Don Carlson guest col: An elite error in prognostication

Elected officials, lobbyists, political candidates, activists, and media pundits — the political class — far too often project little more than self-interest-based elite opinion. The balance of so many lay people’s opinions are too often just that — opinion — uninformed, but strongly held. Now is the time for Isaac Asimov’s observation: “Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.”

A most discernable and noteworthy pattern established early about presidential politics 2016, has been and continues: elite opinion is meaningless — because many lay people don’t give a damn. So much of elite opinion is linked to either the donor class and/or to Nielson/Arbitron (television/radio) ratings. This has become a challenge for candidates of both parties, at all levels (yes, read: even local), as well as presidential candidates.

Hillary Clinton has been compelled to hear and must seriously confront this reality. As of this writing, Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old Brooklyn-born Vermont democratic-socialist, U.S. Senator, of the Jewish faith, has defeated the elite’s chosen one in 17 states. If Hillary is to be elected, her first presidential-level decision is going to be how to successfully deal with the most significant Bern.

Historically, only three U.S. Senators have been directly elected to the presidency: Harding, 1920; Kennedy, 1960; and Obama, 2008. Governors, however, have a high presidential probability. Undoubtedly, this fact of history was in large part why elite opinion “knew” former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and/or present Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (and possibly a ticket of the two) was the clearest path for Republicans to regain the White House.

However, lay opinion sent Walker packing for home before voting began. After spending 118 million in PAC and 32 million in campaign committee monies, in just the first three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina Jeb decided to tan out in Florida because of his single digit standings.

From the outset, elite opinion dismissed any probability on the nomination of Ted Cruz. The elites really knew he was just too Texas crude. Donald Trump was dismissed as even more narcissistic than any politician. He would implode early.

It’s timely to ask, have either elites and/or lay people acquired any meaningful insights from this ’16 dynamic? With elite opinion so skewed vs lay, is positive or productive governing — at any level — almost beyond any possibility?

Data that describes our local elite opinion — as expressed by the 97 Carson City Republican Central Committee’s delegates who voted candidate endorsements — with data that contrasts the universe of 22,500+ Carson City voters, provides an opportunity for any interested voter to be a participant-observer in an elite vs lay opinion overview study.

Age-based data: (elite) vs (lay)

Millennials: 18–33 (less than 1 percent) vs (12 percent); Generation X: 34-51 (8 percent) vs (21 percent); Baby Boomers: 52- 0 (66 percent) vs (40 percent); Silent Generation: 71-plus (26 percent) vs (27 percent).

Understandably, elite demographics don’t reflect lay characteristics. That shouldn’t be expected. That’s not their function — it’s not to represent — it’s not to mirror. Two of the goals of elite opinion are to form lay opinion, to mold behavior. From the elitist perspective elite opinion is what should be. In the event you seek to be a participant-observer in this overview study: 1) note the candidates who have and have not been endorsed; 2) vote; 3) on primary and general election nights study the returns of those who had and had not been endorsed; and 4) conclude if the local elite vs lay opinion dynamic is in keeping with the national trend, or is it different?

Don Carlson is a retired WNC professor of sociology who also practiced his academic discipline for nearly 40 years (as a for-profit business). My repeated goal was to scientifically measure what lay opinion was — not what it should have been. These studies were conducted in all regions of Nevada, in more than 300 campaigns, at all levels of public office.