The pollster and political consultant Mark Penn takes credit for popularizing the term “soccer moms,” influential suburban voters who care more about health care than defense. In fact it was Susan Casey, a Democrat running for the Denver City Council in 1995, who first used the term in a political context. But when Mr. Penn hauled it out during President Clinton’s reelection campaign, touting it as the cycle’s key demographic, he became responsible for cementing its place in the sociopolitical lexicon.

Thanks to the term’s success, we now have Mr. Penn’s insipid, tone-deaf new book, “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve Books, 425 pages, $25.99). Mr. Penn, now worldwide CEO for a big-league public relations firm and an adviser to Senator Clinton, uses the book to make 75 attempts at identifying and packaging the next “soccer moms.” His stabs in the dark include “Archery Moms,” “Pro-Semites,” “Ardent Amazons,” and “Tech Fatales,” each more ham-handed than the next. The thesis is that such emerging movements, “generally hidden from all but the most careful observer,” are shaping the cultural and political landscape. Implied is that candidates and corporations should take notice, and advantage.

There’s a clear recipe for each of the 75 chapters in the book, cowritten with E. Kinney Zalesne. Step 1: Announce a piece of “counterintuitive” information that has already been so widely written about that it in fact is conventional wisdom. Did you know that a lot of couples meet online? That home schooling is on the rise? How about that plastic surgery is more popular than ever? You did know all that? Well, smartypants, don’t be a snob simply because you’ve looked at a television, logged onto the Internet, or picked up a newspaper over the past 10 years.

Step 2: Throw in some numbers. You might as well use your own data if you happen to be a professional pollster, but don’t knock yourself out; feel free to use dubious online surveys conducted by Match.com. Cite trend stories more than you cite polls, and lard with pop-cultural references. No VH-1 reality show is too minor.

Step 3: At the end of the chapter, riff on some potential business-world applications of your demographic discovery. Tattoo-parlor chains! Birthday cards for older women dating younger men! Then, just as a reader might think she’s finally getting something potentially practical, end with a completely unnecessary conclusion in which you throw in all the lazy stereotypes and bad jokes you didn’t have room for earlier. “Will a society with too many unattached women lead to peace?” (No.) “It’s the best news classical music’s had since Mozart shortened his first name from Johannes Chrystostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus.” (What?) “As the numbers keep growing, the numbers are likely to keep growing.” (Can’t argue with that.)

It’s really the second step here that is most troubling. Unfunny, flabby prose is a staple of business writing. But one would hope Mr. Penn would at least ace the polling: He’s been doing it for 30 years. In a chapter on “Snowed-Under Slobs,” however, he announces “a growing group of Americans” who won’t “Clean Up Our Act.” (He tends to capitalize phrases he finds witty.) The evidence is a 2007 poll that found1in20respondentsself-identified as “very messy,” said others would call them a slob, or that messiness had lessened their quality of life. Mr. Penn explains why slobs are slovenly, how they feel about it, and what socioeconomic class they belong to. The one thing he does not do is prove their numbers are increasing.

In another chapter, he touts a 2000 Pew survey that reported 12 million people who said they do not use the Internet had experienced it, but quit. In 2002 (or 2003; the chart contradicts the text), that number had grown to 15 million. What Mr. Penn never explains is how many people used the Internet for the first time between 2000 and 2002, the statistic that could make the drop-out figure truly significant — or not. Other chapters rely on online surveys, with no evidence that the results hold up to political science standards.

One chapter that includes plenty of serious data is “Bourgeois and Bankrupt,” which reports that personal bankruptcy filings rose about 350% between 1980 and 2005. That means “If personal bankruptcies keep rising at current rates, there will be nearly 8 million people going bankrupt a year by 2025.” Startling stuff. But a major overhaul of U.S. bankruptcy law in October 2005 goes undiscussed in the chapter. In 2006, the same interest group from which Mr. Penn culled his 1980-2004 statistics reported that filings had dropped to their lowest level since 1988. Even if this turns out to be an errant blip, the omission is glaring.

There are a few grains of interest among all this pablum: Women drive more automobile and technology purchases than men. The wealthy and well-educated vote on personality, while the middle and lower classes vote on issues. And, in a December 2006 survey, 1% of Californians aged 16-22 volunteered that they expected to be a military sniper in 10 years. In the end, the book has merit as a snapshot of 75 current memes, some supported by data, others questionable yet buzz-worthy. But it would have been valuable at 75 pages, not 425.