The Serious Public
It has been striking to me this year that the public seems far more serious about this election–far less tolerant of diversions–than some of my colleagues in the media.
I think this is always the case. Or, to rephrase in a less treacly “up with people” manner, ordinary people ordinarily just don’t pay attention to politics at all. They don’t think it’s interesting. But insofar as they do take an interest in politics, they do so when and if they’re interested in how politicians’ policies are likely to impact their lives. The political press, by contrast, finds electoral contests to be a kind of fascinating game about which it’s amusing to do tons of stories regarding the ins-and-outs of tactical gambits all the while chasing various shiny objects. Looking at policy they find tedious. But most people don’t care about the “game” at all, if they decide to care about politics it’s because they care about what’s going to happen. If they want to watch a game, they watch football or Project Runway or Survivor. It’s only a tiny minority that thinks of politics as compelling, but trivial, entertainment. Those people just happen to dominate the ranks of campaign reporting.
33 Responses to “The Serious Public”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
My god. It’s full of stars.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Yeah, ordinary people are just interested in the issues… like whether or not Obama is a terrorist. Give me a f@$*ing break.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
People who love the “game” may also dominate the ranks of people who read political stories in newspapers. In which case the newspapers are responding to the demands of their customers, rather than the public at large. Given that they are for-profit businesses this makes sense. It’s probably the same reason cable news loves missing white girls, people are apparently riveted by these stories. If all this is wrong and there’s a huge market for crunchy policy analysis for the common man then Think Progress ought to pitch that idea to someone who can make it happen.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Worst. Yglesias post. Of the day.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Yes, too much of the political press treats politics as game and theater. But just because much of the press isn’t serious, doesn’t mean the so-called public is.
The same serious public that wanted to have a beer with Bush the last 8 years and were turned off by Gore’s sighing? That serious public? The same serious public who re-elected Bush in 2004, well after they should have known much, much better? Are Bush’s historically low polling numbers now indicative of how much he’s slipped, or how unserious the public was in 2004?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I think the reason for this is simple – ordinary people aren’t trying sell advertising space in their newspapers, magazines or air time.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
i wish you were right, matt.
and i think you are right about people not caring as much about the horse-race aspects as the press does. yes; the press cares much more about this moment’s shiny object than most people do.
but i’m afraid you’re dead wrong about people caring about issues.
the choice is not limited to horse-race vs. issues. there’s other things to care about.
tribalism. and ‘likability’. and ‘character’.
the people are just as big suckers for this stuff as the press are.
i’m afraid you are being more treacly than you realize.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
yes, but kid bitzer, those kinds of things are proxies for issues, not considerations in lieu of issues.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
So, Matthew, did you figure out yet that Paulson’s latest bailout increases the cost from $1.5 Trillion to $3 Trillion — not counting an addition $1 Trillion in interest over the next 5 years?
Or would you rather talk about the Morality of Neoconservatism and how various Republican whores might actually be ..er .. shading the truth on various trival matters.
Or maybe you would like to continue advocating that we teach “life skills” like personal finance in the schools?
October 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I’m sure after covering campaign after campaign there’s an element of been-there-done-that felt by most of these political journalists. Dana Milbank is one example, I enjoy reading him, but you can just hear the skepticism and eye-rolling in the way he writes about the campaign.
Maybe there should be a time limit or something – you can only write about politics for 5 years, then you have to cover stories about starving children in Africa or something for a couple of years before coming back to politics. Some of these journalists are in dire need of some perspective.
On the other hand, there’s always the possibility that political writing has always attracted the smart-ass, know-it-all among the journalism profession, and no amount of “perspective” is going to change them. In that case, we screwed I guess.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Any chance that the news media will get around to asking the Democratic leadership, the Republican leadership and the fucking President what they hell they have been doing in Washington the last 8 years — that they could let a goat fuck evolve so far that it is taking $4 TRILLION to fix?
On top of the $5 TRILLION they have already pissed away before this financial collapse hit?
American citzens are the biggest pussies on the planet. Plus they’re stupid as shit.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Maybe, Sarah, but I think the major news media establishment is actually set up to weed out those campaign reporters who think that the accurate coverage of issues and policies and record out weigh horse-race style coverage.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
An interesting post, sir, and worthy of further analysis.
