I don't get this:
In the end, the problem was the LIVs. That's short for "low-information voters," the three fifths of the electorate that shows up once every four years to vote for president but mostly hates politics. These are the 75 million folks who didn't vote in the primaries. They don't read newsmagazines or newspapers, don't watch any cable news and don't cast their ballots early. Their allegiance to a candidate is as easily shed as a T shirt.
Out here in the Sandhills of Nebraska, where McCain-Palin is expected to do 80% or better, nobody hates politics. They might think politics silly at times, but if politics is dealing with an important matter--which it isn't always--they pay attention.
They vote in the primaries, some places even during dull primaries having in excess of 90% of registered-voter turnout. And some of these people do that even though it means a 120-mile round trip to the polling place.
Annual surveys of readership, nationally, show that these people subscribe to, and read, newpapers and newsmagazines something like six times the usual readership in urban areas.
Cable television has always been the only show out here--long before cable came to Boston or Chicago or San Francisco--because with just an antenna, one's not likely to get anything, given the distances.
What is this "low information" crap?
Looking for "low information voters" in this 80+% McCain-Palin area is like hunting for turtles in Antarctica, or fishing for bass in the Gobi Desert.
I frankly suggest the guy who wrote this article look in more-fertile areas for "low information voters"--places such as Skins's island, the inner cities, Vermont, whatnot.