Comments for Presidential Power

Comment on What Really Explains Tuesday’s Elections Results? by Bert Johnson

Bert Johnson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:34:48 +0000

Notice also that newer voters had the steepest drop-off in percentage turning out. The 18-29 age group voted Democratic in very similar proportions to 2008, but they made up much less of the electorate, according to the exit polls:

New Jersey, 18-29 year olds
2008: 17% of voters
2009: 9% of voters

New Jersey, 65+ voters
2008: 15% of voters
2009: 23% of voters

Virginia, 18-29 year olds
2008: 21% of voters
2009: 10% of voters

Virginia, 65+ voters
2008: 11% of voters
2009: 21% of voters

Comment on Republicans Sweep – Obama to Resign! by Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:30:39 +0000

Olivier – Actually, I presented THREE examples of journalists – one “centrist” (Broder), one more conservative (Barone) and one leaning left (Dionne). All three – including Dionne – accepted the election as referendum on Obama frame. Dionne, differed, however, in arguing that the Democratic governors, particularly Deeds, had erred in not tying themselves even closer to Obama. My argument, of course, is that Dionne misses the point – wrapping oneself in Obama’s mantle was not going to matter in an election that was not a referendum on Obama. In short, all three journalists, regardless of ideology, adopted the wrong frame for understanding this election.

Comment on Republicans Sweep – Obama to Resign! by Olivier Knox

Olivier Knox — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:39:50 +0000

In a previous post, you used David Broder and Michael Barone as examples of “journalists.” This is better than The National Media, on some level, because it helps your readers evaluate exactly what you mean.

But…really? Two columnists, one avowedly conservative? To stand in for the Washington press corps?

Ouch, dude.

Comment on At least they could have waited for the election results by Jesse Gubb

Jesse Gubb — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:58 +0000

I spent some time scanning actual media takes on today’s votes. It’s clear to me that these elections don’t hinge on Obama’s influence, but journalists can easily make this claim because Obama’s actions play into it. Consider the opening line of a Wall Street Journal/AP story today:

“In a very early test of President Barack Obama’s political influence, two states are choosing whether to continue Democratic rule while voters elsewhere elect a handful of congressmen and big-city mayors.”

The article continues:

“Elected just a year ago, the president has spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to ensure that Democrats win governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey and pick up a GOP-held congressional seat in upstate New York.”

Following from these actions, the article argues that Obama has raised the stakes, setting himself up for embarrassment if the Democrats lose. Although Obama’s campaigning suggests that the races are important, it is different to argue that Obama is wagering political capital that he risks losing if the GOP sweets these three races.

Legislative outcomes, however, depend on the votes of Senators and Congressmen, determined largely by the preferences of their constituents, which are unlikely to change based on votes in other districts. But does the media narrative’s pervasiveness, in itself, have an impact on Obama’s effectiveness in Washington? I think not, but many articles take this position. A loss in New Jersey, Adam Nagourney at the NYT argues, “is going to produce a wave of “Obama is in trouble” commentary that, justified or not, will hinder the president at the very moment he needs all the clout he can muster to get bills on health care and global warming through Congress.”

Nagourney seems willing to consider that “Obama is in trouble” commentary may or may not be justified, but he doesn’t consider that the commentary, following the same logic, may or may not hinder the president’s legislative agenda. If he doesn’t think the potential electoral losses in themselves signal weakness for Obama, he’s putting a lot of stock in the power of the media narrative.

What’s really interesting to me is that journalists recognize many of the fundamental factors that Professor Dickinson discusses, but in their desire to lead stories with Obama, certainly a more recognizable name than any of the candidates on today’s ballots, they subordinate these factors. The same WSJ article later on argues “both states [have] long histories of electing governors from a political party opposite that of the president,” but this is in paragraph 10, sandwiched between comments about White House setbacks.

The most sensible media opinion I saw today came from BBC News: “While local issues have been paramount in these races, a win could boost party morale ahead of 2010 mid-term ballots.” They have the facts right, but can’t help but be swayed toward the more compelling narrative.

Comment on Fox News, Media Bias and the Obama Attack Strategy, Part II by Bob Johnson

Bob Johnson — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:43:06 +0000

Matt -

Thanks for a fascinating and illuminating analysis.

Bob