The Annals of Web Design

This from the Politico web team is really absurd. The idea that there can be "bad news" for Democrats but "worse news" for GOP betrays a basic failure to understand the nature of electoral politics, namely that it's a zero-sum competition for power in which only one candidate can win any given race and only one party can hold a majority in any legislative body. If new polls show public dissatisfaction with Democrats but greater dissatisfaction with Republicans, that's good news for Democrats. The only way something could be bad news for both parties would be if you believe that the country is on the verge of an unprecedented wave that's going to sweep a third party into power.

Meanwhile, silly headlines are one thing, but they decided to compound the sin here by highlighting the bad news for dems article even though the publication acknowledges that the news is, in fact, "worse" for Republicans.

Comments

I thought from the title that you were pointing out the visual symmetry between the photos of Carter and Bush.

Posted by Mr. Me | November 1, 2007 11:08 AM

"Bad News for Dems" - honestly, it's like adding "in bed" or "in your pants" to everything - it's a Village parlor game.

President Bush found coked up with live boy, dead girl - Bad News for Dems!

Posted by Dan S. | November 1, 2007 11:19 AM

You do realize you're talking about Politico, right? Not sure what you were expecting from this Drudge-cover rag...

Posted by Nick | November 1, 2007 11:21 AM

Haven't you been reading The Politico before now? If you had, you'd have known they are a hack paper. One step above the Moonie Times. It is owned by some far right cranks. It perfectly explains stories like the one you wrote about.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 1, 2007 11:22 AM

The best thing about George Bush is that every day he is in office he makes Jimmy Carter look better and better.

Posted by spencer | November 1, 2007 11:24 AM

JKc- The puzzle is that there are a bunch of non-hacks on the staff, like the excellent Ben Smith (formerly of The New York Observer).

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 1, 2007 11:25 AM

Plus, they illustrate it with images of a concerned Dem and a smirking Rep.

Posted by Ray | November 1, 2007 11:25 AM

They should rename The Politico: The Onion!

Posted by elle loco | November 1, 2007 11:26 AM

After all the recent dems who were vilified - both Clintons, Dean, Kerry, Boxer... they have to reach back to Carter to find a democrat comparably loathed to Bush?

What a reach.

Posted by A different Matt | November 1, 2007 11:32 AM

After all the recent dems who were vilified - both Clintons, Dean, Kerry, Boxer... they have to reach back to Carter to find a democrat comparably loathed as Bush?

What a reach.

Posted by A different Matt | November 1, 2007 11:33 AM

If new polls show public dissatisfaction with Democrats but greater dissatisfaction with Republicans, that's good news for Democrats. The only way something could be bad news for both parties would be if you believe that the country is on the verge of an unprecedented wave that's going to sweep a third party into power.

I don't think this is all true.

I imagine if we lived a world in which the Democratic congress had approval ratings in the mid 60s, you'd see a lot more moderate to moderate-leaning Republicans crossing over on key Dem legislation (ie, perhaps enough to override an S-CHIP veto) to get in on some of that love.

The way things are now, there's no incentive.

Politics may be zero-sum in each election (one party wins and the other party looses) but not when it comes to actually legislating.

Which should kind of be, you know, the point of politics.

Posted by Dave White | November 1, 2007 11:34 AM

Republican politicos have been anointed to positions akin to the tenured professors' jobs at the universities. You have to screw the wife of the president naked in a public corner in front of at least a thousand people before your shenanigans are even noticed.

Posted by gregor | November 1, 2007 11:45 AM

Good thing Matt spelled "Annals" right.

Posted by Al Iar | November 1, 2007 11:49 AM

Good thing Matt spelled "Annals" right.

Posted by Al Iar | November 1, 2007 11:49 AM
=================================================

Yeah. And we know spelling isn't one of his strengths

Posted by Campesino | November 1, 2007 12:00 PM

Unprecidented? Um, Matt, you are aware that the GOP wasn't around when the nation was founded, and that the Whigs aren't around anymore?

Or maybe you just don't know what "unprecidented" means...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 1, 2007 12:43 PM

You know, I used to think that there were no more pointless & annoying comments on this blog than the ones making fun of MY' spelling mistakes. But it turns out there are: ones making fun of MY's spelling mistakes even when he hasn't made any.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 1, 2007 12:46 PM

This is insane, and I'm mystified as to why they are showing a photo of Carter. Why would he be a Dem that voters are upset with? The man is 83 years old and hasn't run for office in TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS! For God's sake, both his predecessor and his successor in office are DEAD. The guy who was Speaker of the House under him has been dead for damn near 15 years. His crew isn't exactly running the show in DC.

This leads me to wonder why, if the standard is "an unpopular Democratic President", why the Politico would stop at Carter? Why not go all the way back to Grover Cleveland? Or James Buchanan? Because man, that James Buchanan REALLY sucked.

It's even more bizarre when you consider Carter was the last President of the pre-Bush/Clinton era, and as such is probably the LAST person that voters who hate the status quo are going to think of. Since Carter, we've never had an election where a Bush or a Clinton weren't on the ticket.

Makes no sense at all for him to symbolize current voter anger, since he's of a prior era, one in which the parties weren't dominated by the Clinton and Bush family machines.

Posted by anonymous | November 1, 2007 12:59 PM

Makes no sense at all for (Carter) to symbolize current voter anger...

Carter used fancy words like "malaise," suggested Americans deal with high energy prices by conserving energy, and failed to send an entire division into Iran the day after they took the hostages. For this and other reasons, he symbolizes the ultimate loser to contemporary Republicans: someone who is unwilling to project aggressive belligerence all the time.

Posted by James Gary | November 1, 2007 1:17 PM

Or maybe you just don't know what "unprecidented" means...

I can't find it in the dictionary, Brett

Unpresidented, maybe?

Posted by DUH! | November 1, 2007 1:56 PM

Or maybe you just don't know what "unprecidented" means...

I can't find "unprecidented" in the dictionary, Brett.

Unpresidented, maybe?

Posted by DUH | November 1, 2007 1:56 PM

I don't know, Matt. Its bad news for worthless Dems that I'll be voting against some of them in primaries, but worse news for GOP that I'll be voting against all of them in generals.

Posted by Gary Sugar | November 1, 2007 2:03 PM

I can't find "unprecidented" in the dictionary, Brett.

Unpresidented, maybe?

Posted by DUH | November 1, 2007 1:56 PM

LOL - maybe you meant unprecedented

Posted by double duh | November 1, 2007 2:07 PM

Carter never said "malaise."

Posted by Mick | November 1, 2007 2:08 PM

"The only way something could be bad news for both parties would be if you believe that the country is on the verge of an unprecedented wave that's going to sweep a third party into power."

Matt, you're *obviously* forgetting the juggernaut that is Unity08: Nunn-Warner! Hagel-Bloomberg! McCain-Lieberman! Broder-Klein! Gerson-Estrich! Kondracke-Rothenberg! Halperin-Hewitt! Mallaby-Ignatius! Drudge-Allen!

Bow before the post-partisan power of the media to find another way to keep Democrats from gaining power, even as Republicans keep fucking up...

Posted by Chris | November 1, 2007 2:09 PM

The only way something could be bad news for both parties would be if you believe that the country is on the verge of an unprecedented wave that's going to sweep a third party into power.
================================================

Unprecedented? Like when the Republicans took over in 1860?

Posted by Campesino | November 1, 2007 2:16 PM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

Jimmy Carter's lowest approval rating was 41% in July, 1979, per these charts in a WaPo article about Bush's chances to win reelection in '04.

When was the last time Bush saw 40% approval?

Posted by jawbone | November 1, 2007 2:17 PM

If new polls show public dissatisfaction with Democrats but greater dissatisfaction with Republicans, that's good news for Democrats.

That's not correct. If the Democrats want to become a solid majority with depth of support as well as breadth they have to demonstrate that they're more than the lesser of two evils.

