Unpopular is a News Media Term
But what, exactly, does it mean to say that a presidential administration is "unpopular"? And if the term is used in a media context, how is that factually verified?
It's not verified, in this application, it is an assertion from a reporter who threw the term in there because he or she isn't satisfied with the administration's position or policy on something and they think there's room for a change. That makes its use a demonstration of bias.
Citing polling data would be one way to prove the "unpopularity" of a Presidential administration, if there is some percentage of Americans who say they disapprove, or approve of the job a particular President is doing. Since the beginning of President Biden's second year in office, the media has pointed to a job approval rating in the mid to low 40's as evidence of the unpopularity of this administration. That's an awfully general assertion, however. Most of the Presidents of the 21st century have had job approval ratings lower than that, including Biden's predecessor Trump, who ran in the upper 30's for most of his term, and Dubya, who would have given his right arm and left leg to get his job approval rating over 35%.
And with Trump being the candidate once again preferred by the GOP to run their White House, calling the Biden administration "unpopular," when its opposition is even less popular is a little, no, a lot silly. If you put stock in the polling data, Trump's "disapproval" rating, however it is defined, has a low ceiling at 57%. It doesn't go lower than that.
Assertions Are Easy to Make, Difficult to Prove
The fact that the mid-term elections have become sort of an evaluation of the first two years of a Presidential term, whether it is the first term or second, is also a media perception. Whether or not they have gathered enough information from the polls to make that determination, or whether mid-term elections seem to go against the party in power because the turnout drops significantly is a matter of opinion. I tend to see the latter as the main reason for the shifts in Congress, though it is difficult to understand why people who, two years earlier elected a President would not turn out again to help that President continue with his agenda.
The mid-term elections following Biden's first two years in office were a smashing success for the Democratic party, compared to previous similar elections. That media narrative, about it being an evaluation or a measure of the popularity of the President was stunned into silence following the 2022 election. Even as they were calling results on election night, and it was dawning on many of the reporters that their polling data had failed to make a prediction within the margin of error in more than two thirds of the races, labelling the Biden administration as "unpopular" could not be supported by the evidence they normally used.
I didn't buy any of the explanations made as to why it was that the midterms, and subsequent special elections, were not going the way some commentators and pundits thought they should be going. To me, a reasonably educated and observant American with a graduate degree and a lot of experience in the education field, the answer was obvious. President Biden was effective. He didn't run to be popular, he ran to get stuff done, and he did.
As I write this article, at this moment, I am looking out of the bedroom window of my condo at an entire neighborhood where the streets are torn up and concrete sewer pipe is piled up, waiting to be installed under the streets. In this neighborhood, built in the early 1950's, the work is long overdue. At the entrance is a sign placed there by the contractor, noting that the money being spent is from the President's infrastructure bill passed earlier in his term, $165 million dollars that our small municipality received specifically to make these kind of improvements. This particular project, along with six other infrastructure contracts in this particular township, will support more than 70 jobs over an 18 month period. And this is happening everywhere in the country, and it's just one example.
People Won't Like This, and They'll Fuss, But I'm Saying It Anyway
Popularity is a perception. Journalists live and work in the same community everyone else does and sometimes, it's their anecdotal observation, not their professional evaluation, that writes their story.
I do not believe that Trump would have beaten Joe Biden. Trump hit his ceiling of support in 2020, and he took a huge credibility and trust hit when he organized and sent a mob to attack Congress while they were certifying the electoral votes. That was the end of any future chance he had to come back. No matter what the media claims the polling data says. As the Vice President said last night, 81 million people fired him. And more than 81 million people were going to show up in November, and make sure he stayed fired. Because the reality of what another Trump term would look like is a bigger factor for the electorate than inflation, or the border, or the Ukraine or Gaza war.
And while I don't have polling data to cite to support that, I don't need it. Millions of Americans go about their business every day, think about who they are, and face the real world. And once every few years, they walk into a voting booth and cast a ballot, exercising a precious freedom. Prior to election day, 99.8% have not responded to a single poll question. But they vote anyway. And I am completely confident that when the votes were counted, more than 81 million voters would have put Biden back in the White House. It may have come down to a couple of percentage points in some of those "battleground states," and then again, it may have been more comfortable than it was in 2020, which is what I think.
And when it is all over on November 5, I believe more than 81 million voters, probably closer to 90 million, will send Kamala Harris to the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment