Who's Killing the Press? The 2017 White House Correspondents Dinner

Occupy Portland Launch Rally
October 6, 2011
http://www.aflitt.com/occupyportlandoctober2011
© A. F. Litt 2011, All Rights Reserved

Time to start posting again...  Probably not too often, but I feel like my long hiatus on this blog is somewhat coming to an end...

An interesting White House Correspondents Dinner this year, reflecting the current state of the American press corps.  Here is an incomplete rundown of my takeaways:

First, the President not attending this year's event, to me, makes this one not to overlook, but one to pay closer attention to. The whys of this idea are complex and would take a whole essay to explain in detail.  Not that speakers have pulled punches with the President in the room in the past, but that is a small piece of it.  However, without the distraction of the President being present, it felt like this year's event was a bit more self-reflexive, a bit more introspective, focusing a little more on the successes and failures of the press itself over recent past.

The other day, on CNN, a talking head was saying that President Trump, through the campaign, the transition, and the first 100 days, did more damage to the press than anyone or anything else in modern history.

This is just simply not true.

The damage has come from the 24 hour networks trying to maintain ratings through the endless, Sisyphusian loops of the modern 24 hour news cycle.  It comes from the blending of news reporting and infotainment that is confusing to many viewers.  It has come from the decline of print journalism and a whole segment of the press that is understaffed and panicked by their own quest for survival...

Back in the day of the newspaper, we had separate sections for news and opinion and clear editorial rules for how to write and present those very different articles.  However, these days, on the news networks, on the internet, the line is blurred, and in the case of shows like Fox and Friends, the line is almost entirely eliminated.

So, instead of the viewer being presented with news and, perhaps, some unbiased analysis, they are presented only with the facts that present the host's views, and then are spoon fed what these facts "mean" through the narrow lens of the host's political agenda.

This doesn't mean that we should ignore the facts, but we need to be very careful about and aware of who is presenting these facts to us when watching, or reading, anything.  We need to be sure that we are getting all the facts, and we need to make up our own minds and not fall into an intellectually lazy zone where we let the writer, the presenter, or the talking heads (more on that next), tell us what we should feel about them.

We need to make our own interpretations.  We need to make up our own minds and make our own decisions.

And perhaps even worse than those blurred lines between news and opinion reporting are those talking heads inevitably brought in to tell us what the facts are supposed to mean.

In the not too distant past, the standard format on most television news broadcasts was to present the story, just the facts, and then to bring in a subject matter expert to add context and analysis to the story just presented.  This expert would not be representing a political viewpoint, but in depth knowledge and experience on the issue being discussed.

However, what we see these days, hitting its low point with CNN's coverage of the 2016 election, is bringing in a paid right wing pundit and a paid left wing pundit to argue the politics and views of their side in response to the facts.  This is done in the name of being "fair," but it is not.

Some stories are good and bad, some stories are pretty clear cut.  If Senator Jim Jim is caught robbing from old ladies and killing their kittens, we do not need a talking head from the other party arguing that he was justified in his actions or that the actions, in the light of clear evidence to the contrary,  never even actually happened and are, instead, falsely, just a creation of biased media.

Such tactics are not representative of a "fair and balanced" approach to reporting (sure, a Fox slogan, but one I am applying to everyone), but instead these tactics are actually unbalancing the true weight of the facts themselves.

Instead of news, what we get are arguments.  Crossfire, years back on CNN, was a pioneer of this format and could be entertaining and even, slightly, informative in a one hour a day dose.  Sure, let's hear what both sides have to say on the issues of the day.  Why not?  But not all the time on all of everything.  There is a time and place for that, and always, every time, through most of the hours of the day, is not that time or place.

So, instead of spending time with a subject matter expert who can help to explain what the possible legal ramification of Senator Jim Jim's actions are, what the fallout politically for the parties are, we hear biased spin doctors on the left and right trying to tilt Jim Jim's horrific actions to their side's own political benefit.

No new insight is gained.  Our time is wasted.  Or we become numb, and our own biases (we all have them) let the spin seep in and we adopt, knowingly or unknowingly, even with some resistance, the stance of the spin doctor we sympathize with the most.  Our views on the issue are being manipulated and defined by our political camaraderie with the talking head who speaks the most towards our own political biases...

These sins, two out of many, are the reason for the crisis in American journalism these days.

President Trump did not create this, he did not strike the first blow, he is merely capitalizing on the media's self inflicted wounds.  Wounds they've been inflicting on themselves for a long time, well before the President ever jumped into the Birther debate, let alone before he announced his candidacy for President...

The press itself has opened up the gaps in trust that the President is charging through.  They let the roof get leaky, and then too many underneath started blaming the rain for making them wet.

At this year's dinner, Hasan Minhaj called the media out on many of these issues.  There were many uncomfortable chuckles, too polite applause points, and awkward silences as he spoke.  He did not eviscerate them, but rather put a calm and loving hand on their shoulder and said, "Really, you know this isn't all good; you can do better."

He called them out in a fairly soft, but still firm, manner and asked them to rise up, to fix the leaky roof, to take responsibility for the health of their own industry, and to help the rest of America to navigate and survive the reality of the President Trump Administration.


While Minhaj was both sharp and entertaining, the speeches by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward that preceded Minhaj were intriguing, fascinating, and chillingly relevant considering the heavy duty scandals already looming over this embryonic administration. Check out the link to the full event at the bottom of this post to view what these two titans had to share with the crowd this year.




To be fair, I've seen change since Inauguration Day.  I've seen a certain sense of sobering in the press and media.  The Trump Presidency is not a result of the failure of the media, far from it, there are many factors that led to his Electoral College victory.  Yet, the press' failings did play a role here, creating an environment where Candidate Trump's weaknesses became strengths and muddying the waters enough to make it just that more difficult for voters to make a well informed choice with their ballots.  I believe that this has led to some self examination that is creating a sense of greater responsibility to their consumers.

The role of the press is not about sales or clicks or ratings, it is about being the Fourth Estate, the final check in our government's system of checks and balances, and the press is our safety valve when the three branches of our government fail to hold each other to account.  Watergate is, of course, the obvious example, but this role has been acknowledged by everyone since the writing of our Constitution, and this role is established and verified by that very document.

The first 100 days of this presidency have brought the traditional print and broadcast news organizations to a stark junction where they find their own legitimacy, and even basic survival, in doubt and jeopardy.  There is a lot at stake for our nation right now.  Still, I am encouraged by the slow turn back towards traditional journalistic principles that this ship seems to be making.  I do see some slow change.  I think the last year has spooked them, and they are slowly, cautiously, trying to correct their course.  But is it enough?  And will this last?

They've seen the iceberg.  But is the course correction too little, too late, to avoid sinking the whole ship?