You're only considering (at most) the outcome of the next election. Once elected they have to have the strength and popular support to act. Their complete capitulation to George Bush's veto threats, Republican filibusters and partisan taunts should be a warning sign to any of you who dream of a Democratic sweep next year. These guys still haven't found the spine to act like a majority party, and that's a weakness that can be exploited.

Tepid support is fleeting. As one of the many independent voters you don't think exist, I can tell you, if the Democrats can't find the stomach to stand firm even when they've got 70% voter support then I'll be looking elsewhere for candidates very quickly.

Unfortunately, yours is also the view taken by the leadership of the Democratic party. They're already celebrating victory in the 2008 elections and are willing to punt on issues like the Iraq war and civil liberties. Nobody gets credit for sitting out a fight.

Posted by Jinchi | November 1, 2007 2:22 PM

This thread illustrates perfectly why I live in mortal fear of calling someone "stupid" ... and misspelling the word.

Posted by Califlander | November 1, 2007 2:26 PM

"The best thing about George Bush is that every day he is in office he makes Jimmy Carter look better and better."

Actually, he makes Warren Harding look better and better!

Posted by Larry Epke | November 1, 2007 2:43 PM

Unprecidented? [sic] Um, Matt, you are aware that the GOP wasn't around when the nation was founded, and that the Whigs aren't around anymore?

Unprecedented? Like when the Republicans took over in 1860?

Okay, real slow for you guys. It would not be unprecedented for a third party to displace one of the two majors -- it would be extremely rare, but as you gentlemen pointed out, the Republicans did just that in 1860.

Of course, the key person to remember here is John Fremont. Who is John Fremont? He was the Republican nominee for President in 1856, losing to James Buchanan, but defeating former President Millard Fillmore of the Whig/Know-Nothing Party.

You see, the Republican Party didn't just arise twelve months before the 1860 election to sweep Lincoln into power because people were disgruntled with Dems and Whigs, it was a serious political movement for over 5 years before. What didn't happen, and would indeed be unprecedented is, well, what Matt said: a wave of voter disaffection creating a third party candidacy out of nowhere, sweeping to victory.

Posted by right | November 1, 2007 2:56 PM

By: JOHN F. HARRIS and JIM VANDEHEI

Well, there's your problem right there!

Posted by bizzo | November 1, 2007 3:13 PM

The media piss-garglers have said everything from squeezing detainees testicles to a sky-rocketing federal deficit to a worldwide hatred of the United States to a hands-off policy on Osama Bin Laden are all "good news for Republicans". Can we just agree that absolutely nothing the media says carries any more weight than the views a retarded alien whose just crashed into Area 54 and believes fucking a cactus is "good news"?

Posted by James Power | November 1, 2007 3:19 PM

there is bad news for the GOP, bad news for the Democrats, and disasterous potential news for the nation: Laura Bush may run for the Senate when hubby retires from his current job.

Posted by fred lapides | November 1, 2007 3:23 PM

Politico's slogan (from their About Us page):

"The Politico launched in January, 2007 with the mission of covering the politics of Capitol Hill and of the presidential campaign, and the business of Washington lobbying and advocacy with enterprise, style, and impact."

Nothing about truth, honesty or facts in that statement. With that in mind, I'd say Bad News for Dems is exactly according to their business plan.

Posted by Fred F. | November 1, 2007 3:28 PM

So the sweeping took almost a decade to be complete. It's still the case that there's a significant, in the long run, difference between Democrats being popular, and their merely being loathed a bit less than Republicans. Being merely less loathed might cut it for an election or two, but if it keeps on, it WILL hurt you.

We'd probably already have a third party where the Republicans were in '56, were it not for campaign 'reform'. And even those legal barriers won't hold forever, if this level of discontent is sustained for more than one or two election cycles.

Mind you, it's probably the Republicans who will be displaced, but once they are, you'll face healthy opposition.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 1, 2007 3:47 PM

Just think of the media as a paid publicity agency for the Repubs. Any time you want to know how an issue or story which involves Repubs will be handled by the media ask yourself: "What would a Public Relations firm do to handle this story for a client?" And that's what they'll do. And they'll do it gratis!

