The Passenger

A Question About Polling and Political Coverage

Like any good political news junkie, I've been devouring the coverage in the lead-up to the November midterms, checking as many sources as are willing to update: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, LA Times, Talking Points Memo, Time, Newsweek...et cetera, et cetera. The message conveyed in the aggregate coverage is that the American public is either turned off to, or confused by, the Democratic policies, and the Republicans could possibly take both chambers of congress. 

And how do we know all this?  Because the polls tell us so. 

Of course, there are plenty of personal stories cropping up in the coverage: the Independent voter who tells a reporter that she's disappointed in President Obama's performance and is voting Republican, or the unemployed father who is so frustrated by the bleak job market and wants to give Congress a wake-up call, or the Tea Party rallies.  These stories are all valid indicators of the political climate, and they certainly could be used to support the notion that things look bad for the Democrats.

Yet, I can't help but wonder what impact weeks and months of "Democratic support collapses, Republicans poised for historic November wave" stories have on the psyche of the voters.  If the majority of the coverage in news reports and articles include the latest polling that says the Republicans are leading by X points in a generic ballot, or point out that the public is rushing away from the Democrats and towards the Republicans, does that potentially influence how people will vote come election day?  [To be equal opportunity here, I'll add that I wondered the same thing in 2008, when the coverage in the closing weeks suggested that McCain had an exceptionally steep hill to climb if he was going to squeak out a win].

Pollsters and journalists alike are often quick to add a caveat that polls are only a snapshot in time, and are not infallible in their predictive power.  Fair enough, but if the majority of the coverage of a particular race or election cycle essentially sends the message that a candidate is way ahead/struggling in the polls, does the coverage itself unduly influence how people perceive that candidate?

I started thinking about this after coming across an old Boston Globe article from January 10, nine days before the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. The article centered on Martha Coakley's strong 15 point lead in the latest polling, her strong support across the state, and then went on to suggest that, while a Scott Brown victory wasn't impossible, it would be very surprising at that point.  Yet in the final week of the campaign, as her lead unquestionably began to shrink, the tone of the coverage changed from "Coakley appears headed to victory" to "Coakley's support is collapsing, Brown is surging." 

I wonder: did the fact that people were almost exclusively reading "Coakley's lead collapsing" articles in that final week help create a self-fulfilling prophecy?  And as we head into the closing weeks of the national midterms, with constant reminders of the likely Republican "wave," could this be happening again?

It's something to ponder, and I don't know what the alternatives would be.  I certainly wouldn't suggest that journalists ignore polls, but I do wonder how we can report/digest the news, without being subtly influenced in our decision-making....?

Thoughts On The Democrats, Conventional Wisdom, and the Midterms

Joe Klein published an interesting piece over at Time yesterday (Dems Depressed and Disheartened) in which he points out all the positive things Obama has done since taking office, how many campaign promises he's either fulfilled or is on track towards fulfilling, and how he is doing many things that Democrats have long dreamed off - and how in spite of that, there's a hardening public perception that the bloom is off the rose.  Given that Obama has helped overhaul healthcare, has responsibly wound down the war in Iraq, and has named two Supreme Court justices, Klein wants to know: why the heck do Dems have the blues??

It's definitely a question worth asking.  Ultimately, I think it boils down to sky-high, unrealistic expectations about what Obama and the Democrats could accomplish in their first two years.  And I don't believe that Obama necessarily brought this on himself, either.  The Bush years, after all, were dispiriting for the Democrats.  The national strategy, from the Democrats' standpoint, became less about doing the most good for the most people, and more about trying to minimize harm to as many as possible.  It was the necessary defensive strategy of a minority party (and, I'd argue, it was not the scorched-earth approach that the Republicans have adopted these past two years). 

From Obama's very first appearance on the national stage, during the 2004 Democratic Convention, he sounded all the right notes.  He spoke of unity, of common purpose, of pragmatic politics and principled compromise for the greater good.  And like many others, I thought that once he was elected president, there was a chance that maybe we actually would turn the page and the two parties would try to work together to tackle the significant problems the country was facing. 

In retrospect, I can see that I was naive in thinking the Republicans would work with President Obama.  Why would they give him bipartisan support and hand him victory after victory?  If a health care overhaul successfully covered millions more Americans and brought costs under control, who would ultimately get the credit?  If unemployment dropped and Wall Street was reigned in, who would be able to trumpet that to the nation?  From the Republican point of view, it has made more sense to block as much of Obama's agenda as possible, and then run against him and the Democrats as all sizzle, no steak. Politically, that may well be a winning formula, but it certainly makes for unconscionable governance.

Klein argues that, in spite of Republican opposition, Obama has still accomplished a great deal. But one thing he hasn't been able to accomplish was to change the tone in Washington. I believe that Democrats across the country have been disappointed that his election didn't herald a new way of doing business, and a more civilized national conversation.  Maybe the two-party, adversarial system of government that we have makes that an impossibility.  All the same, the American voters would do well to think about Obama's accomplishments so far, and to contemplate how much better off the country would be if the Republicans were truly willing to work in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion. 

PR, PR, And Nothing But PR

Being one of those trapped in the rat race, I wasn't able to catch President Bush's speech yesterday in which he tried to reassure the country about Iraq.  A lot has happened since he gave his last major address on the war; American deaths have topped 2,000, stability in Iraq is nowhere in sight, Bush’s approval ratings have gone in the toilet, and former staunch allies like Rep. Murtha calling for withdrawal.  The whole tone of the Iraq debate has changed from "We will be greeted as liberators, and the Iraqi oil will pay for this quickie war" to "Sweet—Vietnam for a new generation, minus the draft (so far)!"  And for the first time, the Bush White House has really been put on the defensive.

I did get to hear the speech on the radio, though, and it sounded far from the confident, stately projection of the Commander-In-Chief  that the White House needed or hoped for.  Bush's stilted language, in which he constantly tripped over his tongue while speaking in a hesitant cadence, coupled with more vague pronouncements about how things were going alright, all made him sound like a man backed into a corner.  Bush did not offer new insights into what the ultimate goal is or should be.  It all added up to another lackluster pr job by the White House, rather than a moment to level with the country. 

At this point, there's probably no one who honestly thinks there's going to be a flowering of Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq when all is said and done.  And most people probably realize that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better: more lives will be lost, more  blood will be shed, and our soldiers will be strained even more than they have been.  Even staunch Democrats can recognize how difficult it must be for the administration to admit this; it’s akin to political suicide.  But let’s remember that this is also the path this administration paved, promising the rosiest and quickest of scenarios.   

In his article about the speech, the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin hit the needle on the head when he said: "…nothing Bush said is likely to change the fact that he has a big credibility problem with most Americans."  This is true, and he is starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf when he keeps promising that we’re about to turn the corner.  We all remember when the vice president declared that the insurgency was in its last throes, earlier this year, and if it sounded hollow then, it sounds downright ludicrous now. 

This is the same pattern the United States government was in during Vietnam, and only Tet opened the nation’s eyes to the Johnson administration’s lies.  In Iraq, there’s almost a mini-Tet happening every day, and the question continues to be: When will the Bush administration drop the PR and really level with us?  And what is the plan to (eventually) leave Iraq without it becoming a black hole?  When the government starts to get serious about these issues, then they can announce their major speeches on the matter.  Until then, we’re just going to continue to mourn the split between Nick and Jessica (sob)...

Wait, Stuffing Wasn't Around 200 Years Ago?

In an odd sense of timing, the inventor of stuffing has passed away.  Really, it would have to happen right before Thanksgiving, wouldn't it? 

Bush's Next Supreme Court Nominee

There's something inherently amusing about a president and a turkey in a photo-op.  I don't know quite what it is, but god love 'em....

Magical Chinese 'Fund' Supports America's Retirees

Saw this ad while surfing weather.com:

Americans collect
millions by dipping into
China's gov.-backed
'Retirement Fund'

Made me laugh.  Yeah, aside from this magical 'retirement fund,' the Chinese government is also backing Social Security... and all the rest of governmnet spending for the year.

Thoughts On Rosa

With the passing of Rosa Parks, another link to a turbulent, revolutionary period in this nation’s history is lost.  When you stop and reflect upon the movement she was able to spur, all by virtue or refusing to give up a seat on a bus, it’s pretty amazing.  It also makes one stop and consider how African Americans had to fight tooth and nail to win the rights that were promised to them at the end of the Civil War–rights that had barely materialized by the mid-50s.  At a time when lynchings (real and metaphorical) were still commonplace, and racism was excused and, in many areas, encouraged, it took someone courageous to stand up to a corrupt culture and say they’d had enough.

But another thing to reflect upon is to wonder what would have happened if the rules of today applied in 1955?  How successful would Parks and the civil rights movement have been?  Yes, initially Walter Cronkite or Chet Huntley may have reported on the story, and sympathetic citizens across the country would send their support to her.  But how long would it take before the smears would start?  Imagine: the revelations would come out within days that Parks was an active member of the NAACP.  And then charges might follow that she’d planned this confrontation to use the media coverage to spur on the civil rights movement.  She would then be connected to that crazy radical reverend, Martin Luther King, Jr.  From that moment on, everything Parks said or did would be viewed through the prism of her activism, her politics, and her associates. Those sympathetic with the civil rights cause would still stand by her, and the rest of the country would dismiss her as another uppity black woman. 

Would the civil rights movement have stalled out then and there?  Probably not, though it is hard to say.  She seemed innocent and non-threatening enough a spokeswoman for her cause...just the sort of person anyone wanting to keep the status quo would want to neutralize. Luckily, today’s rules didn’t exist in 1955.  Every citizen, regardless of color, owes the woman a thank you for helping to forward the rights of minorities in our country.  And those people who have achieved levels of success that were undreamed of in Rosa Parks’ time especially owe it to her memory to realize that the work’s not all done.

Please Don't Sue Us

In yet another amazing coup for such a tiny little blog, The Passenger is proud to host star gossip columnist Cindy Adams as today’s guest poster.  Ms. Adams once again offers a bold, incisive, and intelligent take on the events of the day:

Good morning, America!  I was having an exquisite dinner last with my dear friend Barbara Walters, who tells me that she’s already got her people talking to White House Dep. Chief of Staff Karl Rove about a possible interview.  While no one knows what will happen to Rove if he is indicted, I can share this juicy secret with you: Ms. Walters said Karl has been so tense from all the attention lately that he’s been over-indulging his sweet tooth with a double thick milkshake every night before bed.  I’m not his mother, but I think somebody needs to tell Karl to Kount the Kalories!

And speaking of Rove, has anyone else noticed the bags under his boss’s eyes lately?  Do you think it’s because the situation in Iraq is keeping President George Bush up at night?  That’s what YOU might think, dear readers, but I’ve got it from a good source that says George’s bags are actually the result of his newfound passion: watching DVDs of last season’s “Sopranos!”  Apparently, George and Laura are late converts to Tony and Company’s nefarious ways, and I do mean “late:” they’ve been known to stay up in their White House quarters until 2 am watching episodes, with the Commander In Chief exclaiming, “I just can’t wait until tomorrow to find out what happens to Adrianna!” 

I’ll bet that the President wishes he could “whack” people like Tony Soprano does.  It would have come in handy when the homely Cindy Sheehan staked out in front his ranch earlier this summer.  While she and her fellow castaways from “Hair” dogged Mr. Bush all summer, he probably wasn’t getting too much vacation peace.  I know the feeling: when I was in Aspen two years ago on a skiing vacation, I had a suite with a bedroom right next to then-It Couple, Ben Affleck and J-Lo–talk about your noisy neighbors!  Sorry guys, but it’s true!

But I need to get serious for a moment.  A date has been set for confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meiers.  The hearings start on November 7, and I would like to submit some questions of my own to this woman.  Chief among them: Who on earth cuts your hair?  Whomever it is should be tried and convicted of hair-slaughter!!  And the pantsuits are more like a Supreme Disaster.  Sigh...Why couldn’t they have nominated someone more elegant, like Candice Bergen?  When I was catching pizzatips with Larry King last week, he told me a tidbit about Meiers and Donald Rumsfeld that I really shouldn’t repeat.  My lips have been sworn to secrecy, but I can tell you that early on in the Bush administration, those two used to turn picking a video to rent into a Supreme headache for the President.  And you thought FEMA’s response to Katrina was a nightmare!

MSN To The Rescue

We here at The Passenger understand the pains and perils of running a website–the nature of the beast demands fresh content as often as possible.  That’s a big pressure as it is, let alone when the crafting of posts is done on the fly, in between the real life job, the extra-curriculars, etc.  But what about when it’s your full-time job to post to a website?  What if your full-time job is the quality control guy for a site that more than 13 people read? 

This question may have occurred to anyone that has signed out of their Hotmail accounts today and glanced at the MSN homepage.  There is an article, aimed at women [full disclosure: no, I am not a woman, and yes, I read the article anyway.  Just deal with it], telling them how to act in certain situations: how to talk to a hairdresser, how to talk to a teenaged babysitter, how to talk to your boss, etc. 

The article seemed aimed at really, really stupid women, though.  The article offers such pearls of wisdom as:  How To Talk To: “A cancer patient [Agenda: Be sympathetic and supportive without making her feel pitied.].”  The brief blurb mentions that a woman should be empathetic, without being too overbearing or morbid.  The kicker?  The bit where it mentions the “Fatal error: Talking about death.”

Thank you, MSN, for dispensing such sage advice!  Who would’ve known that it’s probably best not to yammer on about death to a cancer patient??

                                                 **************************

On a completely unrelated note: you loved the movie, now love the musical.  Silence!  The musical based upon Silence Of The Lambs. 

So, So Wrong

Does anyone else out there in cyberspace feel this is just plain wrong?  It's not up there with the abuses at Gitmo, maybe, or the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, but it's abuse and tragic, in its own right.  Can we please lock up anyone who is a known patron of this website?