...just like they did in 2004, and liberals on the Dailykos and DemocraticUnderground obsess about poll numbers just like they also did in 2004.
Apparently neither group has learned anything since 2004.
Thanks to Peter Hart of the Seattle Times for saying exactly what I have been saying since I told people in 2004 that Dean would tank. Of course they didn't want to hear it then just like they don't know about Clinton and Obama.
Apparently, some people never learn.
With just a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, polls are providing pundits and political junkies with fresh data to spin out a new round of the usual "who's up, who's down" campaign coverage. But while the press seems settled on a new narrative for the campaign, journalists should recall what the polls told them last time around about who would likely win the Iowa caucuses.
The tone of coverage of the Democratic race seemed to shift when a Nov. 19 ABC/Washington Post poll of likely caucus-goers showed a tight race among three candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
The difference from the previous survey was within the poll's margin of error, so the actual data said very little. Much of the media seemed to think otherwise. "The ground may be shifting," announced NBC anchor Brian Williams. The Los Angeles Times called it "a shift in momentum in this crucial state" — in an article that boiled the race down to just two candidates, Clinton and Obama.
The Washington Post's write-up was downright confusing — the Post mentioned the results were "only marginally different" from their poll several months prior, yet nonetheless pointed to "significant signs of progress for Obama — and harbingers of concern for Clinton."
On ABC, reporter Kate Snow mentioned something most of her colleagues seemed unconcerned with: the fact that these polls actually tell you very little about the outcome of the race. Snow recalled that "four years ago, John Kerry — who eventually was the Democratic nominee — he was polling in Iowa at 4 percent."...
One thing Hart fails to mention though, is why the poll numbers shifted towards Kerry and Edwards. It did because Iowa voters decided that Kerry and Edwards were each more electable than Dean and Gephardt. The media has learned its lesson about spin, and continuously spreads the "Clinton and Obama are the most electable" nonsense, even though matchup polls all year have consistently shown Edwards to be the most electable against the Republicans sometimes by huge margins, despite getting only 45% and 35% of the national press coverage that Obama and Clinton have, respectively. He tends to do even better against Republicans than Clinton and Obama do if you are talking about states like Missouri, Ohio, and Iowa. Of course as the media insulted or ignored Edwards the more the promoted Clinton and Obama, those matchup polls tightened over time.
But Hart adds even more truth.
The point is not just to note that polls at this stage are hardly predictive — though the media acknowledging as much would be a start. Nor is it to wish that the national press would simply work at finding a better method of declaring which candidates are "front-runners," and whose campaigns aren't worth your attention.
The more fundamental problem for the press — and for American democracy — is that the media's overreliance on polls encourages a kind of political conversation that prioritizes strategic consideration and tactics over substance.
A recent study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism confirmed that much of what passes for campaign journalism focuses primarily on the tactical dimensions of the race (like poll results and fundraising) and not on the actual policy differences between the candidates...
...Halperin seems to be saying that if you think it's hard to cover the substance of electoral politics, it's a good bet you're a campaign reporter.
Poll-obsessed media focus on strategy over substance
So, the next time you get a chance, thank the media for destroying politics. Who are they to call pointing out differences an "attack" or focusing on your proposals to be "not attacking"?
Also, how's Mr. "I'm going to change the tone" Obama going to change the tone without doing something to change the media? Where does he stand on the Sherman Antitrust Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act? I suppose as long as they are pumping up him and Oprah, he's satisfied with the Washington tone, which the insiders-based television media is an extension of.