I just took a peak at MSNBC's view of the 2004 Presidential race, the so-called Demo Derby (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3751147/). It's supposed to show (on a scale) where each of the candidates are compared to each other.
I took a sneak peak at the most recent demo derby update (they're updated roughly every week) and saw Dean a hairs-breadth ahead of Gephardt, with Clark, Kerry (?) and Lieberman bunched together in an isolated second-tier.
My first response was "What the hell are these guys smoking?" Then, I decided to take a look at their 'justifications'. I've decided that the people who make these are stupid, incompetent, or have been on Pluto the past few months.
My reasons for this conclusion are as such:
Firstly, the 'scale': How is Dick Gephardt anywhere near Dean with regard to anything? Leaked fundraising numbers show Gephardt's down the tubes, and while there's no estimate from Dean, it's likely that it will be above ten million. Gephardt can't scratch up a third of that.
Polls (supposedly a big factor in determining their scale)? Gephardt isn't leading in any state except his own from any poll taken in the past month or two, I believe. Even if he did, Dean leads any of the other candidates in all the most recent polling, including national polls.
The latest delegate count (http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2003/12/20/163655/49/displaystory// , kudos to Adam in Mass) put Dean at just over 2,000 delegates, creeping towards the magic number of 2,159 to win. Gephardt's paltry 238 is nowhere near that.
So the only thing left that is listed under the description at the Demo Derby site is the "wisdom of the editors".
Hmm. Personally, I'd add a "lack of" in front of that statement. We at the dKos have (in my opinion) a better take on this race than any of those MSNBC dunderheads. Clark in the same group as Kerry and Lieberman? Honestly.
The Demo Derby's reason for Lieberman's strength (Kerry's isn't mentioned): "Lieberman moves up in this edition of Demo Derby on the strength of his vigorous attack on Dean.
Well, it's good to know that the editors of MSNBC know exactly what the public thinks about Lieberman's attacks on Dean. Maybe they've seen some poll numbers that ask "Do Sen. Lieberman's recent attacks on Howard Dean make you more favorable, less favorable, or inconclusive towards Howard Dean? Also, do Sen. Lieberman's attacks on Howard Dean make you more favorable, less favorable, or inconclusive towards Sen. Lieberman?"
If the editors haven't done a poll that asks this very question, they don't have a right to say that Lieberman's rising in the polls (however inconclusive) is because of his attacks on Dean.
But silly me. Since when did the punditocracy ever require proof to back up their opinionated rants?