Al Giordano on Obama fading. I've got a theory about all this, in terms of media. McCain's peeps are enjoying the coverage right now and lefties are grousing that they're giving the whole maverick thing a free ride. Probably not. What I know of political coverage is that, if there is any bias, it's weighted against whoever is in front. The "why isn't Obama pulling away?" story never made sense--except if you were cable news director and didn't want to say night after night "Obama up by five." When there's no action, you wonder why there's no action. But that has nothing to do with a grudge against Obama, it's the nature of front-runner status. Ideally what you want as a candidate is to stay slightly behind your opponent until, what, two weeks out or so? And then snuff him at the last minute. I don't know if Obama will have that option--but a constant five point lead was probably just as unsustainable, as a 15 point lead was unlikely.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I agree wholeheartedly. We certainly saw this in the primary campaign, when all of the people on the right talked about how much respect they had for Obama because they were trying to kneecap Clinton under the assumption she would be the nominee. Then it switched. The media as a whole was much harder on Clinton until Obama took the lead, and then much harder on him.
I still think that this election is going to be won on the ground, and that the grassroots work the Obama campaign is doing right now is like working the body in a prize fight. It isn't glamorous, but I am still not at all worried about the outcome.
It is a bit too early for this stuff. First round after the conventions may be more noteworthy. As the news cycle moves from the Olympics to the conventions clarity should begin. On Giordano, a nice bi-color map
Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. If your media theory is right, we should start seeing the press going after McCain hard now that the latest poll has him ahead. Right?
Not holding my breath.
On every possible issue, Obama is scrutinized in painful, tedious detail whereas McCain is constantly given a free pass from the opinion-makers in the elite media. Flip-flopping, lying, gaffes, errors, whatever. Even when Obama accomplishes something pitch-perfect, as in the case of his trip abroad, what do we get? The "presumptuous" meme. No one accused McCain of the same when he was acting like a Presidential stand-in during the Georgian thing.
The media has decided who the next president will be and, unfortunately, there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. They're McCain surrogates and the most awesomest ground game that ever awesomed won't change that. There are enough people in the country who have neither the time or the inclination to pay attention to politics - they make their decisions on the nonsense that diffuses from the the beltway establishment and oozes through the cable tv networks.
It sucks and it's insurmountable. This is Gore 2000. This is Kerry 2004. This, my friends, is America.
Al Giordano is a source for you? Sigh. I've new to your blog, and I really like it, but this is a big negative for your blogs. Anyone who relies upon Al Giordano as a source or analysis is going to eventually realize how wrong AG is. Thus, take anything Giordano says with a grain of salt.
This guy is so wrong, so many times. He's one piece of tin foil away from a full tin foil hat.
Go read his blog. His posts usually say laughable things like "The Field can now report, based on an unnamed source...." And the "...." is something that never happened. He was claiming there was the Cardoza 40, 40 Clinton delegates who were going to en masse jump to Obama in May of this year. Never happened. Yes, some delegates switched, but nowhere near 40 until the voting was done. His 'reporting' is about as strong as the 'reporting' done by the PUMA people.
Also, at this point in the election in 1992, Clinton was ahead by 20 points. So if Al wants to come up with one hypothetical to make his point, we can find another hypothetical to show he isn't right.
I'd argue this election is just sui generis enough that the past electoral cycles are only somewhat useful. McCain is one of the least predictable Republicans who is conservative on many issues but has an image closer to the center. He is running against a liberal candidate, who is a more predictable and steady candidate than McCain, who has an image as someone closer to the center. And then there is the race issue and the gender issue that could rear its head depending on who each picks. My point being, Al Giordano isn't a trusted source any more than some random person named 'Chris' writing in a comments section.
Chris,
"He was claiming there was the Cardoza 40, 40 Clinton delegates who were going to en masse jump to Obama in May of this year. Never happened."
You're way off base here. What he reported was that Cardoza was the first of 40 that would jump ship throughout June *if* Hillary wanted to take it to the convention. A warning that she needed to get out after the last primary, which she did. There's no way to verify whether they actually existed, but don't make up stuff. In addition, he was generally much closer than other guesses in his primary predictions.
"Ideally what you want as a candidate is to stay slightly behind your opponent until, what, two weeks out or so? And then snuff him at the last minute."