No President

To be fair, I fully understand why President Trump chose to be the first president since Nixon to completely shun the dinner...  This was a no win situation for him.

If the president made jokes, he'd be torn to shreds...  They'd sound too much like his bizarre tweets and statements over the last 100 days.  Where is the line between reality and satire?  How do you roast anyone or anything when your "serious" communications already sound like a stranger than true parody sketch on a late night comedy show?

But that is just the political consideration...  Ego was a factor, I am sure, as well.  This is not a guy who currently has a thick enough skin to sit through an evening like this at this point in his life.  Sure, he was the target of a Comedy Central roast late in his old career, on the cusp of his new career as a politician, but that was a different time in his life.  It was a time of letting go of what came before while not being invested deeply yet in the new life he has now.

To be honest, I have not seen the Comedy Central roast.  Maybe he didn't take it well?  I don't know.

But something seems to have happened since then, an internal change seems to have occurred, and he can no longer seem to accept any perceived challenges to his "winning," either from facts, commentary, or satire.

Sitting there looking uncomfortable, or even upset, all night would have been damaging.  His own speech at the end of the night, juxtaposed with those images, likely would have come across as too angry or too bitter, even if he was trying to be a good sport about everything.

The margin of political victory for him on this night would have been tiny and difficult to achieve.  The White House, politically, made a sensible choice in not taking the risk.

Not (the full) Truth!
Mrs. Clinton did accept the primary blame for her 2016 election loss in today's interview, while clearly pointing these factors out as elements that weighted the scales against her, especially, in a crippling way, during the final days of the campaign.  Whatever the truth is on the election, why she lost or why President Trump won, this is a misleading headline regarding her actual comments today.  She did infer that she would have won the election if it was held on October 27, 2016.

Links

The Washington Post:

A different sort of White House correspondents’ dinner

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2017/04/29/a-different-sort-of-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

The rise and fall — or maybe rebirth? — of the White House correspondents’ dinnerhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-rise-and-fall--or-maybe-rebirth--of-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/2017/04/26/b530c78e-29e3-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html

C-SPAN:  

The whole damn show (Starts with the Video mentioned in the Rolling Stone article below)

http://www.c-span.org/video/?426363-1/hasan-minhaj-headlines-white-house-correspondents-association-dinner

Rolling Stone:  

The Most Cringeworthy Moment From the White House Correspondents' Dinner

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/white-house-correspondents-dinners-most-cringeworthy-moment-w479611

Darkness Rising: Why respectful debate is more important than ever

Like I've written in previous posts, for the most part this blog is dormant, though please follow the link on the right to check out the Facebook page, which has been very active recently...

However, this post grew out of some comments on a link that grew into a Facebook post of its own, and which I think is worth posting here:

It's amusing to me... Only in this weird year, after these horrible presidential campaigns, could I ever be labeled as a member of the "far left"... :) And if you knew much about my political views in the 1980s and early 1990s, I am pretty much a conservative compared to those days, by the standards in those days... But while I've moved to the middle, even past what used to be considered the center into what used to be the liberal right, the political climate in this country has changed so much that Nixon would be labeled a communist these days by the descendants of his own conservative movement... That being said, my political posts, here and elsewhere, are a lot less about advocating for one party over another, or even broader, more "left" and "right" ideologies. Really, it is more about this: There are certain ways "dark" instincts and power works that is pretty universal, and it adapts to every political and economic system. Most people don't recognize it, but they fear it, and they usually aim their fears at straw men and red herrings laid out for them by the folks gaining advantage from that darkness (whether they even recognize what it is or not). There are many moral, philosophical and religious terms used for this darkness, and I am trying to avoid them, to strip it down to the basics (and darkness is a bit of a moral judgment, wild might be better?)... When fear and resentment and dissatisfaction with life rises to the top in the masses' day to day lives, this wildness comes to the front and, generally, very bad things start happening. In the end, us normal citizens have very little idea about who the good guys and the bad guys are in this battle, and we do our best, which is hard these days with the disintegrating media and laughable standards of journalism that we encounter, to pick the candidates and causes that we hope will battle this dark, wild force. And if not to actively battle it, to at least slow its rise to dominance. I've picked my side, the causes and candidates I support, based on the best, though always flawed, information I have available. Others pick the other side, feeling those better battle the darkness. Disagreement and healthy debate is good and, I will always feel, are enemies of this darkness. However, the mood and the climate is changing in the western world, and the space that used to be filled, for the most part, with healthy debate is now filled with anger and fear, ignorance and blatant lies, which is only making the enemies of freedom stronger, which won't benefit any of us, regardless of who we voted for a few weeks back. So let's keep the conversations calm, let's, the average people just trying to make sense of everything, respect each other, even if we disagree... Let's keep our minds open to new ideas, new information, and let's reject lies and fake news, even when it appears to support our "side." In social media, more than anywhere, this is so important, because too many of our feeds are designed by the sites to only provide us with ONLY the opinions and "facts" that we support, and sometimes, unfortunately, depressingly, even, the comment threads are the only place where we can actually learn new the perspectives and gain the information we need to make the decisions we need to make to keep our country free and great. Finally, further food for thought on this matter:

When does it become too much? Some tea partiers are now calling for Obama’s “legal” assassination

Horrifying. This is what we get when the far right gets a free pass from the mainstream media. How about nightly fact checks on the evening news programs? These people are dangerous (the so-called journalists on the far right) when they inflame potential domestic terrorists so they can drive up ratings with their "info-taiment" shock talk, and then run from the responsibility when one of these nut jobs actually takes everything they've been saying as fact and starts building bombs or firing off shots.

Do they have the right to say the things they do? Well, I suppose they do. But the mainstream media, more so, has the responsibility of challenging what they say, from Fox News to Glenn Beck and beyond. Instead, they ignore it, or even worse, take it seriously and start reporting on the same "stories" these dangerous anti-journalists are fabricating without any real reporting to clarify fact and to separate truth from fiction.

When, not if, but when we have the next OKC, I'll be blaming the major mainstream news outlets as much as I'll be blaming the right wing "info-tainment" outlets. Perhaps even more so, because they truly are dropping the journalism ball where Beck and folks make it very clear that they are pandering to their viewers and listeners for the sake of the holy dollar and have little real interest in actually being journalists.

A lot of these folks cite the Bible for their political philosophies, well here's one for them:

Romans 13 (NSV): 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Christian Tea Party Terrorist Claims 2nd Amendment Authority To Shoot President Obama! | Americans Against the Tea Party:

Senate Less Broken Than News Media

This is such an important clip.  The meat and bones is a couple minutes in, but beyond the confirmations finally being passed, O’Donnell words on how the media covers the “narrative” of the Senate versus the truth of how the institution actually works are just dead on.

Really, the news media is much more broken than the Senate, and that is saying quite a bit.  Unfortunately, it also contributes quite a bit to what is broken in our government these days.

This first clip is from the end of the segment, and is the most important part.  The entire clip, covering Reid and, it is important to note, McConnell’s actions on New Year’s Day is also worth watching and at the bottom of the post.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VIA I love it when I wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is President on Facebook:

No vacation for Harry Reid in the Senate...

"That may look boring to you, but that's the most exciting moment in Senate history..." (for someone appointed by Obama - who can't get anyone confirmed in a grid-locked Senate.)

~Lawrence O'Donnell, on watching the C-Span video of Reid reading the list of nomination bills. O'donnell is apparently the ONLY one other than the C-SPAN live coverage to even mention this phenomenal accomplishment! ~m

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Related Posts

from tag Win

• Democracy In Distress: Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina
• Democracy In Distress: The End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
• Democracy In Distress: Rubble: Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: November 20, 2011, Democracy In Distress
• Democracy In Distress: Suburban Eschatology Part Two - September 12th, 2010: 30 Mosques, 30 Days
• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland Eviction: 12:01 AM, Police Deployment & Injury, Sunday Morning Victory

from tag Media

• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland Eviction: Video of police clubbing occupiers as park is cleared
• Suburban Eschatology Part Two: Functionality test…
• Suburban Eschatology Part Two: Facebook "Wall of Shame", a handy chart via Mashable
• Suburban Eschatology Part Two: Rubble: Death and Re-Birth... Welcome to Rubble Redux
• All My Base Belong to You...: Find a Job in Social Media, Communications or Design
• All My Base Belong to You...: MySpace refuses to crawl off and die
• Suburban Eschatology Part Two: 2012 Wheezy Lists

(more..)

2012 Election: Lazy thoughts on the morning after…

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

I could have slept for another hour, but laying in bed, listening to NPR, my head kept filling with sleepy thoughts about yesterday so I decided to jot them down…

Florida.  You’re Fired.

Florida…  You are just like every woman I’ve known from Miami.  Crazy and sexy.  And crazy.  And, did I mention, because I want to be very clear about this, crazy. 

But still damn sexy.

Good job America. Probably a wise idea not to invite Florida to the party this year. Yeah, they look way hot, but then they show up, get all sloppy, make out with the wrong guy, pass out, and stay too late.

Sometimes, at their worst, you get up the next day and find them still passed out on your carpet for the twenty plus mornings...

And she’s still sexy all down there on the floor like that.  Must have something to do with all that crazy.

I think both parties now have had enough of Florida and will pretty much not playing there any more.  There are other, more solid and predictable ways to win an election that getting caught in the swamp down there.

Speeches

Good speeches from everyone. Blown away by Obama's. Sure, it was more enthusiasm than content but its his night and it rocked. There will be time for nuts and bolts later.  Romney seemed to come in a little later than he should have, but from what I understand, part of this might have been because he had not prepared a concession speech. 

I am also sure they were taking a real close look at Florida and Ohio, but after Virginia went blue, all hope was lost. 

Apparently they had ground teams of lawyers ready to go in Ohio and Florida and a third team ready to pounce on a third state, but Obama’s lead was significant enough in enough states that it was clear that there would be no legal recourse that could snatch a victory from the ashes.

For the most part, though, I think we were all surprised by how early this was called last night.  I was amazed when CBS, our choice for the evening, called it around 8:30 our time.  I was guessing it would be around 10 pm our time before this happened.  Not the first blown call of mine about yesterday.

I think this is why it took so long for both candidates to make it to the stage last night. 

Red States Vs. Blue States

From here on out in presidential elections, I am feeling like we have some new blue states.  This was a partisan election and there really was little in the way of swing.  The Democrats won because they ran the better campaign, especially when it came to local organization.  Turn out was the deciding factor, and the Democrats won yesterday.

It is hard to tell and I am sure it will be close in these “swing” states next time around as well, but I think the blue state club is getting a little bigger.

This is going to be tough for the GOP the next time out.  Earlier I wrote about not inviting Florida to the party any more, but the GOP may have little choice.  It may be the only true big swing state left.

Though this is not entirely true.  In an election that is less closely contested, there is some room for swing.  But three out of the last four presidential elections have been partisan elections without a breakout front runner going into election day, and let’s remember, 2008 was pretty close too with McCain not completely out of the game as America headed out to the polls.

Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/live-blog-the-2012-presidential-election/

I was wrong to ever doubt you, man.  Whoa.  He called this one.  Nailed it.  Still not sure about Florida, but he only put the odds of an Obama victory there at a little over 50%, so either way, I’d say he picked 50 out of 50 this year.

On the right are his last predictions from election day morning.

Election Coverage

I stuck with CBS last night because it came in on our rabbit ears and the other option, ABC, kept cutting over to the local election coverage which, quite frankly, bored the heck out of me.  Plus, the ABC team was awful.  Diane Sawyer, off script?  Oh my.  My head hurts.

CBS seemed a little better. 

But, really, what just strikes me is how so many people were surprised by the results last night. 

These days everyone is looking for a narrative thread in their reporting.  They are focused on telling stories, not on reporting the facts.

So we had the narrative of Romney’s “momentum.”  This was fueled by the GOP talking heads trying to sell the story, which was never really backed up in the polls, and the media buying it.

Looking for facts to maintain this narrative arc, too much attention was put on the national polls, which have been worthless since the 2000 election. 

Sure, those polls are an interesting piece of the puzzle, but they are a small piece.  But it was the piece that supported the narrative so they were given too much weight by the press going in.

Yesterday, glancing around most of the national news websites, the screaming headlines were that the race was too close to call and that anything could happen on election night.  Of course, if you drilled down a bit- quite a bit- it became clear that Obama pretty much wrapped this one up about ten days ago and had only been increasing his lead since then, around the time I made my first prediction.

So the media narrative last night concluded with Obama smashing through with an unexpectedly large victory in the electoral college, either coming from behind for a decisive 4th quarter victory, or breaking away from a tied game in the final seconds.

However, the facts never supported these narratives.  And, once upon a time, it was the press’ job to tell us the facts to the best of their ability, not to construct narrative arcs for us.

So 2012 is a big media fail in my book.  Not quite “Dewey Defeats Truman”, but close.

The real story of this election is the validation of modeling systems such as Nate Silver’s.  There were a number of intangibles heading into this election day and those of us following this part of the story through the last days of the campaign were all second guessing whether these models really considered and accounted for all of the “intangibles”.

I, myself, tried to “correct” Nate’s numbers with my own assumptions about over and under polling and turn out.  I did call that the GOP would have a harder time getting out their base, but I missed that the Democrats would do even better than they did in 2008 in getting the blue base out.

