Starting Gate: Not As Close As You Think
After a flurry of polls this week, it’s tempting to sum up the presidential race this way: Barack Obama holds a small, but clear lead while John McCain, defying the odds, trends and landscape, remains within striking distance. The CBS/New York Times poll has Obama with a 6-point lead. It’s three points in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, three points from Newsweek and the Gallup tracking poll has it at 3 points also.
The seeming tightness of the race though has spurred question about why Obama isn’t further ahead in the current environment which appears to be tailor-made for his candidacy and his party in November. Before you go down that “what’s wrong with Obama” road though, there’s evidence out there that suggests Obama may be in much better shape than he looks to be in the national polls.
Presidents, of course, are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and a quick look at the state-by-state polls shows the kind of advantages Obama holds at the moment. Glancing at the averages compiled by Real Clear Politics, a picture emerges suggesting that Obama has a much better chance of enlarging his map than McCain.
In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota.
When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat.
Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up.
In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio. It’s early. All polls are snapshots in time and the practice of “averaging” poll results from different polling organizations with different methodologies is not close to being scientific. But it’s instructive to look at both the broader and state-by state information to get a true sense of the race. And at this point, it’s hard to argue that Obama does not have a clear lead. (Caveat: The Real Clear Politics polling averages include data from many polls, including some note used or recognized by CBS News).
Around The Track
Obama’s campaign says it raised $52 million in June and has $72 million in the bank. The DNC has $20 million cash-on-hand, CBS News reports, which puts the total amount at $92 million. For all the success of Obama’s fundraising, that puts him just short of the nearly $95 million the McCain campaign and RNC reports having. Still, it’s as competitive as Democrats have been on the fundraising front in a long time.
Al Gore stayed mum during the Democratic primary but he bursts back onto the stage with a major speech in Washington today on climate change and the energy crisis. Gore will challenge the nation to produce all of its energy through wind, sun and other “Earth-friendly” means, according to the AP.
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove says both candidates may be missing an opportunity to lead on the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae front: “Elections are often reshaped by unexpected and fast-moving events, and when this happens a candidate who quickly takes the lead on the new issue can bolster his chances to win,” Rove writes in his Wall Street Journal column. “An opportunity awaits Messrs. McCain and Obama. Will either man seize it?”
Obama’s trip overseas will be covered intensely by some of the media heavyweights, reports the New York Times. That provides him an opportunity but also poses the risk that any missteps on the world stage could be amplified greatly.
The seeming tightness of the race though has spurred question about why Obama isn’t further ahead in the current environment which appears to be tailor-made for his candidacy and his party in November. Before you go down that “what’s wrong with Obama” road though, there’s evidence out there that suggests Obama may be in much better shape than he looks to be in the national polls.
Presidents, of course, are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and a quick look at the state-by-state polls shows the kind of advantages Obama holds at the moment. Glancing at the averages compiled by Real Clear Politics, a picture emerges suggesting that Obama has a much better chance of enlarging his map than McCain.
In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota.
When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat.
Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up.
In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio. It’s early. All polls are snapshots in time and the practice of “averaging” poll results from different polling organizations with different methodologies is not close to being scientific. But it’s instructive to look at both the broader and state-by state information to get a true sense of the race. And at this point, it’s hard to argue that Obama does not have a clear lead. (Caveat: The Real Clear Politics polling averages include data from many polls, including some note used or recognized by CBS News).
Around The Track
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 CommentsThe Los Angeles Times claimed that McCain "seemed to call Social Security a ''disgrace'' " [emphasis added].
Dan Balz, taking part in a washingtonpost.com online chat session with readers, offered up his own cleansing interpretation: "I would suspect that the point [McCain] was trying to make in calling the system a disgrace is the fact that with fewer workers paying the cost of Social Security for more and more retirees, the system is out of balance."
McCain''s Social Security words were unambiguous; he was absolutely clear. But the press, after belatedly acknowledging them, quickly and charitably concocted an escape hatch for the candidate -- he misspoke! Or, this is what he probably meant to say.
Frankly, that''s just nuts.
Blogging at ABC News, Jake Tapper also opted for the gee-I''m-stumped headline approach: "What About Social Security Was McCain Calling a ''Disgrace?'' " Tapper replayed the McCain comments and included a round-up of reactions from liberal bloggers who jumped on the story and wondered why the candidate''s remark wasn''t being replayed in a cable television loop. Tapper himself made no attempt to analyze or interpret the McCain comments, to put them in context, or to suggest they were newsworthy or controversial; he simply contacted the campaign and re-printed its weak spin.
Over
That was not news, according to Rupert Murdoch''s newspaper, where common sense is clearly in short supply.
When some news organizations, shamed into action by the blogs, finally did get around to addressing the news story they completely (and willfully?) missed, reporters were careful to tiptoe around McCain''s unambiguous comment and generally act confused about what the candidate meant.
But the only reason the Obama remarks became a so-called "controversy" was when right-wing groups purposely misinterpreted the remarks to mean Obama was demanding that Americans be forced to learn Spanish.
That''s what he meant by "disgrace."
The Post however, failed to inform readers that McCain''s claim that Social Security is "going to go bankrupt" and that young people won''t receive any Social Security benefits is, without question, false.
So to recap: At the Post, the paper failed to catch the "disgrace" comment when it was first made. The paper then published an entire piece about Social Security as a campaign issue and never included the "disgrace" comment. And when the Post belatedly addressed the "disgrace" remark, it allowed McCain to air unfettered lies about Social Security.
The Washington Post was also among the newspapers that sent a reporter to cover McCain''s Denver event and then ignored the "disgrace" story.
But how''s this for embarrassing? The day after McCain''s "disgrace" comment, the Post
published a lengthy, A1 piece detailing the Social Security positions of Obama and McCain, but the newspaper did not include McCain''s shocking remarks. The Post did include a snippet of the Republican''s remarks from Denver the day before, but in an article about the candidates'' view of Social Security, not the fact that McCain thinks the whole system is a "disgrace."
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
* The Washington Times
* Los Angeles Times
* The Baltimore Sun
* The Miami Herald
* St. Louis Post-Dispatch
* New York Post
* Associated Press
What was so revealing was that not a single member of the campaign press caravan that heard McCain''s shocking swipe at Social Security immediately thought it was newsworthy.
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
What was so revealing was that not a single member of the campaign press caravan that heard McCain''s shocking swipe at Social Security immediately thought it was newsworthy.
Here''s just a partial list of print news outlets that had reporters covering McCain''s Denver event but that did not mention the "disgrace" comment -- that did not consider it to be newsworthy in real time:
Does McCain think Medicare is a "disgrace" too? Our postal system, national parks, highways? What other landmark government-funded initiatives does McCain dismiss as a "disgrace"?
The campaign spin of his July 7 remarks was that McCain was referring to the fact that it''s a "disgrace" that Congress has not been able to solve future funding issues for Social Security. That represented an interesting and plausible take. But it matched virtually none of what McCain said in Denver. Or what he said on CNN that week: "[Younger people] pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That''s why it''s broken, that''s why we can fix it."
Note that the exact opposite requirements were needed to address the McCain story: Some actual reporting had to be undertaken, the topic at hand was Social Security, no blue language was involved, and the Drudge Report completely ignored the "disgrace" episode.
It''s hard to downplay just how shocking McCain''s Social Security comments were. In fact, they were likely unprecedented for a modern American presidential campaign. It wasn''t just the stock GOP misinformation McCain spread in Denver about how Social Security was going bankrupt soon. (It''s not.) It was the proclamation by McCain that our pay-as-you-go Social Security itself was an "absolute disgrace." Period.
But Jackson is a civil rights leader who often speaks for African-Americans -- who, according to the polls, are among Obama''s most stalwart, unwavering supporters. I just didn''t understand how Jackson''s comments could be interpreted as representing a larger, widespread problem for the Obama campaign (i.e., actual news). Jackson, obviously speaking only for himself, said something nasty under his breath about the Democratic candidate whom he supports. That''s blockbuster news that has to be mentioned on TV 900 times in the span of just a few days?
On those same news outlets there had been less than 24 references to McCain''s "disgrace" comment. And not a single network newscast reported on the Social Security story. For reporters and pundits, "nuts" reigned over the "disgrace." Even days after the Jackson story faded, I was still left scratching my head trying to figure out exactly what significance, if any, the episode represented. Yes, it was embarrassing for Jackson. Yes, Jackson is famous. Yes, it''s mildly amusing to hear what famous people like Jackson really think when they assume they cannot be overheard. But that doesn''t explain why Jackson grabbed approximately 900 television mentions last week, or why reporters spent an inordinate amount of time "analyzing" the repercussions from the "nuts" swipe.
By contrast, more than 50 major U.S. dailies published a total of 126 articles and columns about the Jackson story. Several influential newspapers went back to the story ad nauseam. Combined, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times and Los Angeles Times published 39 different articles and columns that referenced the Jackson-Obama controversy.
By contrast, the combined number of stories and columns those three newspapers published that made reference to the McCain "disgrace" controversy? One.
By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.
Two events in recent days reaffirmed that sad conclusion, when entire news organizations opted to throw all sorts of time and attention at what was essentially a pointless campaign-related sideshow, while simultaneously displaying blanket indifference to what should have been the campaign story of the week, if not the month or possibly the entire summer.
News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important.
During the slow summer months of a presidential campaign, that judgment and that common sense is usually even easier to put into practice because, traditionally, so little happens on the campaign trail with the candidates that what ought to be covered becomes self-evident.
By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America. Posted July 17, 2008.
The Beltway press has become dysfunctional, failing to see news when it happens and hyping non-stories that require no real reporting.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 57 Comments