As someone who has worked in political campaigns, this is the worst piece of political advice I have ever read. Ideally, you will be ahead by as large a margin as possible. You will destroy your opponent early, and they will remained destroyed. In what world doe you want to stay behind until 2 weeks to go? No politician wants to do anything but win, and win by as big a margin as possible. Before 2000, most elections were big wins for the presidency.
Adam,
Except (1) he had no named source and seemed to have only 1 anonymous source, so as far as I know it could have been made up or it could have been someone behind Obama trying to feed stories to naive bloggers as this story would clearly help Obama and create the impression of superdelegate momentum; Giordano was the only one who took the bait as real reporters didn't report this though had heard it, only from Obama sources;
(2) the superdelegates I know were more unsure what to do and had not made any sort of commitment and just wanted it to end without them having to weigh in and make any difficult choices;
and (3) the actual media, who has a code of ethics before reporting (such as getting at least 2 sources for something like this) didn't find any evidence for it. Was there 1 story about this in any normal newspaper where sourcing is required? No.
Giordano is an advocate, not a reporter. Just remember that. His blog is fun to read, but it's filled with no-sourced material or material coming straight from 1 anonymous source with a political agenda. Giordano never says, like good journalists do, "a source within the Obama campaign." He just says "We have learned..." I'd trust him more if he occasionally named a source, but he never does. In sum, he's bad for news and is a tin-foil hat guy. But, hell, that's why blogs are so interesting. Like I said, any nut named 'Al' or 'Chris' (my name) can say whatever the heck they want. Just don't be so easy to believe them.
I never understood why Obama had not kicked McCain while he was down on the ground and kept him there.
Hold Giordano against me. But please don't hijack the thread with a discussion of his merits.
"Also, at this point in the election in 1992, Clinton was ahead by 20 points. So if Al wants to come up with one hypothetical to make his point, we can find another hypothetical to show he isn't right."
@ Chris: This is not an apples to apples comparison.
Bill Clinton spiked in the polls after the Democratic convention. Which in '92, would have already happened a month ago.
I fully expect Obama to get a convention bump after next week. Of course, McCain will get one as well in early September. We'll see who gets the bigger bump out of their well-televised party rah-rah-rah, but I expect it will be Obama (aka the one that does NOT represent George W. Bush's party).
Ross Perot had also recently dropped out at this point in '92, bumping Clinton.
I think that the press wants to keep this thing as close as possible. Its good for business.
Mr Coates, thank you for the rational thinking. You might short hand it into, "We live in a Capitalist society."
Polls however have there uses. The one thing that disturbs me is the change in attitutde towards the economy. My thinking is that energy prices have become a proxy for the economy. That simplicity of thought is....
John Henry -
Agreed that a closer contest is good for business. Conflict sells papers. But I don't buy that economics alone can explain their conduct in this case or in recent journalistic history.
Where was the conflict in coverage of the build up to the Iraq War? What we got instead was cheerleading and patriotic correctness. Moreover, if generating sales was the prime motivating factor, wouldn't we see at least an attempt to challenge McCain, oh, I don't know, once or twice? After all, approximately 50% of the paper-buying public is Democratic. Is our money no good?
No, there is a clear and consistent ideological factor in play here. The press aren't being motivated by profit alone and they aren't being duped by a mendacious McCain campaign. They are playing along because the bigwigs that make the decisions are more comfortable with the mentality that favors conservatism and Republican one-party rule.
I should qualify that and say the MSM. I think the Atlantic and the American Prospect do a great job. I agree that there is an increasingly conservative bias. I think the backers of the K street project have moved on to the MSM project. They've infiltrated the NYT, CNN, MacNeil-Lehrer,etc. and probably have a 10 year plan to take down MSNBC and CSPAN with their elitist, psuedo-patriotic, convieniently faith-based, supply-side, racist, nationalist, imperialist, anti-constitution, anti-labor, anti-government, and anti-environment BS.
One point I would like to make is that the Obama campaign has proved themselves to be very far sighted.
Why in July 2007 was Obama and his campaign doing in high schools? Because the seniors would be eligible in November 2008.
The polls can't measure people that only have cell phone (College students and young people). Polls don't do a good job on new voters (black and latino). Obama has at least 5-10% bump from new voters in November.
Done.