Predictions galore the last few days about how these events would tank Obama's numbers--and even his candidacy. Even The New Republic is jumping on the bandwagon. Consider today's piece by John Judis:
There is even a slight chance that Obama's words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It's not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.
Did anyone bother to consider polls? Today's Gallup:
Barack Obama has an 11 percentage point, 51% to 40%, lead over Hillary Clinton among Democrats nationally in the latest April 12-14 Gallup Poll Daily tracking update, his largest margin to date.
The latest PA polls conducted at least partly after the Bitter-gate controversy (courtesy of DailyKos):
Quinnipiac 4/9-13. MoE 2.1% (4/3-6 results)
Clinton 50 (50)
Obama 44 (44)
SurveyUSA 4/12-14. MoE 3.9% (4/5-7 results)
Clinton 54 (56)
Obama 40 (38)
Rasmussen 4/14. MoE 4.0% (4/7 results)
Clinton 50 (48)
Obama 41 (43)
One shows no change, one shows HRC gaining and Obama dropping, and a third shows Obama gaining. Whoops!
While it is still possible that the controversy needs more time to sink in, this has been EVERYWHERE in the PA media since Friday (4/11) and does not appear to be hurting Mr. Obama.
It is truly glorious when Washington elites decide how small-town folk will feel... and then prove to be horribly wrong.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Beltway Narratives on Elitism
It seems that beltway media insiders have decided that, with the nomination basically locked up, it is time to scare the hell out of Democratic superdelegates and create electoral problems for Barack Obama in the general. These people have seen Democrats lose before (and helped make it happen), and think that apparent elitism has been a big part of the problem. They cannot escape the prism of the last few campaigns to examine the electorate. They are the ones who condescend and degrade the electorate when they repeatedly tell us one dumb quote by Obama will taint him, as if these blue collar folks cannot size people up except via the single sound bite.
Consider the discussions tonight on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN about Obama's problems. Pundits say:
-The substance of this "bitter" quote does not matter because the American people have chosen good 'ol boys over "elitists" like John Kerry and Al Gore before. Hmm, I wonder who made these men so elitist and out of touch? Oh, right, beltway writers in love with the romanticism of cowboy George W. Bush. And who made the economy worse for working people? Oh, right, George Bush.
-Obama is an Ivy-league educated man who is not a blabbering fool but can actually form coherent sentences. Never mind that he is the only candidate not to take lobbyist money--he just SEEMS so elite and well-spoken, why not write stories about it?
As Rachel Maddow trenchantly pointed out, John McCain does not get scrutinized for making extremely important factual mistakes about Muslims and who is and is not in al Qaeda because such mistakes do not fit into the MSM narrative about him. Meantime, the flowery, dazzling Obama says something that is probably factually accurate (if poorly worded) and it becomes a huge scandal. Not because it is problematic with voters, but because MSM writers have decided it ought to be. So they report the hell out of it and distort it and make him seem elitist, so when voters start to think he is elitist (because of reporting), the chattering class will look to have been correct all along!
The best way to condescend is to think for others, to predict their thoughts, to essentialize them based on one or two elections. That is what prejudice is all about. And these pundits are guilty.
Consider the discussions tonight on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN about Obama's problems. Pundits say:
-The substance of this "bitter" quote does not matter because the American people have chosen good 'ol boys over "elitists" like John Kerry and Al Gore before. Hmm, I wonder who made these men so elitist and out of touch? Oh, right, beltway writers in love with the romanticism of cowboy George W. Bush. And who made the economy worse for working people? Oh, right, George Bush.
-Obama is an Ivy-league educated man who is not a blabbering fool but can actually form coherent sentences. Never mind that he is the only candidate not to take lobbyist money--he just SEEMS so elite and well-spoken, why not write stories about it?
As Rachel Maddow trenchantly pointed out, John McCain does not get scrutinized for making extremely important factual mistakes about Muslims and who is and is not in al Qaeda because such mistakes do not fit into the MSM narrative about him. Meantime, the flowery, dazzling Obama says something that is probably factually accurate (if poorly worded) and it becomes a huge scandal. Not because it is problematic with voters, but because MSM writers have decided it ought to be. So they report the hell out of it and distort it and make him seem elitist, so when voters start to think he is elitist (because of reporting), the chattering class will look to have been correct all along!
The best way to condescend is to think for others, to predict their thoughts, to essentialize them based on one or two elections. That is what prejudice is all about. And these pundits are guilty.
False, Elitist Outrage
It never ceases to amaze how beltway types will become incensed on behalf of "the people." This Bitter-gate business is a perfect example.
Consider:
John King, attendee of Boston Latin School, one of the fanciest high schools in the country, essentially getting angry and indignant on CNN, repeatedly describing Obama's comments as somewhere between condescending and downright mean.
Then there are the Bill Kristol's of the world, wealthy Bush-tax-cut types who just love their guns and religion and will not stand for their small town "brethren" being made fun of. Kristol writes in his most recent column:
What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.
