« CNN poll shows Hillary leading McCain | Main | Alcee Hastings as Intelligence chair? »

October 24, 2006

Comments

Alterman came back with this note today:

"Barron's methodology may be screwed, but the point holds. This is a democracy of dollars, not votes."

And after that he muses for a paragraph on drug companies giving money to Republicans to get them elected so favorable laws aren't re-written. And, he drops the entire point of whether a money-only assessment is good methodology.

Whenever someone scales back to a more general, basic point, it's because their original (and more particular) argument couldn't hold water. The point was, I thought, that Barrons projected a retention of the Republican majority and that looking at money alone proves this.

So when Alterman says "This is a democracy of dollars, not votes" is he implying that on some level he was previously on solid footing?

Perhaps this is a step too far into pedantics. Not because he's any more right than he was, but because of the high speed low memory pace needed to keep up with everything which let trifles like this slide by unanswered.

The comments to this entry are closed.