Why is it that the candidate who has consistently had the lead in the polls for months is always the one who has to be troubled with worrisome signs?
Shouldn’t the candidate who has never once had the lead in the polls be worried? Isn’t that a sign, in and of itself (and a worrisome one, at that)?
Jake
Didn’t Politico do something similar back in the primary, asking why Obama couldn’t close the door on Hillary?
Meanwhile, none of these mediots are covering the vast difference in the ground game/organization between the two campaigns. Something tells me the Obama campaign doesn’t mind that there’s this perception of a close race.
Scotty
The media needs people to think its really close, because their product sells better when they can run that story.
Aaron
The reporting of these slight changes in the polls has been fairly silly. I think the problem basically comes down to, when the guy losing starts closing in on the guy in the lead, it’s more worrisome for the guy in the lead. He has something to lose. If McCain drops back two points, well, he was already behind four, so that’s not such a big deal. But if McCain starts to creep on Obama, that’s a much bigger story.
Basically, I think the imporatant part is the possible change in situations. Like you said, Obama has been in the lead the whole time. It would be a much bigger deal for McCain to overtake him than for McCain to fall back a little bit more.
Besides, as Matt Yglesias points out, the whole thing is fairly silly. If you look at the polls over a longer term, the race is static. Anyways, nothing serious is going on in the election right now — we’re in a holding pattern at the moment. They have to report something.
KXB
Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun Times had an excellent piece on this:
“Why Polls Aren’t Worrying Obama’s Team”
August 10, 2008
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1099400,CST-EDT-carol10.article
“In other words, this is now and always has been the sum of political component parts for the Obama operation, not a national popular election but a sophisticated, incremental accumulation of delegates in the primary, and electoral votes come November.”
Jake
A better question might be why Howard Wolfson can’t shut the fuck up.
Incertus
The thing that really threw me in that piece is that Obama is apparently doing way better than Kerry or Gore did with white males, and yet that’s good news for McCain. How does that work again? White males are the only reliable bastion for Republicans. Obama doesn’t need to win them–he only has to keep it reasonably close, and it’s a landslide for him. McCain needs to run the numbers up in that demo, or he’s toast.
Punchy
Cole, you are seriously going to give yourself a nervous breakdown (or blog rage) if you keep this up. Consider the answer to every hypothetical question you dream up to be “The Media NEEDS McCain to win”.
That will save you much frustration, and fewer blog posts.
Montysano
Why should he shut up? I think he’s probably correct (the story that Jake linked to essentially says that Edwards cost Hillary the nomination). I’ve been in No More Clintons/No More Bushes mode, so I’m happy that BO is the nominee, but if the Edwards scandal had broken a year ago, things might be very different.
It’s amazing what the little fella downstairs will compel us guys to do. My work puts me into contact with large churches, and I can name at least 5 churches that blew up because the pastor was screwing someone in the congregation. For Edwards to think, in today’s Youtube/TMZ world, that he wouldn’t get caught is just unbelievable.
The Other Steve
Welcome to the Democratic Party.
You must be new here.
Incertus
Montysano,
How about you look at some numbers before buying Wolfson’s schtick.
Jake
He should shut up because pointing this kind of thing out accomplishes absolutely nothing. Not to mention that one can play woulda/shoulda/coulda for ten forevers with the Clinton campaign. All of these scenarios are fundamentally flawed, because they make the silly assumption that Obama would have campaigned the same way.
All Wolfson is really trying to do is to cast the light a little bit more away from an incredibly poor campaign. Suggesting that it was mostly just bad luck that cost them the nomination is one means to do that, and it’s pretty damn bush league.
Incertus
I hadn’t thought about it before, but maybe this is a way of trying to deflect some attention from the Atlantic article coming out about the internals of Clinton’s campaign.
Ricky
I like to point out everywhere I find the Wolfson story that I would have supported Clinton this year but Howard Wolfson reminded me too much of Ari Fleischer.
Ricky
Really, Howard Wolfson’s take on how marital infidelity might have effected Hillary’s Clinton’s campaign is so beyond irony I cannot believe anyone in the media can cover it without a headline like “Wolfson’s Chutzpah Epands Exponentially.”
Jake
The link Incertus provided on the issue is worth checking out. The folks over at fivethirtyeight have titled the post “Why Howard Wolfson is Out of a Job”. Seems about right.
montysano
@ incertus: the 538.com article spoke only to the Iowa race. I was just speculating that, in the bigger picture and with the end result of the primaries having been so close, having Edwards out might have had a significant effect. But I agree with you and Jake: it’s meaningless.
The Other Steve
Hillary Clinton would have won if her name wasn’t Clinton!
cmorenc
We can also play the “If Al Gore hadn’t sighed so loudly” game in the first 2000 presidential debate (or perhaps taken a little bigger dose of calming drug to stifle natural impulses to react to the sheer stupidity of Bush’s performance). Or “if the Gore campaign’s Florida team would have had the sense to recognize the potential butterfly ballot problems in Palm Beach County (which were created by doofuses on a Democratic-dominated election board).
Much, much more solid what-if material there than the “If only the Edwards matter had blown up in his face earlier” game. Try instead, “what if Hillary and her campaign team hadn’t acted like such smug douche-bags before Iowa”.
LanceThruster
Another election theft looms on the horizon. The continue to push the meme that it’s close is laying the groundwork for this.
SDM
I’m an Obama supporter, but allow me to put on my media-pundit hat to explain this:
-The major media reporters think Obama will probably win.