The incompetent, raving lunatic the New York Times hired continues to produce wonderful ad material for the Republicans--but nothing more.
Consider:
John King, attendee of Boston Latin School, one of the fanciest high schools in the country, essentially getting angry and indignant on CNN, repeatedly describing Obama's comments as somewhere between condescending and downright mean.
Then there are the Bill Kristol's of the world, wealthy Bush-tax-cut types who just love their guns and religion and will not stand for their small town "brethren" being made fun of. Kristol writes in his most recent column:
What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.
The incompetent, raving lunatic the New York Times hired continues to produce wonderful ad material for the Republicans--but nothing more.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Bitter-gate
The Politico, a comprehensive, well-reported news site that just started up last year, often drives the CW in Washington and around the country.
So it's troubling when they post a half dozen stories and blog posts about how damaging, worrisome, and controversial Obama's recent "bitter" remarks are.
Are they wrong?
No, they are not wrong, per se. There must be some blue-collar people who will be upset by this, and it is a somewhat poorly worded attempt at the Thomas Frank "What's the Matter with Kansas" argument. It was a gaffe, to be sure.
That being said, these writers are clearly beltway insiders overwhelmed with their own coverage of past elections and incapable of restraining themselves from repeating past narratives. They have suddenly started fear-mongering about Democrats, cultural issues (guns, gays, religion), and bring up the John Kerry gaffes of the 2004 campaign.
Their problem is not that these discussions are utterly inappropriate so much as simpleminded and, well, rather narrow-minded as well. These writers refuse to see things in a broader context, only relying on their short-term memories and what their knee-jerk reaction says will be the next big story. They cannot escape the Kerry, liberal elitist meme because it belongs to them--they have a vested interest in keeping their creation alive.
Another score for partisan media over the Beltway establishment on this one, I must say.
As for the substance of the question: will this hurt Obama?
My sense at this point is not really--it seems like it's being over-hyped because, for some awful reason, the media are determined that this Barack Hussein (OMG!) Obama guy is on the cusp of being president. Where are the angry, lower-middle class white backlash voters?! What the hell is going on, these reporters are thinking.
Every week they try and determine if Obama has finally shown his true, exotic, elitist colors so this dream can end and the real world--the Clintons as ultra-competent, John McCain as a pure reformer and maverick--can resume. Unfortunately for these folks, the latter is itself fictional. American anger, and yes, bitterness, is the most real thing going on right now in the United States. I suppose we will see what gets made of this. If Obama survives, it will be because Axelrod and Plouffe are running an efficient operation over there, and it will be despite a Beltway establishment anxious for this to become a story--anxious like school-kids waiting for popsicles in the summer time.
P.S - I haven't posted much lately. Been busy. Will resume in force, esp. as the summer is beginning for me over here at U-M.
So it's troubling when they post a half dozen stories and blog posts about how damaging, worrisome, and controversial Obama's recent "bitter" remarks are.
Are they wrong?
No, they are not wrong, per se. There must be some blue-collar people who will be upset by this, and it is a somewhat poorly worded attempt at the Thomas Frank "What's the Matter with Kansas" argument. It was a gaffe, to be sure.
That being said, these writers are clearly beltway insiders overwhelmed with their own coverage of past elections and incapable of restraining themselves from repeating past narratives. They have suddenly started fear-mongering about Democrats, cultural issues (guns, gays, religion), and bring up the John Kerry gaffes of the 2004 campaign.
Their problem is not that these discussions are utterly inappropriate so much as simpleminded and, well, rather narrow-minded as well. These writers refuse to see things in a broader context, only relying on their short-term memories and what their knee-jerk reaction says will be the next big story. They cannot escape the Kerry, liberal elitist meme because it belongs to them--they have a vested interest in keeping their creation alive.
Another score for partisan media over the Beltway establishment on this one, I must say.
As for the substance of the question: will this hurt Obama?
My sense at this point is not really--it seems like it's being over-hyped because, for some awful reason, the media are determined that this Barack Hussein (OMG!) Obama guy is on the cusp of being president. Where are the angry, lower-middle class white backlash voters?! What the hell is going on, these reporters are thinking.
Every week they try and determine if Obama has finally shown his true, exotic, elitist colors so this dream can end and the real world--the Clintons as ultra-competent, John McCain as a pure reformer and maverick--can resume. Unfortunately for these folks, the latter is itself fictional. American anger, and yes, bitterness, is the most real thing going on right now in the United States. I suppose we will see what gets made of this. If Obama survives, it will be because Axelrod and Plouffe are running an efficient operation over there, and it will be despite a Beltway establishment anxious for this to become a story--anxious like school-kids waiting for popsicles in the summer time.
P.S - I haven't posted much lately. Been busy. Will resume in force, esp. as the summer is beginning for me over here at U-M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
