10 Reasons For The False Media Narrative of A "Tied Campaign"
The media narrative of a tied campaign is yet another sign of the rightwing bias of the Versailles media, but it is not a simple phenomena. In fact, it has many contributing elements, each of which, in turn, is a result of rightwing influence combined with press laziness of at least distinct kinds--intellectual laziness, the habit of not thinking things through, and ordinary laziness, the habit of simply not bothering to check things out.
While I'm certain to have missed something, I've compiled a list of contributing factors to "campaign is tied" narrative. This list is my attempt to show why this false narrative is so deeply embedded, and so impervious to facts.
Of course the real reason is the conservative Republican dominance of Versailles, the result of a virtually-unopposed 30-40 year Gramscian "culture war"/"war of position", that involves systematically taking over all the reality-defining cultural institutions they can get their hands on. But that long-term structural advantage has to be translated into various forms that directly impact campaign coverage. This is my attempt to map out the major ones as they appear to me now. The reasons appear on the flip.
(1) The belief that "this is a center-right country," and hence a solid Democratic lead is unthinkable, and thus, unreportable. The belief that "this is a center-right country" is one of the key narratives supporting the conservative Republican takeover of elite politics. This belief, long promoted by the right, is based on self-identification as "moderate," "liberal," or "conservative." It overlooks the fact that a large plurality--and near majority--of self-identified "conservatives" are actually liberal in their political attitudes toward New Deal spending programs and liberal internationalist foreign policy, as first observed by pioneering researchers Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril in their 1967 book, The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion. Their findings have been supported by decades of puiblic opinion research, most notably that carried out by General Social Survey, as I've discussed on various occasions, such as "The Myth Of A Polarized Public" and "Center-Left America--Vast Support For the Welfare State". The dominance of liberal policy attitudes is an enduring fact of American political life, though subject to fluctuations in strength. It has been growing stronger for some time now.
More particularly, the belief that "this is a center-right country" is often used to dismiss consideration of views that are demonstrably majoritarian, such as support for withdrawal from Iraq, increased social spending , or warrantless wiretapping. Even if the claim were true, it would simply be sloppy reasoning to argue from a general premise ("this is a center-right country") to a specific conclusion ("public opinion on this issue is center-right") when there is specific polling data to the contrary.
(2) Belief in a static, narrowly-divided electorate, precluding the possibility of a decisive Democratic victory. The Versailles media cannot even bring itself to admit how deeply unpopular Bush is, how high the "wrong track" numbers are, how bad the Republican prospects in Congress are this year. If all this is beyond their ken, then how can we expect them to know about shifts in party ID? It's not like they know how to use Google. Nonetheless, polling from both Pew, and Rasmussen clearly shows that the partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans has shifted dramatically from near-parity in the early 2000s back toward the traditional dominance of Democratic self-identification.
(3) Belief in the conservative framing of "character" as the bedrock of politics has multiple implications that inhibit accurate reporting of the race. This framing of "character" as central has long been the secret for how conservatives manage to win elections despite the fact that most people are liberal on most policy issues. It provides an easy framework for pundits to blather on endlessly without ever needing to expend any intellectual effort whatsoever. No need to know any facts or figures, much less be able to reason about them. Polling data? That's nerdsville, baby! All you have to do is gossip, call it "political analysis" and collect your paycheck. But the simple fact is that politics is about the enactment of public policy. It makes no difference whatsoever if those passing such policies and implementing them are saints or sinners in their private lives. The politics of "character" is a red herring so big, it could swallow the whale that swallowed Jonah.
(4) Belief in the conservative narrative that conservative leaders are heroic figures and Democrats are depraved. This builds directly on the point above, and is its single most powerful mode of influencing coverage of the race. Glenn Greenwald's book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics (reviewed here, interview here) dissects in detail how this narrative framing is used to defeat Democrats and elect conservative Republicans, and how false it is. But so long as it is taken seriously, it seriously impares the ability to see what is directly in front of their faces--including a race that has not been tied for a very long time now.
(5) Serial examination of individual polls, without looking at them in terms of trends or aggregates. This is the standard modus-operandi for most poll reporting. Comparison is generally limited to the previous similar poll. Media outlets who commission polls routinely ignore other polls, while other media are oblivious to house effects. The end result is that most polls, taken by themselves, are either within the margin of error, or can at least plausibly be described as "close" (a highly relative term.) The fact that months and months of such polls give a very different cumulative picture is easily ignored.
(6) Failure to recognize house effects, and results of disproportionate frequency of polls with most pro-McCain house effects. This was discussed by Chris, earlier this week in his diary, "Rasmussen and Gallup Still Lagging Behind Other Polls":
Two weeks ago, Alan I. Abramowitz pointed out a significant statistical discrepancy between the Gallup and Rasmussen daily tracking polls, and all other national polls on the presidential campaign:
Here's what I found. Since the beginning of May over 74 days of polling, the Gallup tracking poll has shown Barack Obama with an average lead of 1.6 percentage points over John McCain. During the same time period, the Rasmussen tracking poll, over 76 days of polling, has shown Obama with an average lead of 1.8 percentage points. But during the exact same time period, 38 other national polls have shown Obama with an average lead of 5.2 percentage points.
