While the information is interesting the leaps they make demonstrate a lack of understanding of the electoral process.
The self fulfilling prophecy of campaigns assuming donors ONLY donate and workers ONLY work provides all the explanation they need. Campaigns do this because resources are too valuable to “prospect” unproven sources for dollars or labor. It does not make it a correct path, but it is often followed without question due to lack of resources.
The authors were looking at the effect while ignoring the cause, and not even delving into the premise of why anyone takes any political action.
Anyone can look at something and make up a fancy name for it, however naming that which already exists does not provide insight.
Understanding the “why” is where knowledge and wisdom exist.
The premise matters. The authors never asked the question. The scientific method requires more.
LIKE LIGHTNING AND LIGHTNING BUGS: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POLI-FLUENTIALS AND ORDINARY POLITICAL DONORS by Carol C. Darr and Stephanie
H. Cacace1 May 28, 2009 PART I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This white paper provides additional information about “Poli-fluentials,” the extremely influential and politically hyperactive group of citizens who play an outsized role in American elections, as well as a second, far less active group who were called the “Politicals” in an earlier study,2 and who were defined by their willingness to donate and/or volunteer in the 2004 and 2006 elections. Given that only 12 percent of these
Entire paper found here: http://gspm.org/files/poliflue…