The All-Important "We Love John McCain" Factor

Nick Beaudrot gets naive and irresponsible:

The press needs to come up with some consistent language to describe margins of victory. Barack Obama's 7 point win in Iowa was referred to as a "big win". But MSNBC is currently running with a headline "Romney edges McCain in Michigan". But Romney won by 9 points! Doesn't that make it a "big win"?

He's neglecting, of course, the fact that reporting it this way is good for John McCain. You'll recall, after all, that when Mike Huckabee won in Iowa and Mitt Romney took second place in Iowa, that the "real winner" was John McCain. In Michigan, his loss at least got reported as a loss.

Comments

I see Ted Sampley is still trying to get revenge for the smack-down he took from McCain and Kerry at the POW/MIA hearings. I'm looking forward to how Mr. Sampley is treated by the press this time around.

Posted by Th | January 16, 2008 10:11 AM

"McCain finishes first among candidates not born in Michigan!

Romney rejected by over 60% of his own people!"

Some outlet somewhere surely has summarized the results thusly.

Posted by Byron | January 16, 2008 10:19 AM

"McCain finishes first among candidates not born in Michigan!

Romney rejected by over 60% of his own people!"

Some outlet somewhere surely has summarized the results thusly.

Posted by Byron | January 16, 2008 10:20 AM

Al the hack will chip in soon enough to say that, according to the tenets of his scientific analysis, this counts as negative press coverage of Saint John McCain.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 16, 2008 10:23 AM

re: McCain, everyone has to go read Glenn Greenwald today.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 16, 2008 10:27 AM

True, losing in MI was good for St. John of AZ but don't forget that it was really great news for the Brave Sir Rudy of 9/11. A narrow win over uncommitted is a win, after all. Ah, the media fluffing of deranged neocons knows no bounds.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 16, 2008 10:30 AM

Giuliani scored another triumph, edging out Kucinich and soundly defeating "Uncommitted". Is it too early to talk about inevitability?

Posted by John Emerson | January 16, 2008 10:30 AM

Um, does MSNBC stand in for all media? NPR this morning talked about Romney straight-out beating McCain; the New York Times called it a "commanding victory." I realize you have to sell a siege mentality on blogs, but your argument is undermined when other outlets are a click away.

Posted by Brian | January 16, 2008 10:34 AM

I don't think I'll forget hearing Juan Williams on NPR the morning after the Iowa caucuses calling McCain's 4th-place finish a "second-level victory."

Posted by Aaron | January 16, 2008 10:40 AM

Meh. The language used to describe margins of victory is in part shaped by pre-vote expectations. Obama's win was a come-from-behind (plus the press doesn't like Hillary) so 7 points was "big". Romney had to be favored in his home state of Michigan so a 9 point margin is only an "edge".

Plus the press is stuck in the mental framework of past nominating campaigns. They're accustomed to the races being more or less decided by this point in the process. They're expecting knock-out punches by this stage, and when they don't happen, a 9-point margin becomes an "edge".

Posted by Ryan | January 16, 2008 10:48 AM

Romney had to be favored in his home state of Michigan so a 9 point margin is only an "edge".

I'm pretty sure going into yesterday the Michigan race was viewed as a toss-up, with consensus polling favoring Romney by maybe 2 or 3 points. Nine points is enormous.

Posted by right | January 16, 2008 10:51 AM

You'll be happy to know, then, that today's Casa Grande Dispatch (in Casa Grande, Arizona -- McCain country) is headlined "Romney Trounces McCain."

Posted by Stentor | January 16, 2008 10:53 AM

As I noted yesterday, the idea that the press loves John McCain was scientifically proven to be false.

Why Matthew continues to lie about it puzzles me.

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 10:54 AM

PS - hey, pseudonymous in nc!

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 10:55 AM

Why Al contines to ignore the problems with his favorite study, despite them having been pointed out to him when he's raised it before, puzzles me.

Actually, no it doesn't.

Posted by Ryan | January 16, 2008 11:01 AM

I'm pretty sure going into yesterday the Michigan race was viewed as a toss-up, with consensus polling favoring Romney by maybe 2 or 3 points.

Really? I saw it wider than that, but I didn't follow it super closely. And in any case, on reflection, it's pretty hard to separate press expectations from press preferences so maybe I don't disagree with Matt all that much.

Posted by Ryan | January 16, 2008 11:08 AM

Why Ryan thinks there are problems with the study puzzles me. It scientifically proves that the press is perfectly willing, for a long period of time, to report negatively on John McCain.

But, much like the people who desparately cling to the idea that evolution is false, Matthew (and you) cling to the idea that the press refuses to report negatively on McCain. I know science is a b*tch sometimes, especially when it challenges your deeply held beliefs. I guess in the case of many on the Left Wing, such as Matthew, even science can't displace those deeply held beliefs.

