My television would normally not be tuned in to Meet the Press on a Sunday morning. It was tuned to NBC from something I was watching last night, and I left it there while getting breakfast in the kitchen. The panel discussion caught my attention, because they were putting up polling data and discussing its effects on the mid-term elections. I got teased in to sticking it out because of an appearance by former Vice President Al Gore but the panel discussion, featuring host Chuck Todd, along with Yamiche Alcindor, Maria Teresa Kumar, Stephen Hayes and Jake Sherman, was quite informative.
Informative, that is, in that what appears to be a round-table discussion with media-types that attempts to appear intellectual, authoritative and spontaneous can make some observations while looking at facts, and at the same time, miss some obvious points altogether. I'm sure that these discussions are not anywhere near as spontaneous as they appear, and that the talking points have been outlined before they go on camera. The presence of Kumar and Alcindor lent some credibility to the discussion, and they helped insert some perspective that didn't support what's becoming the tired, old narrative about the party in power losing in the midterms, which was the theme that Todd kept pushing.
The other two panelists--and this is my personal opinion--are not anywhere in the same ballpark with the two women, especially in journalism. Hayes is pretty low-level, with no connection to any major media source, not all that well known except among some media elites, and is not particularly good at being unbiased. Sherman has a slightly higher profile, editor of Punchbowl News, which is a not-so-widely-read daily newsletter focusing on Congress. I started reading it when it first came out, because Sherman, who is also an analyst and consultant for MSNBC, and was at Politico, attracted my attention. But with limited time, I stick to the columnists and commentators at the Washington Post, New York Times and the Chicago Tribune.
Too Much Focus on the President's Job Approval Rating but not the GOP's Rating, or the Generic Ballot
Some polling data was selectively chosen this morning, including a Quinnipiac poll showing that Joe Biden's job approval rating has fallen to 31%. In a cluster of job approval polls out from the past week, that was the lowest number in the group. Most of them are hovering at 40%, there's one or two at 41% and on the high end, I did find one from Marist at 43 and The Economist at 45. So why pick the lowest one and go with it? Why not start with the 40% average, since Quinnipiac is the lowest outlier?
There's really no question that the President's job approval rating is a problem, especially heading into the midterms. I'm sure Todd picked the Quinnipiac poll because it was the lowest one, and he had to find one that put the President under the Supreme Court's showing, with just a 37% job approval rating. If he used the composite rating for the President, then he becomes the most popular man in Washington, compared to the courts, his own party in both houses, and the GOP at the very bottom.
The lowest scoring in this week's polls, 23% job approval, was earned by Republicans in Congress! Kumar and Alcindor both went that direction, while everyone else, including Todd, turned the focus to past midterms where Presidents had higher job approval ratings. I think the relevance of those circumstances is questionable, since the political situation in this country has changed dramatically since then. The two ladies also, to their credit, pointed out that as much as the President's job approval record may be on the ballot, even though he is not, the former President's extremely high negative numbers, now averaging well above the 60% line in strong disapproval, and in saying "NO!" to a second term,
Kumar managed to squeeze in a comment that polling data is showing a change in the dynamics for Democratic candidates in Republican-majority districts when a Trump endorsed candidate wins in the primaries. Both ladies also did an excellent job with the time they had in pointing out that it is looking good for Democrats running for the Senate to hold their seats, and to take the seats in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and along with the generic ballot, head to head polling across the board has made a significant swing toward Democrats over the past month, and that the January 6th hearings and the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court are still helping trend in the Democrat's favor.
Some of the Inherent Problems in This Presentation
Though the whole program was not blatantly one-sided, it was pretty clear, especially in that panel discussion, that Kumar and Alcindor, who try to be objective and unbiased, were put in the awkward position of having to correct and challenge misinformed or irrelevant statements, or redirect the conversation when facts were ignored. Though I don't watch this program very much, that seems to be the pattern of the other panel discussions I've seen there over the past year. Sherman and Hayes just took up time, made their comparisons and analysis of 2022 in comparison to the GOP waves that occurred in Clinton and Obama's first terms, avoiding most of the relevant facts of the discussion.
There was no discussion at all, in speculating about Trump's potential run for 2024, of the fact that he is very likely to be indicted, tried, and ultimately convicted for his role in the January 6th Trump Insurrection. Nothing. January 6th was mentioned, briefly, as a factor that is starting to benefit Democrats in the mid-terms, but the implications of a Trump trial and conviction aren't part of the speculation. Nor did they mention that a whole cluster of polls came out this week showing both Biden and Harris ahead of Trump in head-to-head polls taken over the past week or so.
It's not the media's job to promote a political candidate or political party, and I get that. But it is also not to manipulate the circumstances in order to give some sort of appearance of fairness and balance, if I may use those two terms. It's not their job to "level the playing field" either. It's pretty clear that in the extremist right wing media, there are "personalities" who don't hide their attempts to control and direct the Republican party's agenda in the way they want it to go. Rush Limbaugh carefully planned his programs to send direct messages to Republicans to implement policy and push legislation that he supported. Sean Hannity was a de-facto Trump advisor. Is that what Chuck Todd wants? Is he trying to influence the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress? Is his negativity, as it comes across, an attempt to get some kind of action out of them?
The Bright Spots
The momentum has shifted toward the Democrats. The Republicans haven't offered much to excite their voters and the Trumpies seem to be more about alienating voters in their own party who aren't Trump loyalists, and appealing to the extremist elements of the party than in doing anything positive or beneficial. The Democrats find themselves on the favorable side of issues from the Ukraine War, to gun legislation, to Roe v. Wade and January 6th. Will that be enough? Yes, it will, to hang on to the current small house majority, and potentially add a couple of senate seats. I think the fact that Trump keeps hanging around, maintaining a rally schedule at smaller venues with vastly shrinking crowds will do as much to motivate independents to vote Democratic as anything else at this point.
With a generic polling average of just under 40%, an out of control party leader with 67% disapproval, and a 23% approval rating of their own job in Congress, that's not a formula for taking back the house and Senate in November. Not even close.
And while there's really not been anything wrong with the economy, and I hate to admit that Americans are so shallow as to elevate the price of gasoline, and issues with inflation, to decisions about which Senator or Representative to elect, things are changing there, as the President said it would. This was a temporary burst, due to the restrictions of COVID, as the President said it was, and it is following the pattern he said it would. Our local news, just this evening, made a big deal about the drop in gas prices, 40 cents a gallon over the past two weeks. The trend line in crude prices is also heading south. If there were a Republican in the White House, their media outlets would be claiming it was because of the President's recent trip to Saudi Arabia, and his release of crude from the national reserves.
And oh, did I mention? Bread is down 20 cents a loaf this week.
There are also some Republicans who are worried that an announcement by Trump about a candidacy for the Presidency in 2024 will cost them several gubernatorial races in 2022. Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, who is term limited and can't run this year, is concerned that a Trump announcement will cause problems. Maryland GOP Governor Hogan Worried About a Trump Presidential Candidacy Costing the GOP Gubernatorial Races
And as always, the bottom line for Democrats is go to the polls and elect Democrats.
A Side Note
During the same hour, Representative Elaine Luria was interviewed by Chuck Todd, and she really took him down. She didn't bend to his manipulations, made her point clearly, redirected his negative, off-base comments, pointed out his errors and incorrect assumptions and stood her ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment