The stumble
By tacitus Posted in Democrats — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Doverspa is on to something when he points out the Washington Post's cool reaction
to Kerry's address last night. It is when we turn to the NYT lead editorial on the same topic that we start to see that WaPo's piece is not an outlier, but indicative of a broader problem with Kerry's remarks, the Democratic National Convention, and the campaign itself.
Read on.
The Grey Lady is, of course, broadly pro-Kerry, but it's notable what critiques are
levelled from that quarter at the candidate as he and his running mate emerge from
the DNC: still no specifics on the cardinal issue of the day -- the war in
Iraq -- and an acknowledgement that the Democratic candidates "are still almost
strangers to most voters." This should never be the case following four
days of unopposed, positive primetime coverage. I mentioned in my speech thread that Kerry's remarks were too inside baseball, and herein we see the result: the base is mobilized. The public is not.
The search for the post-convention polls bounce for Kerry yields further clues as to the true impact of the DNC and the efficacy of his speech. Rasmussen reports him today as a whole three points over the President; Zogby has him at five. Let's not read too much into this -- 48 hours will yield vastly more meaningful data, and the Zogby timeframe may or may not have included the speech itself -- but it is, at the least, notable that the figures we have so far are below the 6.1% average post-convention bounce of the modern era. One wonders what Kerry's internal polling is telling his campaign right now: I suspect nothing good, given Stephanie Cutter's downplaying of the possibility of a postconvention bounce (even as indefatigable cheerleader Terry McAuliffe predicts an 8-10% jump). Bravado aside, they know what we know: That the questions and worries Americans had about John Kerry going into the DNC are still there. That he did not seal the deal. That he delivered the most important speech of his entire life -- and blew it.
Meanwhile, the Democratic base -- exhausted, bleary-eyed delegates and all -- emerges into the postconvention sunlight, enthused and thrilled by this epiphany that is John Kerry. But their optimism is ephemeral, grounded in shared intensity and belief instead of political reality, and reminiscent of nothing so much as their own leaders as they confer:
McAuliffe: "This is great."
Pelosi: "Are you excited?"
McAuliffe: "It's perfect."
Pelosi: "It is perfect."
McAuliffe: "We're gonna win!"
Pelosi: "We are gonna win. It's just really perfect."
McAuliffe: "We're a new party today."
Yes indeed. Only not.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Reporting for duty — Comments (14) »
The stumble 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The reason I posted the WaPo article (I refuse to read the NYT until they admit to being a liberal paper) is that media reaction is important. The reaction at kos and in other liberal circles was blindly positive. It was good to see that some of the more thoughtful left recognized that Kerry skirted over major issues and played up the rhetoric without taking stands on anything controversial. I don't claim that the editorial was pro-Bush or even conservative, but it was critical of Kerry's speech. And as many people read these reviews as see the speech itself (I have no evidenc to back that statement up).
Does anyone think that whatever bounce Kerry receives will be enough to sustain him through the next three months? I try to be objective, but I don't see how any bounce will be enough. Kerry should have come into the DNC with a 3-5% point lead (at least). A tie coming into the DNC is really a big deficit for him. Even assuming many undecideds will go Democrat, I don't see how anyone can think he has a real chance.
...because it only tells the gain in support the candidate got, rather than the increase in the gap between the candidates.
You generally get both an increase in the candidate's numbers and a decline in the opponent's.
The average convention bounce is closer to a dozen.
I don't think either convention will shift more than 3-5% of voters. Here's why.
- Media is 24 hours now. Conventions are not the only chance for people to see candidates.
- Convention coverage is down and viewership is lower than average on major stations.
- Less swing voters than usual means smaller swings in voters.
"I refuse to read the NYT until they admit to being a liberal paper"
Not that it's necessarily a reason to start reading them again, but they did do just that last Sunday.
I recognize it is a step in the right direction, but he restricted the statement to social issues and not political ones. Furthermore, the ombudsman is different than the paper itself. The National Review is a conservative magazine and they admit it. The NYT is a liberal newspaper who denies it. I reward honesty with my readership.
...I heard today on talk radio (don't know the name of the commentator):
"Kerry spent 20 minutes talking about 4 months in Vietnam, and half a minute talking about 20 years in the U.S. Senate."
They would seem to fail your litmus test, as they openly present themselves as 'fair and balanced' when even studies presented in this blog that were used to prove the 'liberal bias' of the media show Fox as a strong ideological outlier.
This may sound snarky but is meant as an honest question: does Fox have someone in an Ombudsman role, similar to Dan Okrent's position at the NYTimes, who oversees their coverage of the news?
...But my understanding is that Fox News IS fair and balanced when it comes to reporting the news; it's just opinion shows like Bill O'Reilly that have more of a bias. CNN on the other hand in my opinion shows its bias even in regular news coverage.
Of course, much of that is a matter of perception. There is a lot more concrete evidence in terms of studies (done even by admittedly liberal institutions such as Berkeley), that perhaps Doverspa would like to cite. :-)
Of course, Fox News DID just refer to Kerry/Edwards as "the identically clad Democratic duo" which although may have been an innocent description, absolutely cracked me up.
on any post-convention bounce is the size of the undecided demographic. Zogby puts that number at 5% whereas Gannett claims 15% is closer.
that bastion of conservatism... Study.
Fox news coverage (as opposed to the editorial and op-ed segment) is almost exactly in the middle. Each of the major networks scores to the left of center with the NYT and CBS being the farthest from the middle. I'm glad we have papers with different viewpoints, but it wouldn't kill them to be honest about their perspective. O'Reilly doesn't act like his segment is impartial news, he is a conservative and very straightforward with his views. If the NYT would print a little box on their front page saying
"We are a liberal newspaper. We report the news as we see it with an emphasis on issues and perspectives that reflects are main readership, the citizens of NYC. For example, we use the term anti-abortion instead of pro-life, but also use the term pro-choice instead of anti-life."
Or something similar of their choice.
That study still shows Fox's News coverage is an ideological outlier, far to the right of every other media outlet. And splitting hairs about Fox's supposed seperation of editorial and news coverage sounds exactly like your reason for NOT believing Okrent's work, 'he restricted the statement to social issues and not political ones.'
The whole channel is called 'Fox News', the whole channel is labeled 'Fair and balanced'. If it were called 'Fox's Muddle of Fair and Balanced News and Ideologically Slanted Editorial Commentary' it might be reasonable to look at that difference. But they don't distinguish between the two -- editorial and news coverage both get the same logo and motto.
I have read both editorials and their liberal bias is as clear as ever. They attempt to criticize Kerry's speech, but they cannot criticize Kerry without criticizing Bush. Those two editorials bash Bush more than they do Kerry.