To hear cable news pundits tell it, you would think American voters are paying attention to every single detail of an election campaign. Not only do these pundits laughably assume that voters have enough time on their hands to absorb every detail but they also assume that those details, news items that often only grab the attention of Beltway elites and political junkies, matter so much to voters' determinations that they'll affect the outcome of an election.
Consider an example from just months ago, when pundits were losing their mind in a classic #DemsinDisarray episode about the Virginia's governor race tightening. On the eve of the election, as The Washington Post's Dave Weigel loves to point out, the entire Morning Joe panel predicted that longtime Republican political consultant and lobbyist Ed Gillespie would win the gubernatorial election.
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski incredulously wondered if veteran Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile's tell-all book about the 2016 presidential election could swing the election to Gillespie. Brzezinski was not alone in this observation as countless media outlets analyzed whether Brazile's revelations would sufficiently shake up the race to hand the election, one focused on issues ranging from immigration to Medicaid expansion, to Gillespie. Instead, Democratic nominee and then-Lt. Governor Ralph Northam won by nine points, outpacing Hillary Clinton's 2016 margin in the state (one of the few states where Clinton outperformed Barack Obama's 2012 margin).
Unsurprisingly, exit polls revealed the news about Brazile and the Democratic National Committee were nowhere in the top five issues voters cited as concerns. Furthermore, among voters who decided in the last week of the election, when the Brazile news and other media warnings about Virginia were paramount, 61 percent of that group backed Northam. Reliably, the morning after the election, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (after admitting his panel's wrong predictions) led a panel in carefully scrutinizing the results as the pundits poured over the possibilities for why Northam routed Gillespie.
This entire turn of events is vintage DC political media. They obsess over controversies that do not affect rank and file voters' lives. They believe voters are closely examining every single utterance of every political actor in a campaign and basing decisions off those statements and actions. They also consistently extrapolate great meaning from any one solitary election result or probability to claim there has been a grand realignment or awakening that will forever reshape the political landscape.
The truth of the matter is that voters are incredibly busy; Americans are among the most hardworking people on the planet. Many of them juggle multiple jobs and other responsibilities or are in jobs that are extremely time-consuming in one way or another. They simply do not have the time or ability to dissect every detail of every election campaign. They vote with the national economy in mind, usually, and if not that, any number of other issues that might affect their communities and families.
The 2017 Virginia governor's race is a perfect example of the difference between media perceptions and reality on the ground. Pundits focused on Brazile while voters on the ground were worried about Medicaid expansion and gun control. During the current 2018 midterm election campaign, as reporters like Weigel and others have discussed, as pundits have endlessly discussed the Trump/Russia scandal, voters in key races are instead more worried about GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the effects of President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Nevertheless, that probably won't stop pundits from making ludicrous statements during this midterm season...such as when New York Magazine's Frank Rich after the 2006 midterms baselessly theorized that Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondents' dinner routine was the "defining moment" in that campaign. Really? The problem with analyses like that is that how many Americans are actually sitting down and watching a bit like that, how many are so moved by it to vote for a particular candidate, and how many see that as a pivotal moment that overrides or matches concerns integral to their lives.
The 2017 Virginia governor's race is a perfect example of the difference between media perceptions and reality on the ground. Pundits focused on Brazile while voters on the ground were worried about Medicaid expansion and gun control. During the current 2018 midterm election campaign, as reporters like Weigel and others have discussed, as pundits have endlessly discussed the Trump/Russia scandal, voters in key races are instead more worried about GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the effects of President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Nevertheless, that probably won't stop pundits from making ludicrous statements during this midterm season...such as when New York Magazine's Frank Rich after the 2006 midterms baselessly theorized that Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondents' dinner routine was the "defining moment" in that campaign. Really? The problem with analyses like that is that how many Americans are actually sitting down and watching a bit like that, how many are so moved by it to vote for a particular candidate, and how many see that as a pivotal moment that overrides or matches concerns integral to their lives.
One of the most amusing aspects of this charade is how, on the turn of a dime, this analysis could change depending on a variety of factors. Such a phenomenon exposes how flawed these analyses are. In many elections, particularly in very close elections like the presidential elections of 1976, 2000, 2004, and 2016, it is difficult to make any sweeping declarations about the larger meaning of the result. Any number of factors could have affected the outcome in such a scenario where a few thousand votes make all the difference. It is hard to diagnose then a close election result as the consequence of a grand, wise strategy, especially when external forces can hold serious sway.
It is also true that in a close election like that, it is absurd to claim that a realignment of some kind has occurred. Yet, amazingly, pundits after 2004 declared that Democrats were doomed, that they needed to appeal to white Southern evangelicals or else they would cease to be a national political force. These pundits ignored that the election was decided by about 100,000 voters in Ohio and that the national popular vote (51%-48% split for Bush over Kerry) was the narrowest margin by which an incumbent president had ever been reelected. Mind you that this came just four years after Al Gore won the popular vote in an even closer election. The 2000 election coverage itself is funny to watch because, at first, as the results appeared strong for Gore, as he racked up projected wins in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, pundits raced for explanations as to Gore's wise strategy.
