Via Dave Weigel, if that headline reads funny to you, don’t worry. Soon all will become clear. This comes from the same guy who recently stumped Debbie Wasserman-Schultz by asking her what she thought of the “kill list,” which Debbie took to be so outlandish an idea that it simply must be a prank. Nope — but after watching this, you’ll have a bit more insight into her ignorance. There’s a lot going on here: These are, almost certainly, what we’d call “low-information voters,” and like most of the public, it’s easier for them to assume the worst about the guy from the other party than the guy whom they support. (The flip side to this experiment is telling Obama voters that he supports some insane policy that the interviewer’s made up whole cloth and then see how many will say they agree with it.) But then, that’s how power grabs become institutionalized. As the two parties alternate in controlling the government, each side’s supporters feel obliged to defend — or at least ignore — their guy’s overreach while it’s under sharp attack from their political opponents. Most people aren’t wonks; their policy preferences are heavily informed by what people on their own side whom they trust are saying. Of course, you already knew all this.
Weigel’s post ends by noting that you can’t blame average voters for spacing on the “kill list” when the media hasn’t spent much time covering it. True, but if Romney hits 270, that’ll change soon. The list will be the Biggest Issue Ever.