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 11:11 AM

How about a victory for us in having and communicating the candidates records before another state falls victim to pandering?

Candidate Research - Know Who You're Voting For ( The Easy Way ) http://tinyurl.com/2sowta

Posted by Winghunter | January 16, 2008 11:30 AM

for a long period of time

I.e. five months. That's the period covered by your study. The man's public career is slightly longer than this. As is the record of press love for him. Just sayin'.

As was pointed out to you by someone else yesterday, the study also counted as 'negative' a whole bunch of stories whose basic thrust was -- 'John McCain is awesome and qualified and super-cool but he's down in the polls. How odd!' 'Negative' was when the public failed to love John McCain as much as the press did. The study's authors themselves point out that this is an important caveat on their findings.

And by the way, when you're dealing in squishy subjective categories like positive and negative tones, you're not doing "science". Using the word "science" to describe the study at every opportunity (as you do) doesn't make it so.

Posted by Ryan | January 16, 2008 11:32 AM

I heard a few talking heads on CNN last night claim that the MI results were great for Giuliani. Seriously. Rudy, the guy who got less votes than Ron Paul...

I couldn't figure out their logic, unless they're just deciding that the candidates will each get their turn to be first in a state. So, give SC to Fred, Florida to Ruday, and let Ron Paul have the Internets?

Ah, media. You make laugh with your prognostications and analysis.

Posted by BIll | January 16, 2008 11:43 AM

Yeah, but winning Iowa nearly knocked Hillary out-- had she lost NH, the race would be over.

Mitt NEEDED to win Michigan, just to hold on (and not nearly break even). That makes its scope somewhat less significant.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 16, 2008 12:02 PM

McCain IS being favored by the mainstream media. The "scientific" evidence against this cited by Al was a study covering the first five months of 2008. In political campaigns timing is everything. When McCain's popularity plummeted following his swing vote betrayal of his own party (and 80% of the American public!) by scuttling the Republican-sponsored immigration bill, that should have spelled the end of his presidential aspirations. Like the good mercenary that he is, however, he has been following a carefully orchestrated plan to revive his candidacy. He laid low until another media creation, Mike Huckabee, played the religious bigotry card to undermine his chief rival Mitt Romney. Then after well-timed endorsements from the Des Moines Register and Manchester Union Leader he suddenly enjoyed a "miraculous" resurgence in the polls. Political pundits carefully ignore his original fall from grace or quickly neutralize it by mentioning his recent "realization" that Americans want "border security". This is also done while carefully avoiding the "A" word (amnesty). With this intense mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, is it any wonder that he is the new fair haired child of the Republican Party?

Posted by John Bowery | January 16, 2008 12:04 PM

I.e. five months. That's the period covered by your study.

I.e., half of the campaign to that date.

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 12:08 PM

I'm sorry, Al, we cannot accept that response -- you failed to include the word "science".

Posted by Ryan | January 16, 2008 12:48 PM

This struck me as well. The bias of the mainstream "objective" (ho, ho, ho) media is beyond transparent and beyond credibility. I do better listening to gossip than reading the corporate press.

Posted by della Rovere | January 16, 2008 12:55 PM

re: McCain, everyone has to go read Glenn Greenwald today.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience

I did. I don't normally have much of a stomach for Greenwald, but his tearing King a new asshole for his vapid arrogance was sweet.
And Greenwald is right about the media basically acting as a "fluffer brigade" on McCain to keep his prospects up.

Same old "King-making" pattern. Obama also has his untouchability from uncritical media worshippers while the media knives are out for Hillary, Rudy, the Huckster, and Romney.

Nothing will ever quite match 2004. Then you had a media deep in worship to Slick Edwards and the "great intellectual war-hero" Kerry. While determined to tear down Dean and Dubya. With the media wrecking several careers over faked documents - and Kerry exposed as duplicitous.

With the Swift Boaters doing the investigative journalism the MSM refused to do on the Senator - to hang Kerry on his own words as recorded in the Congressional Record or his vanity book, re-reveal he met with the enemy while still an officer, the hatred of his peer officers he triggered, his two dubious purple hearts.
And others revealed Kerry was a particularly dumb, vain Senator who made Bush look smart.

Posted by chris ford | January 16, 2008 1:01 PM

Aaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! I'm agreeing with Chris Ford! (Well, only his first sentence - and of that, only the part about how Greenwalds piece was sweet - the rest of his post is the usual horseshit.)

The Greenwald piece was one of the best descriptions of news scum I've seen.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 16, 2008 4:38 PM