Note how most of the posts criticizing “the people” speak in the same terms as the pandering pundits and reporters and, like them, treat “The People” as though they were a monolithic block describable by the media narrative of the day. What percent of the voters really made their decision about Bush because they thought they could “have a beer with him,” as opposed to the percent of reporters and campaign consultants who flogged that narrative so relentlessly?
October 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’ll be the one to back up Matt here. The evidence of history is, voters go up or down on the incumbent party based on a preponderance of the evidence. It’s not an ideological choice; it’s a competence one. Just because the press — and, often, the candidates — spend time on irrelevancies doesn’t mean that’s why elections turn out the way they do. All the predictors said Bush I would beat Dukakis because of peace and prosperity, and he did. That the GOP and the press are so convinced it was Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t make it so. (After all, Bush ran about the same “he’s unAmerican” campaign against Clinton four years later and failed spectacularly — because the state of the country was so much worse)
For all the talk about “we’d rather have a beer with Bush” in 2000, can we please not forget that Gore got the most votes, and was the winner in any but a truly rigged count? Obviously issues mattered — not issues in the sense of “I agree on items A through G”, but in the sense of “things are going pretty well and I opt to stay with the same party”.
And I know most people here reacted with horror to the ‘04 outcome — I did, myself — but, from a non-ideological voter’s standpoint, it made electoral sense. The GOP was completely united; the war in Afghanistan appeared to have been won; Iraq had not quite fallen to holy hell; and the economy had its strongest job-producing stretch of Bush’s entire term during Spring and summer, when people historically make up their minds about things. Based on these factors, all the election-predictors said Bush was going to hold on narrowly, and that’s what he did. “Kerry was a dismal candidate who blew it for us” only took hold as a narrative after he lost.
This year’s election, by comparison, was always a slam-dunk for the Democrats, based on the historic unpopularity of the Bush administration. Those who’ve sweated out every poll gyration — who actually thought “lipstick on a pig” was going to be determinative — and especially those who over-reacted to the predictable convention bounce for McCain — are now sitting with egg on their faces, as Obama appears to be rolling toward a map-changing victory. This victory has been obvious from early in the year (I presume it’s why Clinton fought on so long; she knew whoever took the nomination would be president). And it’s been obvious because presidential elections are not existential jump-balls. Circumstances determine the outcomes. And those circumstances do not include whatever irrelevant idiocy the RNC decides to push on any given day.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’d say most people care about issues, but based on their own vague perception of each candidate (for example Dems=high taxes, Republicans=more deregulation). And obviously, they enjoy reading about gaffes, rumours and White House sex. Just take a look at the “most popular” list on news websites.
By the way Sarah, that’s a great idea!
October 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I do think that most people aren’t interested in the “game” of politics. And polls show that McCain’s terrorist attacks aren’t exactly working against Obama. But I also think that, in general, people tend to be more influenced by the squishy “feel” aspect of politics than they are by candidates’ specific stances on the issues. The narrative makes a difference. And right now, the narrative is that McCain’s erratic and negative and Bush-like in his approach to issues and Obama’s stable and high-minded and approaches issues differently. As long as we can keep it that way, we win. But that’s not exactly as profound as winning strictly by ideas.
That said, I’ve been surprised by how engaged people are in this election.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Good post, but too 50 yard line.
Most voters don’t follow politics too closely, and folks who don’t vote could scarcely care less. Honest, no kidding?
Of the voters who DO follow politics, most are committed to one side or the other. (That’s why they follow politics.)
The folks who don’t follow politics close, but are nevertheless motivated to vote, can be moved one way or another in not always predictable, but ALWAYS measureable ways. (If nothing else, how they wind up voting is measured.)
You’re right that political journalists find it easier to cover horse race and scandal stuff rather than policy, but it’s important to remember WHY this isn’t as good as it could be. It isn’t a lack of data.
The dynamic of this race so far was predicted with impressive accuracy in August by Charlie Cook, who explained that his data showed even though it had been tied within the margin of error for some time, in the end — late September and October — it would not be close. He found voters were simply waiting to decide if Obama crossed the threshold of credibility as a potential President — and if they did, he’d win easily; if he didn’t, McCain would win easily. Cook predicted — weeks before Wall Street melted down — that this would happen in mid to late September.
That’s how to do a horse race story: use data to watch the dynamics. It’s not about news cycles.
If you wanted to do a policy story as politics, ya gotta look for what moves votes — not so much “undecideds”, as Rule of 4 weak support for one guy into weak support for the other, or weak support into strong, or strong support into weak. What brings new voters in?
