I disagree. Had the Democrats been in good shape in these elections, I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative, and it would be that Democrats’ (read as: “Obama’s”) hold on the electorate is more than evanescent despite sinking day-to-day poll numbers.
For the GOP to win in Virginia is not a big surprise, given its recent history; Obama winning last year was the dog-bites-man story. But for the Republicans to steal New Jersey . . . I have a hard time seeing how that’s not significant, given Corzine’s significant career and Chris Christie’s, er, relative un-telegenic appearance.
Brendan Loy
Had the Democrats been in good shape in these elections, I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative… [blah blah blah, the media loves Obama, blah blah blah]
Mike, don’t play the bias card here. It’s inappropriate for the situation. The mainstream media will almost always reach for an “overarching narrative,” whoever it favors, if they can construct one. You’ll see this in action tomorrow night if the GOP sweeps all three races. This blog post is dissenting from the “pre-game” (if you will) conventional wisdom that this reflects a GOP trend (or at least a reversal of the Dem trend).
As such, your argument, in context, makes no sense. When you say, “I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative” if it favored the Dems, what you mean is, of course, “I’m sure the media would portray the results as reflecting an overarching narrative” in that circumstance. But the media is portraying, or is preparing to portray, tomorrow’s results as reflecting an overarching narrative, provided the GOP meets or beats expectations tomorrow night. Again: this post is rebelling against that CW, because it’s the CW. So it doesn’t make sense to pretend that this anti-CW post is somehow itself the MSM CW.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure MSNBC will feature more dissent from the narrative than other networks (and Fox will feature less). But that’s just what it’ll be: dissent from the narrative. The narrative will be that the results do mean something. If there’s one thing the media likes more than liberals, it’s overarching, lazily constructed narratives that ignore the subtle nuances of actual news.
Well, Mike, the issue I have with that is that both Christie and Corzine are unpopular. Its kinda hard to say that it says anything about the country in general. Off year elections aren’t very indicative, really. There are never enough of them to get any useful trends out of them.
Brendan Loy
P.S. Re: the narrative, undoubtedly there will be lots of cluck-clucking about how we shouldn’t read too much into the results… followed immediately by the same analyst reading a lot into the results. This is a lot like the phenomenon of pundits saying “we don’t want to speculate,” followed immediately by rampant speculation. The same thing would happen if the “trend” were reversed (i.e., if the narrative favored the Dems). This is what the media does. But again, the overarching narrative, no matter how often it’s disclaimed and caveated, will be that the results do matter. Unless they’re seen as being “inconclusive,” of course (say, a narrow Dem victory in NJ, a narrow Hoffman win in NY).
Pre-election handicapping and expectations-setting are political staples, but perhaps never more so than now, in a post-presidential-election year in which voters in Virginia and New Jersey are choosing governors. (An odd contest in Upstate New York to fill a vacant congressional seat has been added to the fun.) As a predictor of future elections, the Virginia and New Jersey races are unreliable. But as fillers of airtime and column inches, they are immensely valuable.
This year, Democrats are determined to assert that the elections are not a referendum [on Obama]; this is because they expect to lose. Republicans, who expect to win, are pro-referendum. …
Even the German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur calls it an “early referendum on Obama.” Here at home, journalists cautiously concur that it “could end up being a referendum” (CNN’s John Roberts), will be “seen by many as a referendum” (the Wall Street Journal’s Paul Gigot) or will be regarded as “some kind of referendum” by “a lot of people” (NBC’s David Gregory).
Interviewed on CNN on Sunday, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, almost validated the Democrats’ talking points when he called it “a great overstatement to say this is a referendum on President Obama.” But Barbour recovered quickly, saying Obama’s “policies have had a lot of effect on people’s thinking.”
They certainly have had an effect on Hannity’s thinking. Almost nightly for the past few weeks, the Fox commentator has been making the case for calling Tuesday’s contests a referendum. “I think it’s a referendum on Obama,” he said on Oct. 13. “This is a referendum — these are referendum races,” he said two weeks later. “I think this is a referendum election,” he said a couple of days later about the New Jersey race, “even if it’s close.”
“Many,” Hannity said of the Virginia race, “are viewing this as a referendum on the president himself.”
Unless, of course, the Democrats win. In that case, Tuesday’s “referendum” will be canceled faster than a runoff election in Afghanistan.
Jazz
Meh, if all corners of the MSM say its a referendum, then it is a referendum, because thinking follows language, and we derive our truth from what the consensus says.
Maybe this is splitting hairs, but as referenda go it has no bearing on anything. Once the October jobs numbers come out on Friday, being more positive or negative than expected, making Obama’s economic stewarship seem better or worse than expected, no one (by which I mean the MSM) will care a whit about a couple of mid-Atlantic governorship races and a strange Congressional election in the wilds of upstate New York.