In the raw polls, in most states, there was an underperforming candidate, and it was Obama.

This the big story and surprise this morning.  Not that the President won the states he won, but the margins by which he won them.

Now, the right wing media…  Wow.  If the mainstream media failed to mention that Obama pretty much had the election locked up, well, the right was going not only with a Romney win but some were even going all the way to Romney landslide.

Were these people stupid?  No.  Well, some of them, but not all of them.  I’ve said it before, this was the only play left in the game book.  1% or 2% will just vote for who they think will win.  Those are votes you want.  If Obama lost, I would be bashing them this morning for NOT playing this card.  They might have been able to run the numbers up a little more if they had.

It is also about the base.  If our guy is going down, it is hard to get the motivation to go stand in line for minutes to hours to vote.  Hell, if you’re like me, sometimes its even hard to get the ballot in the mailbox, even when you are fired up!  But when you are already demoralized?

So this was pretty much a calculated move to get their base up out of their lazy boys.  Be a part of something big!

What shocks me is that it looks like a lot of people who should have known better fell for it.  Including, it appears, Romney himself.  I think he really expected to win last night.  Maybe not by a lot, but by enough.

I know not everyone at the top level of his campaign felt this way or else he wouldn’t have been wasting time and treasure in Pennsylvania the last few days.  That was a pure desperation move, born from irretrievably losing Ohio in the final days.

A lot of his supporters drank the kool-aid.  The buzz I’ve seen from the other side is not, shucks, we lost a close one but, rather, “What the hell happened?  We were supposed to win.”

The word Mandate is as meaningless as the word Momentum

Kudos, so far, to the Dems for not going here, but I am hearing a lot of talking heads trying to use the word mandate this morning.  In 2004, the GOP was using this word after winning one of the narrowest presidential victories of the last 50 years, but since it was a larger margin than they had in 2000, they took a swing at claiming a mandate and got a little traction in the press for their efforts.

This year, since Obama won by a narrower margin than 2008, every one is saying that there is no mandate…  Okay.  I won’t argue.

Because it is a meaningless word.

There are many factors that will determine the level of bipartisanship through the next congressional term.  The president’s margin of victory was never going to be one of them.  Mostly, because of historical patterns, the GOP should know that they do not have the luxury of being a do nothing congress heading into 2014. 

It will be a repeat of 2010 unless they do something.  Anything.  And since they are stuck with Obama for two years past 2014, they should be aware enough to know that he holds all the cards now.

And it has nothing to do with 2012 margins.

Zombie Parties

During the 1980s, the Democratic Party was declared dead.  In the 1990s, the Republican party was declared dead.  In the aughts, the Democratic Party was declared dead.  In the teens, starting last night, I’ve been hearing, guess it, guess it…

No party is dead.  Yes, the Democrats have figured out how to win presidential elections, I will give them this.  This is the first knock down, drag out, get your base to the polls or you are going to lose partisan election that they have won in a very long time, perhaps in my lifetime, and it is good to see.  It is healthy. 

And I think the GOP needs to solve it’s little Tea Party problem before it can get back in that game.

But they are not dead. Like I said, I think we’ve got a couple new blue states in the presidential elections.  This is a story really told when you look at the county by county red v. blue maps.  But it does not mean that the GOP is out “for a generation” as people are always saying about one party or another.

The House

The flip side is the House.  A true sign of how close this election really was is the House races.  It took everything, EVERYTHING, the Dems had to hang onto the presidency and there was not much left for the House.

I really think if more effort had been put into it, they could have taken the House this year.  But it took so much effort to keep Obama in office that there was nothing left.

I know, myself, I barely paid any attention to the Congressional races this year.  Partly that is due to the fact that I live in a solidly blue district where our incumbent usually only has token competition from year to year, but it is also because everyone was working so hard on the presidential campaign that we just didn’t have much left for the House this year.

2014?  That is a different story.  If the new Democrat machine targets the house, it is theirs, unless the Republican caucus really makes some big strategic changes over the next two years.  If they do, then they might actually hang on to it.  The ball is very much in their hands.

I think the GOP will start working with Obama.  They’ll have to if they want to survive in the House.

Up through last night the GOP caucus has been saying they want to negotiate with Obama, but their definition of negotiate is, “Give us what we want, exactly as we want it, or we will say you are playing partisan politics and shred you in the next election.”

We’ll see if the current crop of Reps is smart enough to figure out that this game is played out.  They will need to change strategies or they are going down hard in the midterms.

When functioning well, I actually think having some party splits between the executive and legislative branches of government can be a healthy thing.  When it works, it works by getting the best ideas through from each party, and blocking the more sketchy ideas.  But what we’ve had for awhile, coming to a head with the current Congress, is far from that.  There is nothing healthy about the state of Congress right now at all.

Can they change?  That is the real question.  They may not be able to unless the entire Republican Party grows a pair and quits being held hostage by the Tea Party.  It cost them the presidency this year and will cost them the House in 2014 unless the party grown ups man up and take a stand for sanity.

Post-Election Silence

I’m not going away permanently, but now that the election is over, I’ll be posting to this blog on a much less frequent basis.  I’ll still be checking in from time to time, but probably not much until December. 

Finally, now that this long national debate is over, I can focus on writing the NaNoWriMo novel that I should have been working on this morning instead of writing this post!

This blog has been around since 2004, though.  Sometimes I drift away, but I always come back, eventually.

I Love This Speech

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/06/us/politics/06-obama-election-night-speech.html

 

Related Posts

from tag Vote

• Democracy In Distress: 2012 Election: Electoral Prediction Revised

from tag Win

• Democracy In Distress: Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina
• Democracy In Distress: The End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
• Democracy In Distress: Rubble: Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: November 20, 2011, Democracy In Distress
• Democracy In Distress: Suburban Eschatology Part Two - September 12th, 2010: 30 Mosques, 30 Days
• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland Eviction: 12:01 AM, Police Deployment & Injury, Sunday Morning Victory

from tag Obama

• Democracy In Distress: General Election 2012: It’s on… Right after a nap… Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….
• Democracy In Distress: GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections
• Democracy In Distress: Chart: Barack Obama & Ronald Reagan... Separated at birth?
• Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win tonight’s debate
• Democracy In Distress: Romney’s plunge towards the debates: Don’t count him out yet
• Democracy In Distress: 2012 Election: Yes, I Did!

(more..)

2012 Election: Polls & Predictions… A narrow and divided victory for Obama?

It’s getting close to the end now and I am starting to get some gut feelings about this one.  Still, overall, I wouldn’t be surprised by either outcome in the presidential race.  However, I would be slightly less surprised if Obama won. 

November 6 is going to be an interesting night.

Game Changers

A little over a week out… Is it too late for any game changers? 