There’s lots of data around: look for it. Issues are generally a vehicle for images, and imagery — e.g., “erratic” — is generally a more effective way to move votes.
McCain has followed a classic Atwater pattern — he concluded that it was easier and would be more effective to drive up Obama’s negatives than his own positives. He was wrong. Why?
If it goes down the way it’s going, McCain won’t have lost because he never had a chance. There really IS something to the GOP spin that Obama should have closed the deal in August — which doesn’t contradict Cook’s findings and prediction.
Opportunity knocked REALLY loud for McCain with the bailout bill — but without even hesitating, he decided to follow Paulson because he didn’t know enough to lead.
That’s where policy and politics met this year.
Democrats, after all, responded to Paulson cautiously if promptly, and responsibly, with the authority to buy equity in banks, etc., which Paulson had initially rejected. Obama did the smart thing by being informed but not decisive: the bailout legislation did him no harm, it’s fair to say.
But the crucial political fact is that it did McCain no good.
Consider what might have happened (the data shows it could have moved a LOT of votes), if McCain had rejected the Paulson “plan” right from the start, and had “suspended” his campaign to make it better — and then voted against it because it wasn’t good enough.
Not making a point about policy, but about politics: McCain had his chance, and chose to follow rather than lead.
It’s not that complicated: on the policy issue that most engages low information voters, McCain is an echo, not a choice. He could be tapping into a much wider and deeper anger about the future, but instead the anger that rings his campaign’s bells these days looks backward and down.
The image for which that issue is a vehicle is wholly negative for him, which is the other side of the coin that has come up for Obama, exactly as Cook predicted before the meltdown.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’m not totally in disagreement with the main point of this post, but I think that in rightfully pointing out that the priorities of campaign reporters are often out of whack with voters, you’re making it seem like only a small circle of reporters care about the theatrics and tactics of politics.
That’s just not true. Lots of Americans follow this sport, from both the left and right. They’re just not swing voters, and they’re not the ones ultimately decide elections.
You’re made this exact point yourself many times. Using a Beltway Reporters v. Real ‘Murkins frame is lazy Brooksian Red v. Blue bullshit, as is the word “serious.” C’mon, Matt, drink a strong cup of coffee and then write something a little sharper.
Also, I think this post by Klein was a not-too-veiled jab at his blogmate Michael Scherer and should be read in that light.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I disagree with Philly. I have, at times, been extremely involved in caucuses, campaigns and conventiopns and find that I have way too much insider knowledge compared to the typical “activist.” There are degrees of knowledge and interest even among the most “involved” of partisans, and few have even a freshman poli sci knowledge of the process. Political reporters have more ongoing interest than many asctivists, but even less issue knowledge. They seem to write what they are told abougt and react to what others write. Familiarity with political history and policy details? Not much. In this way they are much like the political junkies who become delegates yet have never read the party platform and wouldn’t think of reading the opposition’s platform. So it’s shiny objects, knee jerk reactions and defensiveness when challenged because you’re not the expert you’re paid to pretend you are. You’ll note how easily the MSM has been fooled by the ACORN foofaraw: few reporters want to think about registering voters or how people vote. So I tend to agree with Matt here, that voters care more about issues (what’s in in for them and how it works) then reporters. If the experts on this thread want to scorn the ignorant masses, they’re welcome to go right ahead, but that’s not Matt’s point.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“Also, I think this post by Klein was a not-too-veiled jab at his blogmate Michael Scherer and should be read in that light.”
It must be that fascinating and very illuminating discussion Scherer had with Ambinder on whether McCain is “serious” about the Ayers strategy that tips the scale for Klein.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
W, I’m not so sure we disagree at all. I simply said that there’s a large number of partisans who, like the typical MSM reporter, like the game. Your own experience seemingly backs that up.
The number of people who are truly high-information voters, who have a firm understanding of political history and electoral mechanics is indeed very rare, and their ranks exclude a fair number of major media political reporters.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Penis Enlargement Pills, How to Suck Cock, Sex Secrets, Woman Masturbation, Penis Techniques, Sexual Performance, Sex Instructons & Positions. Visit: http://www.sinepenis.com
March 1st, 2009 at 6:03 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:37 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
A SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPER TOOLS? It was interesting. You seem very knowledgeable in ypour field.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra