« WSJ Poll: Obama More Trusted on Taxes | Matthew Locke's Blog | McCarthy/McCain: The Lattimore Connection »
NYT's Nagourney Rides the Tire Swing
Adam Nagourney in the New York Times does some heavy lifting for the McCain campaign this morning:
This is demonstrably false. From Pollster.com:
Al Gore was down about three points a week before the election; McCain right now is down by eight -- more than double the margin. Then there's this:
A quick search of the New York Times' archives put this one to rest. Incumbent Ann Richards and George W. Bush were neck-and-neck two months out; after that Bush's lead opened up which didn't begin to tighten until the campaign's final days.
Nagourney then lays out combinations of states that could win McCain the Presidency without pointing out that a good half of them, with Obama ahead by double-digit leads, are unattainable for the Republican in anything resembling the real world. He goes on to ponder the impact of the Republicans' recent emphasis on taxes and Joe Biden's ostensible gaffe:
But even conservatives lament that Biden's 'gaffe' is unlikely to hurt the Democratic ticket, and there is demonstrable evidence that the tax attack -- which has been on-going for more than a week now -- has backfired for the Republicans. Then:
The polling problems Nagourney mentions amount to estimating black and youth turnout -- and almost all pollsters have responded by being very conservative in their estimates. If polling is off because of 'uncertainty of who is going to vote', that probably means Obama's margins are being understated.
Surely there are outliers here and there, but those can and ought to be ignored. What does that leave? What states would Mr. Nagourney be talking about? Most battleground states right now are running ahead of Obama's national polling -- in other words, the margins are wider for Obama. Maybe not in places like Indiana and North Carolina, but those aren't supposed to be battleground states -- they're supposed to be (and until a few weeks ago were) solidly for McCain. Pointing out that Obama isn't ahead by much in states that should be part of McCain's base isn't an argument that the election is closer than national polling suggests.
There's almost nothing in this article which isn't either demonstrably false or a significant distortion of reality. Look, for Democrats it's better that articles like this come out -- complacency is our biggest enemy. And it's not like McCain needs good news for fundraising these days. Nevertheless, this article amounts to nothing beyond a recitation of a McCain talking points memo with no attempt to ferret out, you know, truth. It's pretty shocking when some idiot with a laptop and an hour to spare can do more a more thorough job of fact-checking than the mighty New York Times.
But then the facts wouldn't tell a very interesting story, would they?
"The McCain campaign is roughly in the position where Vice President Gore was running against President Bush one week before the election of 2000," said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain's chief strategist. "We have ground to make up, but we believe we can make it up."
This is demonstrably false. From Pollster.com:
Al Gore was down about three points a week before the election; McCain right now is down by eight -- more than double the margin. Then there's this:
"It's an uphill battle," said Karl Rove, who was the chief strategist for President Bush going back to Mr. Bush's first run for governor in 1994. "But I remember seven days out from the Texas gubernatorial race, and everybody was like, 'It's all over, we're cooked!' And we won by seven points."
A quick search of the New York Times' archives put this one to rest. Incumbent Ann Richards and George W. Bush were neck-and-neck two months out; after that Bush's lead opened up which didn't begin to tighten until the campaign's final days.
Nagourney then lays out combinations of states that could win McCain the Presidency without pointing out that a good half of them, with Obama ahead by double-digit leads, are unattainable for the Republican in anything resembling the real world. He goes on to ponder the impact of the Republicans' recent emphasis on taxes and Joe Biden's ostensible gaffe:
Both have entered the campaign dialogue, and it is probably a little too early to tell whether they will have the impact that Mr. McCain hopes they will.
But even conservatives lament that Biden's 'gaffe' is unlikely to hurt the Democratic ticket, and there is demonstrable evidence that the tax attack -- which has been on-going for more than a week now -- has backfired for the Republicans. Then:
Pollsters say there has never been a year when polling has been so problematic, given the uncertainty of who is going to vote in what is shaping up as an electorate larger than ever.
The polling problems Nagourney mentions amount to estimating black and youth turnout -- and almost all pollsters have responded by being very conservative in their estimates. If polling is off because of 'uncertainty of who is going to vote', that probably means Obama's margins are being understated.
While most national polls give Mr. Obama a relatively comfortable lead, in many statewide polls, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are much more closely matched.
Surely there are outliers here and there, but those can and ought to be ignored. What does that leave? What states would Mr. Nagourney be talking about? Most battleground states right now are running ahead of Obama's national polling -- in other words, the margins are wider for Obama. Maybe not in places like Indiana and North Carolina, but those aren't supposed to be battleground states -- they're supposed to be (and until a few weeks ago were) solidly for McCain. Pointing out that Obama isn't ahead by much in states that should be part of McCain's base isn't an argument that the election is closer than national polling suggests.
There's almost nothing in this article which isn't either demonstrably false or a significant distortion of reality. Look, for Democrats it's better that articles like this come out -- complacency is our biggest enemy. And it's not like McCain needs good news for fundraising these days. Nevertheless, this article amounts to nothing beyond a recitation of a McCain talking points memo with no attempt to ferret out, you know, truth. It's pretty shocking when some idiot with a laptop and an hour to spare can do more a more thorough job of fact-checking than the mighty New York Times.
But then the facts wouldn't tell a very interesting story, would they?
Advertisement
Leave a comment