The commonplace Versailles meme is that the Democrats lost because they're too far left. But the reality is that the Democrats are just plain politically incompetent. Of course one can argue that they're not incompetent, that this is what they're supposed to do, and at one level, that's a very defensible position. Except that it also makes no sense at other levels. Better to say that they are incompetent, and that this incompetence serves powerful elite interests (which are also profoundly, psychopathically self-destructive). But one thing they are not is "too far left."
Take, in particular, the excellent post-election analysis from John Sides at The Monkey Cage a couple of weeks ago, "Do Democrats Understand Political Independents?" The answer, of course, is "Are you kidding?" Most importantly: This is not just a post-election analysis of the results, but of how the Democrats are misinterpreting the results.
First off, Sides contextualizes this whole problem in terms of the recurrent media habit of creating mythical new archetypal swing voters every election cycle:
It seems like every time a party is defeated in an election, it blames that defeat on some group whose loyalties it once had but lost. Party strategists then talk endlessly about how to get this group "back." Remember "values voters"? Does anyone think that the Democratic Party's success in 2006-2008 came about because they successfully appealed to "values voters"? You'd think that after a few of these wild goose chases, people would start to learn.
But no. The lesson of the 2010 election is, apparently, that the Democrats must get independents back. And this will necessitate some kind of bipartisanship or centrism or something, because independents have become more conservative. See, for example, Bill Galston.
Of course, sometime back Chris pointed out that it's not just groups in the political middle (or right, in the case of so-called "values voters") who swing. Virtually every demographic group swings from election to election, and sometimes those who no one talks about swing the most. A swing from 75-25 to 65-35 is every bit as big as a swing from 55-45 to 45-55. What's more, swings in participation rate also count tremendously, as the drop-off in young voters this past election serve to remind us.
But what's most remarkable about these lost voter narratives is the purely anecdotal, if not downright mythical nature of these voting groups. Soccer moms? These are just catchy stereotypes that serve the needs of a lazy, intentionally superficial press corps. They are about as real as Iraqi WMDs. And this time is no different:
This diagnosis fails to separate independents who lean towards a party from the true independents. This is always necessary, as I previously pointed out:
For one, many claims about the opinions of independents never separate leaners from pure independents. If there is a 15% drop in Obama approval among the entire mass of apparent "independents," this could mean that there is a drop among independents who lean Republican, independents who lean Democratic, and/or pure independents. Why does this matter? Because the political consequences are different. If Obama loses 15 points among independents who lean Republican, he is losing voters who are unlikely to vote for him in 2012 anyway. But if he loses 15 points among independents who lean Democratic, then he has more serious problems.
In 2010, the story is about Republican-leaning independents. Ruy Teixeira:
...Republican-leaning independents, just like ordinary Republicans, have become more conservative (also by 7 points) and...Republican-leaning independents are now a larger part of the independent pool (now 40 percent of independents compared to 30 percent in 2006). As political scientists have noted over and over again independents who lean toward the Republican party act very similar to Republican partisans (and Democratic leaning independents act like Democratic partisans), so this is a hugely important fact in understanding the changing political behavior of independents.
Among the rest of the independent pool, there has either been no change in the number of conservatives (among non-leaning or pure independents) or a slight decrease (among Democratic leaning independents). So the increase in "conservatism" among independents is completely accounted for by the increased conservatism of Republican-leaning independents and the increased weight of Republican-leaning independents among independents as a whole.
Unlike the Versailles punditalkcrazy, which remains deeply enamored of the mythical "center-right country" they think America is, the real, actual American people--also known as the electorate, citizens, folks, what-have-you--are quite clear-eyed about why the Republicans lost this election: they're just too damn concervative! The evidence from the post-election Democracy Corps report, "The Change Election Awaiting Change", could not be clearer [click image for wider version]:
That's how the American people see things. But the majority of the subset of Republican voters disagrees [click image for wider version]:
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.
The media narratives are out. The Clinton's, once again the Comeback Kids, the race is thrown into disarray. With New Hampshire and Iowa finished, and we have no idea who will be the nominee on either side of the aisle, no clear frontrunner on either side.
So let me take a few of the media narratives and throw in some facts. You know, the basic elements of TRUTH and Reporting?
STATE BLOGS
