberal dreaminess crash and burn]
[cause when you think about it the uber left and their media cohorts absolutely need Obama to win in order to save themselves, to preserve that dreamy prism through which they view the world and their place in it - Obama's a manifestation of every naively idealistic bit of nonsense they believe in, without a second term in which to rewrite the history which at this point will label him a Carter-like disaster of a president, what becomes of them? Even they may not be able to summon up the vast amount of denial and dissembling that will be required to drown out this reality - although, if anyone can do it it's these people]
[fair to say though that likewise I need him to lose in order to preserve my narrative - right now everything has played out the way I predicted in 2006 viz Dear Leader, so given that odds may incline one to think that a second term couldn't possibly be as bad as the first, there's a risk there to me - still, I'm pretty confident in my judgement that Dear Leader is an absolutely awful fit for CEO of America - he should be out giving pretty speeches to the hopelessly deluded, that's what he's good at, that's where he belongs]
