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.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Clinton supporters ditching Obama in the general?
Much was made of a recent Gallup report indicating some 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, while just 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if Clinton gets it.
What does this mean and where does it come from?
Well, first, it does not help that HRC is running a deliberately disparaging campaign against Obama, intent on making herself and John McCain the adults and Obama, despite being in her own party, some sort of unelectable child. Her supporters are partly just taking the message from the top down.
What else accounts for such a percentage? Well, I'll say it. Race!
Consider the CNN Ohio Exit Poll: of the 20% of voters who said race was a factor in their decision, they went 59%-39% for HRC. The trend is there in other state polls, and not just the deep south ones.
Nonetheless, I think these divisions are overstated. Nomination contests are often divisive (think the GOP in 2000), but the parties tend to coalesce. That assumes, of course, the loser drops out before the convention and allows the party the summer to build organization and unify before a fall campaign. Consider this bit of analysis from Gallup:
Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.
It's on you, Hillary. The party, or you?
What does this mean and where does it come from?
Well, first, it does not help that HRC is running a deliberately disparaging campaign against Obama, intent on making herself and John McCain the adults and Obama, despite being in her own party, some sort of unelectable child. Her supporters are partly just taking the message from the top down.
What else accounts for such a percentage? Well, I'll say it. Race!
Consider the CNN Ohio Exit Poll: of the 20% of voters who said race was a factor in their decision, they went 59%-39% for HRC. The trend is there in other state polls, and not just the deep south ones.
Nonetheless, I think these divisions are overstated. Nomination contests are often divisive (think the GOP in 2000), but the parties tend to coalesce. That assumes, of course, the loser drops out before the convention and allows the party the summer to build organization and unify before a fall campaign. Consider this bit of analysis from Gallup:
Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.
It's on you, Hillary. The party, or you?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Do the Beltway Media aid in creating the White Backlash Effect?
I wonder.
The white backlash vote is well documented in the history books. It helped hand Nixon two victories in '68 and '72, powered Reagan and Bush 41, and has been the subject of countless stories and political theories. Whether it's the Willie Horton ad, or Nixon's successful use of busing as a campaign issue, white, blue-collar folks--"Reagan Democrats"-- have repeatedly shown anger at what they apparently view as excessively "repentant" philosophies of civil rights and liberal government.
So the question has been posed repeatedly throughout this campaign: is Barack Obama different? When he wins a state like Wisconsin, he clearly is, as he essentially ties HRC in the white and under $50,000 a year vote. When he loses a state like Ohio, he's apparently in deep shit. Especially when exit polls show 20% of voters took race into account (of those who took race into account in Ohio, they went for HRC by a 3:2 ratio, according to the CNN exit poll). Commentators then speculate: is BHO too black? Are they flocking to Hillary because of race or just becuase they like her on bread and butter issues? Their answer: probably both.
So when the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted, and because these political analysts have been raised in the political journalism tradition of seeking out demographic trends and carelessly fitting them into their ideas of American history, it was suddenly clear: Obama's white support is tanking in the primary, and this will hurt him with white voters in the general. They did not wait for polls to show this. They, instead, predicted, and, indeed, may have contributed to, this process.
When writers say things like (from Politico):
A failure [to address the Wright problem] could leave many of the white independent voters — a key group behind Obama’s swift rise in national politics — doubting whether he is really the bridge-builder and healer he has portrayed himself to be.
...I can't help but feel as if they are helping to make it so. Now, one would argue they have historical bases for their statements, and they do. But the simple fact is that Barack Obama is not every other black guy, and this is not 1988. Media commentators have wondered if he would be "branded" as the Jesse Jackson kind of black politician, and thus far, he hasn't been. But when such moral deference is given to the white backlash voter--essentially, that it's understandable and even defensible if he strays from Obama over his former pastor's comments--it contributes to the racial problem in our politics. This is more than mere analysis. It is a sort of moral "thumbs up" to white voters. It's OK if you get freaked out by the pastor and black guys generally... your fathers did! Why not you?
The white backlash vote is well documented in the history books. It helped hand Nixon two victories in '68 and '72, powered Reagan and Bush 41, and has been the subject of countless stories and political theories. Whether it's the Willie Horton ad, or Nixon's successful use of busing as a campaign issue, white, blue-collar folks--"Reagan Democrats"-- have repeatedly shown anger at what they apparently view as excessively "repentant" philosophies of civil rights and liberal government.
So the question has been posed repeatedly throughout this campaign: is Barack Obama different? When he wins a state like Wisconsin, he clearly is, as he essentially ties HRC in the white and under $50,000 a year vote. When he loses a state like Ohio, he's apparently in deep shit. Especially when exit polls show 20% of voters took race into account (of those who took race into account in Ohio, they went for HRC by a 3:2 ratio, according to the CNN exit poll). Commentators then speculate: is BHO too black? Are they flocking to Hillary because of race or just becuase they like her on bread and butter issues? Their answer: probably both.
So when the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted, and because these political analysts have been raised in the political journalism tradition of seeking out demographic trends and carelessly fitting them into their ideas of American history, it was suddenly clear: Obama's white support is tanking in the primary, and this will hurt him with white voters in the general. They did not wait for polls to show this. They, instead, predicted, and, indeed, may have contributed to, this process.