Posted by Mooser | November 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Yes. They are paid to promote Republicans, because Republicans will see to it that their employers/parent companies are subject to less regulation and lower taxes.

I find it fascinating that progressives who follow politics continue to think it's noteworthy when a major traditional media outlet does what major traditional media outlets do - campaign for Republicans.

Why would one expect anything else?

Like I said over at Atrios' place yesterday: It's like saying "This turd tastes nothing like chocolate cake!" Of course it doesn't. It's a turd.

(I'm going to use that one over and over for a while, cuz it's the perfect analogy IMO.)

It's also a bit like accusing the proverbial whore of having sex for money. It's simply restating the problem.

Also, what Mooser said above.

Posted by VictorLaszlo | November 1, 2007 4:17 PM

Or just go read to-day's Howler!!

Posted by Mooser | November 1, 2007 4:18 PM

If you look at the issue of Iraq, the vast majority of Americans want the Dems to go further to the left. So yeah, they're upset at Dems, but they're more upset at Reps. The people who are upset at the Dems are NOT going to switch and support the Reps on this issue.. all that anger is just going to push the issue further away from where the Reps want it.

{Dems} (Reps)

The major political accomplishment of the Bush administration is to make the Democratic view *not liberal enough* for the majority of Americans.

Posted by JP | November 1, 2007 4:49 PM

Good news for Jimmy Carter, he looks 27 years younger!

BTW, I didn't realize he was still the face of the party. I wonder what cool stuff the '80s will bring?

Posted by Naveen | November 1, 2007 5:24 PM

I love george Boosh 'cause he's a
good Kristian man!!

That's all ya' need, ain't it?

Hack! Hack!
Ptooey!
(clang!)

Posted by nikto | November 1, 2007 6:17 PM

"Unprecedented? Like when the Republicans took over in 1860?

Posted by Campesino"

Campesino, if your implying that the Republicans were a 3rd party at the time you'd be wrong.

After the Whigs blew apart over slavery the Republican party's coalition became the second party in the nation and that was in 1856. Whigs went in several directions. In the north to the new Republican party and to the Know-Nothings (American) and in the south to the Democratic party.

In 1860 the Democrats split into north and south factions. The few remaining Whigs and Know-Nothings (many of whom had drifted into the Republican party,setting a trend that continues to this day)and a few Democrats formed the Constitutional Union party which carried three states.

From 1856 onward the Republican party was the second party of our two party political system.

Posted by cal1942 | November 1, 2007 7:30 PM

Wait a sec.

Politics is not a zero-sum game. Elections are approximately zero-sum, sure, for the reasons you described, but there's much more to it than that. If the Democrats are hurting but the Republicans are hurting MORE, this might possibly translate into lack of faith in government in general, which, while it may not directly affect the next election, will still affect politics, national feelings, future prospects, turnover, primary challenges, where the parties will go on issues, and so forth. I think it's rather naive to say that only elections matter...

Posted by Mauro | November 1, 2007 8:00 PM

Carter never said "malaise."

So true dat!

However, W. says it at every BBQ: "Pass the ketchup and the malaise, please."

Posted by Harry R. Sohl | November 1, 2007 9:11 PM

Please replace your heading with

"The Anals of Web Design", because that's where this article you are referring to has been pulled out of.

Posted by horatius | November 2, 2007 10:49 AM

If you look at the issue of Iraq, the vast majority of Americans want the Dems to go further to the left. So yeah, they're upset at Dems, but they're more upset at Reps. The people who are upset at the Dems are NOT going to switch and support the Reps on this issue.. all that anger is just going to push the issue further away from where the Reps want it.
=============================================

Don't count on it. I think the public is ambivalent. It it looks like we're doing well they'll be in favor of staying

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Right Thing 45%
Stayed Out 51%
Unsure 4%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Posted by Campesino | November 2, 2007 3:09 PM

Two presidents, one etched-in smirk.

Posted by AlanDownunder | November 3, 2007 2:13 AM