Abramowitz's data was through July 21st. Given that this discrepancy continues to persist, I thought I would update it. From July 22nd through today, there have been forty-five national polls. Thirty-four of these polls were from Gallup and Rasmussen (although one was not a tracking poll), while eleven were from other polling firms. I found virtually the same discrepancy as Abramowitz.
(7) Failure to focus on state-level data--both state-level polling data, and the cumulative maps and EV matchups that result.
Chris's EV maps have been a constant front-page reminder here at OpenLeft that the race is very much not tied, but that Obama enjoys a massive advantage in the size of his base, and has multiple ways of securing an Electoral College victory. I've weighed in on the state-level view myself, but here I'd like to focus on a somewhat different point, raised by fladem in a recent diary, "State versus National Polling: They both can't be right":
In late June I posted here a summary of state polling that looks not at the Electoral College, but rather at what the state polls say about the state of the election. The graph below updates that work and compares the state polls to the national average.
One of the reasons I like to make this comparison is that it avoids reliance on a limited number of pollsters. Right now the narrative is being driven by two polling groups, one of whom (Rasmussen) had a mixed record in the primaries. In contrast, there have been over 150 separate state polls in the last two months taken by over a dozen different pollsters. Right now the state averages do not support a tied race. In fact, they show a race that hasn't materially changed over the last 10 days. As I have written before, when a significant gap opens between national polling and state polling, the state polling is usually right.
What makes Rasmussen interesting is that it also does a significant amount of state polling. In fact, nearly half of all state polling is done by Rasmussen. And that is where it gets interesting. It is impossible to reconcile Rasmussen's State polling with their National Polling.
Since July 24th Rasmussen has released 7 polls. On average they show a swing from 2004 of 13.34%, which translates into a roughly 11 point Obama lead Nationwide. During the same period Rasmussen was showing an National Obama lead of 3. There is simply no way to square the Rasmussen state results with their National Polling.
Of course, one partial explanation for what fladem has observed is that a disproportionate amount of state-level polling is taking place in states Bush won, where Obama is making serious inroads, and these dramatic shifts are partly offset by less noticeable shits elsewhere. But since these appear to be the only states where significant change (from one party to another) is afoot, this only further enhances the argument that pundits are ignoring important state-level data.
(8) Failure to recognize how a modest (i.e. 5-point) margin can result in an EV landslide. As discussed in my diary yesterday, "Popular v. Electoral College Margins".
(9) Failure to compare the course of this race to previous ones. The most obvious parallel being ignored is 1980, which clearly was a referendum on Carter, and where the challenger, Reagan, was inexperienced on the national level. A close race finally became an Electoral College landslide, once people became comfortable with Reagan, as a result of his debate performance.
(10) Versailles media ignoring the impact of their own bias on the race. Finally, the punditalkcrazy and the Versailles media in general routinely and systematically ignore the impact of their own bias, the narratives they spread and those they ignore or suppress. This reflects back on subjects already discussed above, but perhaps its biggest impact can be summarized in terms of two points:
Versailles media narratives inhibit Democrats from taking more popular positions, and making them central to their campaigns. There's little doubt in my mind that Obama is not much of an economic populist. But he does at least have some capacity to play the role, and some understanding (clouded though it might be) of its inherent logic and justice. We saw this come out during the primary campaign, and we saw it shrink afterwards under the scrutiny of the Versailles press. Repudiating economic populism is quite popular with them. With the public, however--those pesky voters!--not so much.
The Versailles media repeats and reinforces McCain's mythical narratives. If you have any doubt what I'm talking about, simply contrast McCain's image of commanding presence and straight talk with this video compilation, from TPM:
That is the real McCain, uncensored and unedited by his adoring fans in the Versailles media. Without their militant support, this race would not even be close to being close, and the "race is tied" narrative could not even be whispered without evoking snickers, if not guffaws.
Conclusion
The above 10 points are hardly exhaustive. But they do give some sense of why Versailles clings so tenaciously to the "race is tied" narrative. Of course, as noted in the introduction, the real reason is much more basic--the right has been fighting a Gramscian "culture war"/"war of position" for 30-40 years now, and the left has not. As a result, the right dominates a wide range of key reality-defining institutions, and it engages in coordinated efforts to spin things in its sleep that are far more sweeping, multifaceted and effective than anything that progressives can come up with in their most caffeinated hyper-vigilant state. The above reasons are merely the modalities through which the right's long-term advantage of fighting the Gramscian culture war unopposed get translated into action in the short run of a single presidential campaign.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