Hours later, after Florida flipped to Bush and the state and the presidency were prematurely called for Bush in the wee hours of the morning, those same pundits started giving profound assessments of Bush's successful strategy. Maybe, just maybe, these pundits ignored that it was a close election basically between a standard Democrat and standard Republican that was bound to produce such a result in a polarized country and that so many myriad factors could have made either candidate win. As for the 2004-era pundits, they were of course wildly wrong and too perilous about Democrats who came roaring back to win 2006 and 2008 routs. Consider how these pundits would've been decrying the GOP's political strategy if just 100,000+ voters in Ohio had voted the other way and given the presidency to John Kerry who would have (in that scenario) won in a Trump-style/Rust Belt-fueled/popular vote-losing election.
It is also true that in a close election like that, it is absurd to claim that a realignment of some kind has occurred. Yet, amazingly, pundits after 2004 declared that Democrats were doomed, that they needed to appeal to white Southern evangelicals or else they would cease to be a national political force. These pundits ignored that the election was decided by about 100,000 voters in Ohio and that the national popular vote (51%-48% split for Bush over Kerry) was the narrowest margin by which an incumbent president had ever been reelected. Mind you that this came just four years after Al Gore won the popular vote in an even closer election. The 2000 election coverage itself is funny to watch because, at first, as the results appeared strong for Gore, as he racked up projected wins in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, pundits raced for explanations as to Gore's wise strategy.
Hours later, after Florida flipped to Bush and the state and the presidency were prematurely called for Bush in the wee hours of the morning, those same pundits started giving profound assessments of Bush's successful strategy. Maybe, just maybe, these pundits ignored that it was a close election basically between a standard Democrat and standard Republican that was bound to produce such a result in a polarized country and that so many myriad factors could have made either candidate win. As for the 2004-era pundits, they were of course wildly wrong and too perilous about Democrats who came roaring back to win 2006 and 2008 routs. Consider how these pundits would've been decrying the GOP's political strategy if just 100,000+ voters in Ohio had voted the other way and given the presidency to John Kerry who would have (in that scenario) won in a Trump-style/Rust Belt-fueled/popular vote-losing election.
To hear me say all of this about political punditry might be even more puzzling given that I have a bachelor's degree in political science. But as I've grown and lived through even a few more elections since then, including a particularly major one in which political science itself was widely doubted, I've come to understand more the difficulty with punditry. Voters are an interesting bunch, to put it casually.
Their often complex, complicated lives and concerns, based on their experiences and families and unique set of circumstances, animate and inform their political choices and predispositions. Often, these decisions can be highly predictable based on identifiers like party affiliation, voting history, race, gender, income, education, and any number of other classifications.
But, as I've learned in observing elections, these characteristics do not dictate automatically how voters will behave in the privacy of the polling booth. These identifiers do not turn voters into robots. So many factors beyond their control, national economic forces or local developments or concerns about their children being sent to war, can shake things up in ways no pundit really can fully understand.
Therefore, what to do with political punditry? Is anything pundits say worthy of our attention? Of course, there are instances where their predictions and assessments are accurate, based on real evidence, and reflective of genuine conditions on the ground. When you have consecutive landslide elections that benefit one party, there's something going on in the country: a real realignment.
When you have a huge sweep in power for one party after a decade of dominance on the part of one party, it's worth noting why that happened and there can be truly a series of major events that gravitated voters in that direction. As such, the punditry business ought to be sharper, more evidence-based, and more sophisticated than it is. Will that happen? Probably not. So for now, let's at least enjoy the show.
Their often complex, complicated lives and concerns, based on their experiences and families and unique set of circumstances, animate and inform their political choices and predispositions. Often, these decisions can be highly predictable based on identifiers like party affiliation, voting history, race, gender, income, education, and any number of other classifications.
But, as I've learned in observing elections, these characteristics do not dictate automatically how voters will behave in the privacy of the polling booth. These identifiers do not turn voters into robots. So many factors beyond their control, national economic forces or local developments or concerns about their children being sent to war, can shake things up in ways no pundit really can fully understand.
Therefore, what to do with political punditry? Is anything pundits say worthy of our attention? Of course, there are instances where their predictions and assessments are accurate, based on real evidence, and reflective of genuine conditions on the ground. When you have consecutive landslide elections that benefit one party, there's something going on in the country: a real realignment.
When you have a huge sweep in power for one party after a decade of dominance on the part of one party, it's worth noting why that happened and there can be truly a series of major events that gravitated voters in that direction. As such, the punditry business ought to be sharper, more evidence-based, and more sophisticated than it is. Will that happen? Probably not. So for now, let's at least enjoy the show.