Probably, but a few things do come to mind.  First, Florida looks like it is tightening up again.  If it tilts blue, done.  Early night a week from Tuesday and we all get a good night’s sleep.

Also, as we get a little closer, there is always the possibility that the press starts paying more attention to the fact that it is really going to be tough for Romney to win the Electoral Vote unless the polls are as far off as Dewey / Truman in 1948.  If the media starts talking about Obama’s Electoral Vote Firewall instead of Romney’s questionable momentum (basically manufactured by GOP talking heads, not recent polls), then this could break more in Obama’s direction.

Why?  Because 1% to 2% of these idiotic, undecided swing voters are going to vote for whoever is in the lead because they want to vote for the winner.  Usually this segment is small enough that it does not effect the outcome of the election, but in super tight races?  Who knows?  Usually when super tight races head into election day, they are too close to call and these folks stay home.  But if Obama is looking solid heading into election day, these folks might show up and vote for him, increasing his possible margin of victory.  

Hell, they might even win Obama the popular vote, but more on that later.

Another possibility, especially if the press starts giving more time to Obama’s Electoral Vote advantages…  Romney starts making some last minute, desperate Hail Mary swings through the silly zone.  When this guy goes big, he starts getting strange. 

At this point, though, can any further goofy headlines effect Romney?  Who knows?  But if he is feeling desperate, we may see some interesting moments a la John McCain’s “See, I’m Not To Old To Be President” marathon bus tour on the eve of the election.

Most likely… I predict we might see things firming up a little bit more for Obama in the state by state races, but I think we are pretty much heading into the popular vote within the margin of error, therefore tied.

So yes.  I am going ahead and posting my predictions for November 6. 

I reserve the right to change my mind later if something crazy happens.

Numbers & Predictions: All Hail Nate Silver

First of all… Let’s jam through the who’s, what’s, and what’s everyone saying…

Five Thirty Eight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus: Oct. 25: The State of the States - NYTimes.com:

Thursday was a busy day for the polls, with some bright spots for each candidate. But it made clear that Barack Obama maintains a narrow lead in the polling averages in states that would get him to 270 electoral votes. Mr. Obama also remains roughly tied in the polls in two other states, Colorado and Virginia, that could serve as second lines of defense for him if he were to lose a state like Ohio.

The day featured the release of 10 national polls, but there was little in the way of a consistent pattern in them.

Nate Silver's Newest Prediction: 73% Obama!:

Although the race is still close in several swing states, statistical guru Nate Silver’s newest prediction is 73.1% Obama to 26.9% Romney

Nate Silver’s track record on election predictions is pretty solid, so much so that the GOP is going after him, apparently.

Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming 'Nate Silver Truthers' | Alternet:

…in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it's moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted, “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed “momentum.”

A significant problem for conservatives bent on spinning this alternate reality is New York Times ' polling guru Nate Silver and his 538 forecast model, which called 49 out of 50 states accurately in 2008 and is considered the industry's gold standard (the model also pretty much nailed the 2010 mid-terms).

Yeah, don’t even get me started on the “raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed ‘momentum.’”  I called that one back before the first debate.

Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win the first debate:

…what happens next really depends on media spin.  Not the partisan talking heads, but the producers, writers, editors, reporters and directors out there.

The media wants a story to tell.  If the election is pretty much settled a month out, that leaves four weeks of dead air time…  Which they will fill by trying to create the feeling that the race is much closer than it really is.  The problem?  People will start believing it, and everyone loves a come from behind underdog, right?

Sorry, got distracted there for a second.  The press is dead to me and I mourn them from time to time…

Numbers & Predictions: Nate Silver vs. My Gut

So, Nate’s current prediction... 

This map brings the Electoral Vote in with Obama winning 303 to 235.  Even if he only calls 49 out of 50, it is a happy night for Team Obama. 

Unless, of course, Nate blows the Ohio call for Obama. 

Oh.  Oops.  Sorry, that was the conventional wisdom I’ve been hearing from press outlets hungry for a story. 

If only one of Nate’s Obama states go for Romney instead, pulling off the 49 out of 50 prediction from 2008, then Obama still wins “easily.”

Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio pretty much ALL have to shift over to Romney for the U.S. to elect its first Mormon president with a final electoral count of  275 Romney to 263 Obama.  (P.S.  I have no problem with a Mormon President and, I fear, that might be the coolest thing about a Romney Administration…)

Of course, there are other paths to 270 for Romney, but this would be the most likely.

There are also a couple paths that lead to the House of Representatives deciding this one.  Even more unlikely than a Romney presidency, but more likely than in most elections.

Nate’s calling this for Obama with a pretty big margin in the Electoral Vote and a bigger margin in the Popular Vote than I am comfortable with right now. 

I think it’s going to be closer.  How much closer?  2000 close? 

I hope not.  But my Electoral College prediction looks frightenly similar to the 2000 numbers.

My Prediction for the Electoral Vote: Obama Wins, 272 to 266

Right now, my personal prediction looks a lot tighter than Nate’s. 

This is the tightest it can be with Obama still coming out on top.  Right now, too many things have to break Romney’s way for him to win, in too many states that are leaning blue.  However, unlike Nate Silver, I do not see Obama sweeping all of the “tied” states right now.  This is my worst case scenario for an Obama victory, but I do not think Obama will break 300, though as of now I think he will get 270.

And I am worried enough about shenanigans in Ohio that I am tossing the state to Romney in my prediction.

Obama-Romney Race May Hinge on 2 Ohio Counties | RealClearPolitics:

If the race for president can be boiled down to two key counties in one key state, then those jurisdictions are Hamilton and Cuyahoga, here in the Buckeye State.

And, as Dan Rather put it on election night in 2000, "This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."

My Prediction for the Popular Vote: Mitt Romney Wins

As for the popular vote, unless some of the game changers I mentioned above occur, I am predicting that Romney will win the popular vote.  Yeah, I know Nate went with Obama.  But I don’t.

I don’t like or trust CNN polling this year.  I think they are swinging towards Romney where possible and I believe that they are holding back on making some pretty solid calls on the electoral map just to keep viewers interested and watching, but I do feel like Romney has a slightly insurmountable lead in the COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS national polls. 

However, CNN is not the only one showing Romney holding steady in the national polls. 

The polls are pretty much all over the place, but with Obama only leading in three of eleven and tied in one other, I think it is looking pretty bad for Obama in the popular vote.  But, as I said earlier, it doesn’t matter.  Even if we all slept through our civics classes back in junior high, everyone should be real clear on this after the 2000 election - the national popular vote decides nothing.

This Day In History

So, how does this year compare to years past…

2000 was all over the place, a lot like this year. Below is a link to 10 different polls from this date in 2000. 

Bush led in 8 out of 10 polls by margins ranging from 2% to 7%.  Gore led in two polls, by 2% and 3%.

However, the most interesting numbers in these polls come from the swing between Likely Voters and Registered Voters in Newsweek’s poll.

Bush Gains Back Lead in CNN Poll; Gore Maintains Zogby Poll Lead:

Thursday, Oct. 26, 2000

NewsWeek – likely voters (Oct. 18-20)

• Bush 48%
  Gore 41%

NewsWeek – all registered voters (Oct. 18-20)

• Gore 45%
  Bush 42%
  

If this year’s election is still up for grabs, then I predict it will be decided by which side gets their base out and by which side can motivate swing voters leaning in their direction to actually show up and vote. 

This could be a real problem for both sides.  Obama’s base is somewhat dissatisfied with him not living up to the superhuman expectations built up in 2008, and Romney’s party actually thought about going with winners like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum before giving into the inevitable and nominating the only candidate that had with a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Obama.

When it comes down to it, I think the advantage here goes to Romney.  I think the far right’s hatred of Obama will overcome their ambivalence about Romney.  And I don’t think the far left has a motivational force of that caliber working on its side this time around, though the “rape is a gift from God” stories couldn’t have hit at a worse time for the GOP.  But it is probably not enough to balance out the Obama hatred.

However, will that be enough to beat Obama?  Probably not.  In 2004, the far left had this hatred for the GOP candidate working on their side.  They also had their own version of Romney in John Kerry.  It was a close election, it came down to Ohio, there might even have been a few shenanigans in Ohio, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome, most likely.  It was Bush’s night with or without the shenanigans.

Electoral Maps 1972-2008:

The 2004 US Presidential Election

The electoral map shown below depicts the results of the 2004 U.S. presidential election in which George W. Bush defeated John Kerry.  Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.

Here is a look at the 2004 polls from this point in that election.  Today we probably have about a 1% spread between Romney and Obama. Kerry was down by around 2%. All within the margin of error for everything.

One thing is for certain, this is no 2008, when Obama comfortably had the popular vote wrapped up by this point.

Are We Locked In?  Is This A Done Deal?

Well, in the past, including these elections we are looking at here, there have been some changes in the polls heading into the last week.  Usually whomever leads through October wins, which is what the GOP is counting on right now.

However, this is not always the case.  Of course there was Dewey / Truman in 1948.  The GOP candidate was leading Truman by fairly large margins from the spring on.  The final Gallup poll had Truman losing with 44.5%, and he was behind by about 5% at the end of October.  He ended up winning with 49.9% of the popular vote.

In 1952, in the Gallup poll, Stevenson shot up by about 10% in the last couple weeks of the election, with Eisenhower at 51% in the final survey.  It wasn’t enough and the General won with 55.4% of the popular vote.

1960…  Nixon closed around a 4% gap to a 2% gap in the last month or so, and this momentum continued to election day with Kennedy barely squeaking out a 50.1% victory in the popular vote.  In fact, this election was so close, that in a different day and age, it might have gone like 2000.

In 1968 we had a three party election with Wallace absorbing 13.53% of the popular vote and winning five states (46 electoral votes).  Through October into November, Humphrey closed an 8% gap to about 1% going into election day.  But Nixon’s lead held, of course.

Perhaps the modern election that most resembles the 2012 race is the 1976 contest between Ford and Carter. 

1976 Gallup tracking poll: Ford vs. Carter(very interesting reading!!):

Ford made up additional ground following the third debate in late October, again pulling even. In the final pre-election poll, Gallup's numbers indicated a statistical dead heat among likely voters, with Ford at 49% and Carter 48% (the unallocated numbers had Ford at 47% and Carter at 46%). The actual outcome was 50% for Carter and 48% for Ford. The election was so close that it was not certain that Carter would win until the morning after Election Day.

Then of course, we have the 2000 election… At one point in October, Gore was actually down by 13% in the Gallup survey.  By this week in 2000, Gore had closed the gap to 5% according to Gallup, and he continued to surge (if Gallup’s numbers were right, which is unlikely looking at the chaos in the polls that year). 

Of course, Gore ended up winning the popular vote 48.38% to 47.87%.  Of course, 543,895 popular votes count for nothing compared to Bush’s five extra electoral votes (271-266).

So is this over?  Absolutely not, when it comes to the popular vote.  However, Obama is looking pretty solid in the Electoral College unless the polls are off by 1948 margins, which is pretty unlikely considering the refinements in the polling process over the last 64 years.

Could This Be Another Bush / Gore Style Nightmare?

Short answer, yes.  It is possible. 

Could it break like 1960, where Nixon chose not to contest the counts in several close precincts?  Maybe. 

My gut tells me that it all depends on who is up and who is down.  I suspect the man that will say anything to be president would push it as far as it went in 2000, clinging to any chance at all to be president (for all you tea partiers that think I am talking about Obama, sorry).  Obama, I suspect, is smart enough to see how damaging that process can be to the country, and might not take it that far.

Even in 2004, there were enough questions in Ohio that some thought that Kerry should have called for some recounts.  He, however, chose to accept what was probably inevitable and to go out as a classy winner instead of a sore loser.  This was not like 2000 where it was very likely that more voters did vote for the candidate that lost than the candidate that won in the disputed state.  This was less unlikely to be the case in Ohio in 2004.

Unfortunately for Obama, the elections this year most resembles, poll wise, are 1960, 1976, and 2000.  Like 2000, the polls are a bit all over the place.  Like 1976, we have an fairly unpopular incumbent and an untested outsider hovering within a percentage point of each other.  Like 1960, we have a candidate losing the first debate only to slowly crawl his way back in the polls through the later debates and up into the election. 

The final results for the 1960?  “In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%)—the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century. In the Electoral College, Kennedy's victory was larger, as he took 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win).” (Wikipedia) 

303 is also the number Nate Silver is calling for Obama as of the evening of the 26th, according to his map, at least.

So, parallels?  1960, Romney as Kennedy, Obama as Nixon because of the debates…. Romney wins.  1976…  Incumbent loses to challenger.  Romney wins.  2000…  Late surging Gore pulls off a popular vote victory and loses the election.  Romney wins. 

But, Obama fans, take faith in the 2004 election….  In many ways, this year’s election bears more resemblance to that one than any of these others when looking at more than just the polls. 

And our, oh sweet Jesus, Bush wins in the end. 