When writers say things like (from Politico):
A failure [to address the Wright problem] could leave many of the white independent voters — a key group behind Obama’s swift rise in national politics — doubting whether he is really the bridge-builder and healer he has portrayed himself to be.
...I can't help but feel as if they are helping to make it so. Now, one would argue they have historical bases for their statements, and they do. But the simple fact is that Barack Obama is not every other black guy, and this is not 1988. Media commentators have wondered if he would be "branded" as the Jesse Jackson kind of black politician, and thus far, he hasn't been. But when such moral deference is given to the white backlash voter--essentially, that it's understandable and even defensible if he strays from Obama over his former pastor's comments--it contributes to the racial problem in our politics. This is more than mere analysis. It is a sort of moral "thumbs up" to white voters. It's OK if you get freaked out by the pastor and black guys generally... your fathers did! Why not you?
Obama and the branding of a politician
The concern among beltway types (we can practically feel them sweating over this) is whether the Wright controversy (and its currently, though much reduced compared to last week, viral nature) will brand him as an angry, divisive black candidate. This, of course, is the opposite of his message, and writers from Politico to the Washington Post seem worried. I would argue that while moderate white support is ditching him right now, much ground can be made up, and the branding is not as whole as one might assume.
Compare a week of intense, 24-hour Wright video playing on Fox News and CNN with 2 months of glowing press coverage, full of entire victory speeches and rallies throughout January and February. While yes, the controversy is hurting him right now, it seems a bit silly to assume that 2 months of good coverage gets overwhelmed by one intense week of bad. At the very worst, they cancel out, and I doubt even that. Just wait until this thing disappears (this will probably be the case by Monday) and watch his poll numbers creep up.
I also think one reason a lot of conservatives and other moderate voters who maybe once supported Obama are now questioning him is because he is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee. It is much easier to support the idea of a black guy (hey, they're cool!) who's fighting the evil (and female!) Hillary Clinton than the presumptive African American nominee of the Democratic Party. So perhaps this was bound to happen. In any case, we are seeing Obama bottom out. After all, unless more coverage emerges, how can it get any worse than this? The racialization that perhaps was inevitable has occurred at a miraculous time for him--March--leaving plenty of time until the convention. My prediction is he probably finishes this thing by early June (carrying states like Oregon, South Dakota, North Carolina, and, if he's lucky, Indiana, which would ease the "lunch-pail Democrat problem", ), independent groups gear up and thrash McCain and Obama, respectively, over the summer, and by the convention he will be able to beat the hell out of McSame over issues, while still being way nicer and more unifying in the press coverage than that angry preacher. September will show him creep up and take leads in key states--Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico (some of which he already has good leads in)--and holding the allegedly McCain friendly Michigan and Pennsylvania. I don't know if he can win Ohio, but I don't think he needs to. The electoral map will change in November. The black-white divide just isn't as bitter in the states he needs to win--the Southwest, the newly contested (and increasingly creative-class) Virginia and North Carolina. Sure, this controversy has sucked, and sure, some will never get over it, but once the question becomes: 100 years of war and a precise continuation of Bush economics vs. smart foreign policy, renewed hope and unity, lobbying and ethics reform, and comprehensive proposals to fix the economy, healthcare, and energy, Americans will choose a smart young guy over an angry old war vet stuck in the Hanoi Hilton 30 years later. You wait and see!
Compare a week of intense, 24-hour Wright video playing on Fox News and CNN with 2 months of glowing press coverage, full of entire victory speeches and rallies throughout January and February. While yes, the controversy is hurting him right now, it seems a bit silly to assume that 2 months of good coverage gets overwhelmed by one intense week of bad. At the very worst, they cancel out, and I doubt even that. Just wait until this thing disappears (this will probably be the case by Monday) and watch his poll numbers creep up.
I also think one reason a lot of conservatives and other moderate voters who maybe once supported Obama are now questioning him is because he is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee. It is much easier to support the idea of a black guy (hey, they're cool!) who's fighting the evil (and female!) Hillary Clinton than the presumptive African American nominee of the Democratic Party. So perhaps this was bound to happen. In any case, we are seeing Obama bottom out. After all, unless more coverage emerges, how can it get any worse than this? The racialization that perhaps was inevitable has occurred at a miraculous time for him--March--leaving plenty of time until the convention. My prediction is he probably finishes this thing by early June (carrying states like Oregon, South Dakota, North Carolina, and, if he's lucky, Indiana, which would ease the "lunch-pail Democrat problem", ), independent groups gear up and thrash McCain and Obama, respectively, over the summer, and by the convention he will be able to beat the hell out of McSame over issues, while still being way nicer and more unifying in the press coverage than that angry preacher. September will show him creep up and take leads in key states--Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico (some of which he already has good leads in)--and holding the allegedly McCain friendly Michigan and Pennsylvania. I don't know if he can win Ohio, but I don't think he needs to. The electoral map will change in November. The black-white divide just isn't as bitter in the states he needs to win--the Southwest, the newly contested (and increasingly creative-class) Virginia and North Carolina. Sure, this controversy has sucked, and sure, some will never get over it, but once the question becomes: 100 years of war and a precise continuation of Bush economics vs. smart foreign policy, renewed hope and unity, lobbying and ethics reform, and comprehensive proposals to fix the economy, healthcare, and energy, Americans will choose a smart young guy over an angry old war vet stuck in the Hanoi Hilton 30 years later. You wait and see!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