Joe Mama
Referendum or no, it is certainly false to claim that today’s elections “don’t mean squat.” For one thing, VA is a swing state that most analysts agree would make Obama’s reelection difficult should it shift from “purple” back to red. To the extent that a GOP route in VA signals such a shift (as opposed to localized feelings about the individual candidates), it could have significant implications for 2012 (and 2010). Then again, it could also give the electorate two years to become disgruntled with the GOP and tilt Democrat again in 2012…
A stronger case can be made that NJ is a referendum on Obama, because he clearly invested himself in that election, unlike VA. NJ is one of the bluest of the blue states, with a state legislature that is practically union-owned, so a win by Christie, who ran as a conservative Republican (as opposed to past moderate GOP governors like Whitman), would definitely be a shot across the bow of Obama. Then again (again), it could just mean that Corzine ran such a disgraceful campaign — not only did he make fun of Christie’s weight, but his campaign actually admitted to calling GOP voters and urging them to vote for Daggett so as to split the vote — that not even The One could save it.
Jazz
I was watching Obama answering questions about the economy the other day, and it occured to me how much more fluent he was in financial concepts than when he took office 9 months ago. One particular press conference from the winter stands out, probably early February, when the markets were really picking up steam on their way down to the early March lows, and newly-elected President Obama made some deer-in-the-headlight statement about how the markets really weren’t that bad, you know those “P to E” ratios were near their historic lows.
Oh, dude, I said to myself, knowledgeable people never insert a little word between the P and the E! Now, 9 months later, Obama sounds like he knows more about economic and financial matters than Geithner, which, depending on your politics, may not be saying much.
This is a long-winded way of saying that Obama sure seems like a deep study. As a result, without necessarily disagreeing with Joe Mama’s good analysis above, the key figure in this drama (“The One”) will surely be very different come next summer – and way different come 2012 – than he is today.
So even if larger world events stayed static til next summer and 2012, Obama himself surely won’t. Thus supporting the “doesn’t mean squat” forecast.
Joe Mama
While Obama’s musings on the economy leave me with pretty much the opposite of Jazz’s impression, I hope he’s right that Obama will be different in the future than he is today.
What’s a bit interesting about the referendum meme: suppose tonight was a referendum. Surely no one thinks its a referendum on his alleged place of birth, blackness, or possible communist sympathies, yes? That referendum was last year, not this.
No if its a referendum its on the fact that Obama’s $780 Billion stimulus is not as good as President Reagan’s 28 years ago. Dithering in Afghanistan. Difficulty in herding his cats in Congress to enact historic health reform that doesn’t screw everything up. Etc.
I’m willing to concede that he might get a poor score on said referendum, but a question for my partisan Republican friends:
Considering Obama’s apparent failings in regard to the planks of this “referendum”, isn’t it time to retire the fantasy of Sarah Palin as a credible President? Would anyone risk their credibility by pushing Palin as an alternative on these difficult issues vs. Obama?
Of course, maybe Palin is a classic rope-a-dope. In which case, good on you, partisan Republicans.
Jazz
Howard Fineman makes a good point by identifying Bloomberg’s close call in NYC: people are pissed at the hoary institutional structures of power, as evidenced by Bloomberg holding on for dear life after $200 million spent.
Fineman further pointed out that for all his hopeandchangeyness, Obama is a big time insidery establishment guy, has behaved that way ever since he assumed the position of the Presidency.
If there is a statement being made about Obama, Fineman’s probably got his finger on the pulse. Obama’s basically a company man, even though he doesn’t advertise as such.
I disagree. Had the Democrats been in good shape in these elections, I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative, and it would be that Democrats’ (read as: “Obama’s”) hold on the electorate is more than evanescent despite sinking day-to-day poll numbers.
For the GOP to win in Virginia is not a big surprise, given its recent history; Obama winning last year was the dog-bites-man story. But for the Republicans to steal New Jersey . . . I have a hard time seeing how that’s not significant, given Corzine’s significant career and Chris Christie’s, er, relative un-telegenic appearance.
Had the Democrats been in good shape in these elections, I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative… [blah blah blah, the media loves Obama, blah blah blah]
Mike, don’t play the bias card here. It’s inappropriate for the situation. The mainstream media will almost always reach for an “overarching narrative,” whoever it favors, if they can construct one. You’ll see this in action tomorrow night if the GOP sweeps all three races. This blog post is dissenting from the “pre-game” (if you will) conventional wisdom that this reflects a GOP trend (or at least a reversal of the Dem trend).
As such, your argument, in context, makes no sense. When you say, “I’m sure there would be an overarching narrative” if it favored the Dems, what you mean is, of course, “I’m sure the media would portray the results as reflecting an overarching narrative” in that circumstance. But the media is portraying, or is preparing to portray, tomorrow’s results as reflecting an overarching narrative, provided the GOP meets or beats expectations tomorrow night. Again: this post is rebelling against that CW, because it’s the CW. So it doesn’t make sense to pretend that this anti-CW post is somehow itself the MSM CW.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure MSNBC will feature more dissent from the narrative than other networks (and Fox will feature less). But that’s just what it’ll be: dissent from the narrative. The narrative will be that the results do mean something. If there’s one thing the media likes more than liberals, it’s overarching, lazily constructed narratives that ignore the subtle nuances of actual news.
Well, Mike, the issue I have with that is that both Christie and Corzine are unpopular. Its kinda hard to say that it says anything about the country in general. Off year elections aren’t very indicative, really. There are never enough of them to get any useful trends out of them.
P.S. Re: the narrative, undoubtedly there will be lots of cluck-clucking about how we shouldn’t read too much into the results… followed immediately by the same analyst reading a lot into the results. This is a lot like the phenomenon of pundits saying “we don’t want to speculate,” followed immediately by rampant speculation. The same thing would happen if the “trend” were reversed (i.e., if the narrative favored the Dems). This is what the media does. But again, the overarching narrative, no matter how often it’s disclaimed and caveated, will be that the results do matter. Unless they’re seen as being “inconclusive,” of course (say, a narrow Dem victory in NJ, a narrow Hoffman win in NY).
It’s not ALWAYS about bias.
Quoth Dana Milbank:
Meh, if all corners of the MSM say its a referendum, then it is a referendum, because thinking follows language, and we derive our truth from what the consensus says.
Maybe this is splitting hairs, but as referenda go it has no bearing on anything. Once the October jobs numbers come out on Friday, being more positive or negative than expected, making Obama’s economic stewarship seem better or worse than expected, no one (by which I mean the MSM) will care a whit about a couple of mid-Atlantic governorship races and a strange Congressional election in the wilds of upstate New York.
Referendum or no, it is certainly false to claim that today’s elections “don’t mean squat.” For one thing, VA is a swing state that most analysts agree would make Obama’s reelection difficult should it shift from “purple” back to red. To the extent that a GOP route in VA signals such a shift (as opposed to localized feelings about the individual candidates), it could have significant implications for 2012 (and 2010). Then again, it could also give the electorate two years to become disgruntled with the GOP and tilt Democrat again in 2012…
A stronger case can be made that NJ is a referendum on Obama, because he clearly invested himself in that election, unlike VA. NJ is one of the bluest of the blue states, with a state legislature that is practically union-owned, so a win by Christie, who ran as a conservative Republican (as opposed to past moderate GOP governors like Whitman), would definitely be a shot across the bow of Obama. Then again (again), it could just mean that Corzine ran such a disgraceful campaign — not only did he make fun of Christie’s weight, but his campaign actually admitted to calling GOP voters and urging them to vote for Daggett so as to split the vote — that not even The One could save it.
I was watching Obama answering questions about the economy the other day, and it occured to me how much more fluent he was in financial concepts than when he took office 9 months ago. One particular press conference from the winter stands out, probably early February, when the markets were really picking up steam on their way down to the early March lows, and newly-elected President Obama made some deer-in-the-headlight statement about how the markets really weren’t that bad, you know those “P to E” ratios were near their historic lows.
Oh, dude, I said to myself, knowledgeable people never insert a little word between the P and the E! Now, 9 months later, Obama sounds like he knows more about economic and financial matters than Geithner, which, depending on your politics, may not be saying much.
This is a long-winded way of saying that Obama sure seems like a deep study. As a result, without necessarily disagreeing with Joe Mama’s good analysis above, the key figure in this drama (“The One”) will surely be very different come next summer – and way different come 2012 – than he is today.
So even if larger world events stayed static til next summer and 2012, Obama himself surely won’t. Thus supporting the “doesn’t mean squat” forecast.
While Obama’s musings on the economy leave me with pretty much the opposite of Jazz’s impression, I hope he’s right that Obama will be different in the future than he is today.
Obama thinks it means more than squat. Or at least he once did.
Bill Clinton thinks it means more than squat.
What’s a bit interesting about the referendum meme: suppose tonight was a referendum. Surely no one thinks its a referendum on his alleged place of birth, blackness, or possible communist sympathies, yes? That referendum was last year, not this.
No if its a referendum its on the fact that Obama’s $780 Billion stimulus is not as good as President Reagan’s 28 years ago. Dithering in Afghanistan. Difficulty in herding his cats in Congress to enact historic health reform that doesn’t screw everything up. Etc.
I’m willing to concede that he might get a poor score on said referendum, but a question for my partisan Republican friends:
Considering Obama’s apparent failings in regard to the planks of this “referendum”, isn’t it time to retire the fantasy of Sarah Palin as a credible President? Would anyone risk their credibility by pushing Palin as an alternative on these difficult issues vs. Obama?
Of course, maybe Palin is a classic rope-a-dope. In which case, good on you, partisan Republicans.
Howard Fineman makes a good point by identifying Bloomberg’s close call in NYC: people are pissed at the hoary institutional structures of power, as evidenced by Bloomberg holding on for dear life after $200 million spent.
Fineman further pointed out that for all his hopeandchangeyness, Obama is a big time insidery establishment guy, has behaved that way ever since he assumed the position of the Presidency.
If there is a statement being made about Obama, Fineman’s probably got his finger on the pulse. Obama’s basically a company man, even though he doesn’t advertise as such.