Related Posts

from tag Gore

• Democracy In Distress: 2012, Debate # 2 analysis & how late night comedy writers will select our next President
• Democracy In Distress: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate Results, Predictions for Tuesday & November
• Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win tonight’s debate

from tag Polls

• Democracy In Distress: It’s a Trap! Thoughts on the 1st Obama / Romney Debate
• Democracy In Distress: What do I believe in? The political world according to A. F. Litt
• Democracy In Distress: Chart: Barack Obama & Ronald Reagan... Separated at birth?

from tag Bush

• Democracy In Distress: Romney’s plunge towards the debates: Don’t count him out yet
• Democracy In Distress: Putin, Clinton, & Bush… Oh my! The current, dynastic period of American history

from tag Incompetence

• Democracy In Distress: I am pretty sure I worked for this company before…
• Democracy In Distress: WTF!?!?! Tea Party Nation asks businesses to stop hiring as expression of tea party solidarity
• Democracy In Distress: What do Republicans have against science anyway?
• Democracy In Distress: Occupy Portland: F29 – Occupy the Corporations Grab-Bag

(more..)

2012, Debate # 2 analysis & how late night comedy writers will select our next President

While Tuesday’s debate was definitely a win for Obama, it left me with some very ambivalent feelings afterwards…  The following is compiled from my Facebook posts that evening:

Yes, he's not my guy, and I wasn't rooting for him, but from as an unbiased as a perspective as I can manage, I just need to say this...

I think Mitt Romney's debate tonight was the worst performance I've ever seen by a presidential candidate from either party ever. (Well, since the first one I watched in 1984, at least).

Yeah, the post debate “Who Won Tonight?” polls are close, because about 95% of those polled will say their guy won, no matter what. And don't give me that undecided voter crap on a spot poll taken in the five minutes before the candidates have even left the stage.

But this was a bad night for Romney. It may take a few days for that really to emerge. But it was bad. Bad Bad Bad Bad. Bad.

Bad candidate. Bad. "Was he just trying to help Paul Ryan feel better?" bad.

Going to the mat, standing by his misquote of the President, and then getting fact checked on the spot by the moderator, basically at his own request? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!

This man wants to be the leader of the free world? Oh hells no.

See, this pisses me off. Yeah, I want Romney and Ryan to lose, but this shit is just bad for America, PERIOD.

I WANT two qualified candidates. I want a tough, close election because there is a real choice, not because of blind party loyalties. I want to be able to take both the GOP and the Democrats seriously.  While I rarely vote Republican, I want the option!

I take Obama seriously. Everyone else can pretty much piss off and die at this point. American politics? Dead.

Yeah, I was typing with fists on Tuesday… 

As for the Town Hall format, the moderators (though a big thumbs up to Crowley, it’s not like she busted in unsolicited), and the debate coverage in general…  In response to this post, “BTW, am I the only person that thinks regular Americans seem to ask better questions than paid reporters?—Dave” on The Pragmatic Progressive Page, I spat out, “Of course they do. Journalism is dead.”

Not a good campaign cycle for America.

Considering Romney’s train wreck of a performance on Tuesday, he is lucky that the takeaway is the “binders full of women” comment.  This will not help him, but there were far worse gaffes in the evening than this one.

So, Obama supporters, yes it is funny, but shut up about it.  People forgive legitimate jumbles of words in high stress situations.  Instead, pound on him for the real mistakes. 

Women in the workplace?  Sure, and we’ll even try to get them home in time to cook dinner.

Getting fact checked by the moderator, at his own request, and losing a point where he actually has some valid concerns and questions about a serious national security failure?

Saying that gun violence would be reduced if only there were more two parent families?

This is what noise should be made about, not the “Binders Full of Women.”  These jokes are funny, but they actually help Romney more than hurting him by distracting from his real gaffes on Tuesday.  Gaffes that might actually work towards changing public perceptions about the GOP contender.

This first clip illustrates a couple points I've been making in several of my posts.

First, people are going to think their candidate won no matter what happened in the debate.

Second, those on the fence are going to be swayed not by what happened during the 90 minute debate, but by the sound bites they hear on a two minute news segment, or by the jokes they hear on late night shows, Facebook, and other sources.

These people are shown supporting their candidate, declaring it a win for their guy, spouting pre-debate buzz about debate expectations, without realizing that the debate has not even happened yet. 

And people like this are going to be the one who decide this election, not the well informed voters who, on a regular basis, actually follow the issues being discussed in the debates. 

This election will be won by whomever attracts the least attention from the comics.  In elections that are not close, the jokes probably serve more as a barometer of public opinion, but in close elections, or even elections at decisive turning points, these jokes can actually shape public perceptions enough that they can change the outcome of an election.

A lot of words have been written over the years about how so many in the younger generations get most of their news from The Daily Show, Colbert, and other such sources, but this is not really a new phenomenon.

More than being the source for news, late night comics have provided the analysis of events that really tend to define how many Americans perceive their candidates.  Dukakis was slayed by these folks, losing his lead in 1988 after a series of gaffes that gave the comedy writers a bushel of full of material.  That election ended up not being as close as the last few, but…

Gore and the lock box in 2000?  Probably worth at least a few hundred votes in Florida.

Kerry / Bush in 2004?  Both were hammered about equally as hard.  Well, in these cases, we see that the tie goes to the incumbent.   

In 2008, one of the most masterful pieces of the Obama campaign was staying out of the late night headlights.  McCain, wandering around the town hall debate, Palin’s, well, everything?  These jokes sealed the deal for Obama.  The piling on as the outcome of the election looked more and more certain through the month of October?

This year, we see this playing out again.  Obama broadens his lead after a series of humorous gaffes by Romney, the race tightens after Obama is hammered in late night after the first debate, and now?  Well, over the next few nights, we’ll see, though I think we know where this will go.

So, the winner of the debates is pretty much decided by headlines and short sound bites on the evening and morning news shows.  The fallout, the shifts of momentum in close races, especially after conventions and debates?  Decided by the late night comics.

A lot of people are saying that the damage done by the first debate to the Obama campaign may have been irreversible.  Not necessarily ensuring a Romney victory, but ensuring a very close and tense election night.  And it might have been the deciding factor if Romney had been able to settle down and keep a low profile for the next two debates and not make any more bad mistakes.  Staying on script, never freewheeling it in public, let alone in front of cameras…

He didn’t do that. 

Earlier, I mentioned The Daily Show, and they have always (deservedly, my bias) gone harder after the GOP than the Dems, but this show does not have the influence of Saturday Night Live, Leno, and Letterman because its viewers tend to be progressive anyway.  Same for Fox News.  Whatever these two outlets are saying about the candidates may influence the

passion of the GOP or Democratic base, but they don’t have much of an influence on the almost completely apolitical swing voters who decide close elections.

I was hoping to post up the Leno and Letterman monologues from last night, but I couldn’t find them anywhere yet.  Apparently, CBS and NBC like to not post them online anywhere until they are stale and irrelevant. I haven’t seen them yet, myself. 

So here’s Conan instead.