-Major media reporters – while they may try to be “balanced” in their coverage to the point of overselling McCain – are likely to, themselves, be intending to vote for Obama.
-Obama is more interesting.
The net result of these three things is that, unconsciously, the story in the reporter’s head becomes less “which candidate is in a better position to win,” but “what’s going to happen to Obama?” and everything gets wrapped up in that story. Obama is the main character, and McCain just a side character whose function is to complicate the story for the main character.
somebody reading a Superman comic isn’t likely to be constantly saying “wow, Superman can fly and shoot heat rays from his eyes. he is going to crush Lex Luthor,” but rather worrying about whether Superman is going to figure out what Lex Luthor’s dastardly plot is, and whether he can figure it out in time. even though Mario can beat Koopas just by jumping on them, during the game, you’re not remarking on the overall advantage of Mario over any individual Koopa, you’re worrying that over the course of the whole game, Mario might not be able to beat them all. you don’t ever stop and think, “Mario just caught a fire flower, this is bad for the Koopas.”
i really do think it’s that simple. Obama is the main character in the story, so everything that happens happens to him and thus if the outcome is in doubt it is bad news for him.
Tax Analyst
Well, OK…so I don’t know how to embed, but this is a short link anyway. It shows how the ELECTORAL VOTES figure to play out, which is really the only bunch of numbers that is going to count on Election Day. This may ease some minds around here (or not):
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
It shows Obama with 289 EV’s, McCain with 236, and 13 (VA) as tied. It assigns levels of strength for each state based on recent polling. It pretty much matches up to another site that listed State-by-State polling that I looked at late last week.
Ricky
I think the “Why isn’t Obama further ahead?” story is rooted in the “Why aren’t reporters any smarter” story.
Not too deeply of course, given the shallow soil base.
ThymeZone
There’s an answer here that is so obvious it’s almost an embarssment, but since it counters established intertube themes, memes, CW and traditions …. it’s unpopular.
The fact is, the media like Obama a lot better than they like McCain, and they just aren’t really smart enough to figure out the obvious true electoral realities here (see KXB’s post at 9:44 for an explanation).
The national popular vote poll totals really just don’t mean much. I think no Dem presidential candidate except LBJ has really won a sizeable popular vote margin since Roosevelt, right? Dems have won in modern times by garnering small popular vote pluralities and using them to leverage effective electoral margins.
The media, if it wants anything, which is entirely falsifiable on its face, wants Obama to win. But it’s a bunch of blathering morons who don’t understand and articulate reality very well.
Tax Analyst
I should add that if you hold the cursor over any particular state it will show you the poll % numbers and what polling organization came up with those numbers. If you check out the percentages underneath you will see their strength categorization is very conservative.
oh really
Maybe. But there’s an equally good chance that she wouldn’t even have been a (serious) candidate if her name weren’t Clinton.
Grumpy Code Monkey
I felt brain cells dying as I read that.
“See? See?! We really didn’t run a shitty campaign! Edwards cheated by not admitting he was cheating! It’s not our fault we lost!”
Christ on a cracker. These people would make perfect Republicans — fuck up and blame it on someone else.
Just Some Fuckhead
SDM:
Brilliantly put.
jbarntt
Shouldn’t the candidate who has never once had the lead in the polls be worried?
I’d guess both candidates are worried. It is notable that in a year that should be a blow out for the Democrat, McCain is doing pretty good.
The Republicans sucked it up and picked their most viable candidate, even though substantial parts of the base are not enthused with him.
The Democrats on the other hand, perhaps seeing blood in the water, felt safe in choosing someone who strongly appeals to the base, but given his standard brand liberalism and race probably wouldn’t have been chosen in what was perceived as a less favorable environment.
The Democrats rolled the dice for the full Monty, the Republicans picked their best guy in a bad year.
It’s still Obama’s election to lose, but it ain’t no cake walk.
A lot more close states have to go right for McCain than they do Obama, but McCain has a real shot, even if he is the underdog.
The real dog that isn’t barking is race: In the close states, will the Bradley effect kick in for McCain ?
Just Some Fuckhead
Jbarntt, just spouting bullshit makes you look cheap.
Republicans did pick their most viable candidate but they also did the same thing they do pretty much every four years which is pick the runner up from the last time around. Based on this fact, there’s no case to be made for Republicans showing any remarkable insight about McCain’s general election chances.
Democrats, OTOH, had a few candidates that appealed to “the base” more so than Obama. Obama had to mobilize Independents and disaffected Republicans to overcomes the advantage more well-known and more well-established Democrats had with “the base”.
jbarntt
Hi Fuckhead,
You said:
Republicans did pick their most viable candidate but they also did the same thing they do pretty much every four years which is pick the runner up from the last time around. Based on this fact, there’s no case to be made for Republicans showing any remarkable insight about McCain’s general election chances.
In reply to my comment:
The Republicans sucked it up and picked their most viable candidate, even though substantial parts of the base are not enthused with him.
You will note I said nothing about any great insight on the part of the Republican electorate, I simply stated a fact. Why the Republican’s picked McCain is an interesting question, I didn’t speak to that.
The idea that any substantial portion of the Republican electorate voted for Obama, other than to deny a better candidate, i.e., Hillary, is ridiculous.
Why would a Republican voter vote for Obama, other than to prevent a stronger Democrat from winning after McCain had crossed the finish line ? Makes no sense.