 

Related Posts

from tag Romney

• Democracy In Distress: 2012 Vice Presidential Debate Results, Predictions for Tuesday & November
• Democracy In Distress: GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections
• Democracy In Distress: It’s a Trap! Thoughts on the 1st Obama / Romney Debate
• Democracy In Distress: How Mitt Romney will win tonight’s debate
• Democracy In Distress: Romney’s plunge towards the debates: Don’t count him out yet
• Democracy In Distress: God, Politics, Education, & Evolution: Some recent articles
• Democracy In Distress: Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina
• Democracy In Distress: General Election 2012: It’s on… Right after a nap… Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….
• Democracy In Distress: The war on women & Santorum’s choice
• Democracy In Distress: From The Daily Show… All three parts of the interview with Jonathan Macey
• Democracy In Distress: GOP & 2012: A grab bag of headlines from everyone's favorite dysfunctional family

from tag Obama

• Democracy In Distress: Chart: Barack Obama & Ronald Reagan... Separated at birth?

(more..)

GOP: Selling the American Dream and Winning Elections

This morning on OPB, the local NPR radio station, they had a brief clip from the president of the Portland State University Republicans...

Her main argument for the GOP and Romney, her main attraction to the GOP, was her perception that the Republicans’ primary ethic was success through hard work.  She said that this fit well with her family's worldview, since her parents were immigrants who achieved "the American Dream." She also felt the Republicans were more pro-American, more patriotic.

Of course, “arbeit macht frei” sounds familiar...  Where have I heard that before?

So, through all of the noise and clatter, what she is taking from the campaigns so far is that the idea of working really hard to achieve success is a Republican ethic.  I suppose, for the Democrats’ ethics, she probably shares Romney’s stated view on 47% of America, though, to be fair, she did not mention the Democrats at all.

This is how the GOP gets so many to vote for them, to vote against their best interests.  The message is to work hard, keep doing what you are doing, and we’ll get the government to quit supporting those who aren’t working as hard and to remove those who are standing in your way on the path to success.

Of course, in reality, most GOP policies do nothing to help these folks at all.  If anything, especially with the current platform, it harms them and takes away many of their protections.  And, likely, a Romney victory would result in these folks paying higher taxes, one way or the other, and students, perhaps even the one interviewed on the radio this morning, no longer being able to attend college due to higher costs and reduced financial aid availability.

I would spend the morning collecting stats and historical trends from Republican Congresses and Presidencies, but lets face it…  For voters like this young woman, those stats mean nothing.  They had her at "work brings freedom."

To be fair, this sounded like the ideas of someone very young who has not really had any real world experience.  I don’t know, but it’s what she sounded like to me. 

Now, I have no problem with people who are Republicans because they feel that the specific policies and platforms, economic plans, etc. are right for America.  I usually disagree with them, but they have their vote and I have mine.

What bothered me here was that she did not talk about economic plans or specific ideas on solving real issues our country was facing, she spoke only of vague generalities and meaningless, emotional slogans.  And, to her, the GOP is the party supporting the American Dream.

Of course, this young woman’s vote was probably never up for grabs this year.  Her reasons for being a Republican may be silly, but she is one and it is unlikely that she ever considered voting for Obama this year.  Party faithful tend to look for reasons to continue to support their candidate, even through disaterous campaigns, rather than looking for reasons to switch their vote to the other guy.

But this clip still tells me a lot about how this election is going, and how recent elections have gone down.

To me, this is a really clear example of how the two parties different ideas distill down to many people, dripping down through incompetent or biased media sources, through tea party / extremist sloganeering, to arrive, stripped of any meaning or sense, to wash and water the preconceived biases of the ordinary voter who does not spend hours, not even every day, but every election, picking their party and candidate…

What dripped down to this student was that the GOP is the party protecting the American dream.  Details on how they are doing this?  Not necessary.  She trusts the signs.

This election will be decided by 5% of the voters in five or so states.  If they have not made up their mind yet, they are probably relying on semi-hysterical and mostly meaningless sound bites on the evening and morning news shows, vague notions bantered about by late night comics, Facebook graphics, and water cooler talking points for their information. 

What is distilling down to these people is important.  It will decide this election.  It is easy to laugh and dismiss people who sound like this student sounded this morning, and that is a huge mistake because whichever candidate does the best job at targeting voters like her, albeit ones who have not made up their minds, will win every time.

Historically, the Republicans have the process down.  The Democrats are slowly catching up, but still tend to fall into the trap that they can win on the intelligence and strength of their ideas and that sound bites are petty and worthless.  No, they can’t win this way. 

It is why so many Democrats were baffled by Romney’s “defeat” of Obama in the first debate.  Obama brought the facts, Romney brought the persona, and Romney “won.”

As much as I hate to say it, to win, the Democrats must become masters of the very broken, very evil, sound bite and slogan driven PR machine that removes all thought and depth from their arguments and promises everyone success and happiness and ponies as a reward for voting Democrat. 

Unfortunately, for the last twelve years or more, the Democrats seem incapable of actually winning elections.  The only times they actually win, including the mid-term congressional elections as well as the presidency, is when the GOP screws up so bad that the voters come crawling back to give the Dems one more chance. 

Before the first debate, the widening lead in the polls was not due to the strength of the Democrats’ arguments, but due to the ineptness of the Romney campaign.  He seems silly, I am not voting for him!  Tax codes?  Health care?  Foreign policy?  Nope.  Mitt looked silly.  Now that Mitt doesn’t seem so silly, these voters are torn again.

This election will be decided by Leno and Letterman and the like, not even by Fox News or The Daily Show, whose viewers were never really in play to start with.  The candidate who wins will be the one who provides the least fuel for the jokes, not by the campaign that offers the best, or, at least, the most coherent, ideas for the future of our country.  It is sad and it is why, I can’t see for a long time, calling this blog anything but Democracy In Distress.

Related Posts

from tag Party

• Democracy In Distress: God, Politics, Education, & Evolution: Some recent articles
• Democracy In Distress: The war on women & Santorum’s choice
• Democracy In Distress: Code Speak: Politics, bigotry, & the problem with Santorum
• CNN: GOP 2012 Delegate Score Card
• Democracy In Distress: Obama Mail: Today’s Republican Talking Points
• Democracy In Distress: A dysfunctional system goes Super… And fails.
• Democracy In Distress: WTF!?!?! Tea Party Nation asks businesses to stop hiring as expression of tea party solidarity

from tag Romney

• Democracy In Distress: Romney’s plunge towards the debates: Don’t count him out yet
• Democracy In Distress: From The Daily Show… All three parts of the interview with Jonathan Macey
• Democracy In Distress: It’s a Trap! Thoughts on the 1st Obama / Romney Debate
• Democracy In Distress: GOP & 2012: A grab bag of headlines from everyone's favorite dysfunctional family
• Democracy In Distress: Marriage Equality: President Obama & North Carolina

(more..)