The Pundit's Lament

Marc Ambinder posts the following data from Pew along with the observation that it shows us that "Republicans like McCain." And indeed they do. Which, from the viewpoint of professional status, is pretty depressing news. After all, conservative pundits hate John McCain. But if conservative pundits can't make self-identified Republicans dislike John McCain then maybe all pundits everywhere are powerless.

I could try to console myself with the view that maybe Bill Kristol is just incredibly persuasive but I doubt that's right. Rather, I think the tendency is for people who participate in the political media to drastically to drastically overstate its importance. After all, the only people who pundits can affect are the relatively small number of people who consume political punditry. What's more, the consumers of political punditry are, by definition, people with an unusually strong interest in politics. But the people most open to persuasion are the people who don't take a strong interest in politics.

On top of all that, I think Kevin Drum's right that strident campaigning by a pundit tends to be ineffective and annoying. Anyone who's undecided is undecided because their gut tells them it's a close call. Table-pounding does more to suggest that the pounder lacks perspective than it does to persuade. But if to be effective you can only try to nudge people gently, then it's just going to be very difficult to have a large effect.

Comments

On top of all that, I think Kevin Drum's right that strident campaigning by a pundit tends to be ineffective and annoying.

You mean K-Lo and Hugh Hewitt are annoying twits?
Say it ain't so!

Posted by calipygian | February 4, 2008 4:33 PM

Which all leads to the basic irony of electoral politics-- elections tend to be decided by people who can't make up their minds.

Posted by MattF | February 4, 2008 4:34 PM

Obama did the Jedi Mind Trick on Hillary supporter Kevin Drum just as he had performed it on centrist David Brooks. He has the magic!

I am beginning to believe Obama totally baited Bill Clinton by telling that newspaper Ronald Reagan changed things for the country whereas Nixon and Bill Clinton hadn't. Reading about that caused Bill to fly off the handle and do some stupid things.

Posted by Peter K. | February 4, 2008 5:10 PM

I like the fact that 7% of McCain voters hold an unfavorable opinion of the man they're voting for. Is that outside the margin of error?

Posted by soulflower88 | February 4, 2008 5:11 PM

If any pundit qualifies as being strident and obsessive in his opposition to a politician over the last 7 years, it's been Paul Krugman on the topic of G.W. Bush. Personally, I think Krugman's done the nation a service -- having somebody that smart and energetic and mean focused on the President helps balance out all the PR advantages that the Presidency entails.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 4, 2008 5:17 PM

That is interesting soulflower88.

It looks like some of his voters are voting for in spite of the fact they don't like him. Probably because they think he has the best shot at winning.

Posted by Mike | February 4, 2008 5:19 PM

One other thing it might speak to is that the conervative pundits, the establishment, really are as far out of the mainstream as liberals/progressives often state. I know that is stating the obvious as someone who supports progressive politics but objectivity can often be wonderful.

And the conservative pundits are just way over the top with their disliking of McCain and their swooning over Romney. The credibility of this group has sunk forever lower as they try to continue to reconcil Romney's previous lack of bonafide conservative positions and his daily maneuvers to swing further to his side. His campaign has been quite a spectacle, the most in you face I have ever seen, of a candidate practically begging, and buying, acceptance. I heard Hannity actually say "conservatives just won't support Senator McCain's RADICAL LEFT WING AGENDA".(Channel surfing on the radio, honest) Now McCain is not just unacceptable but radical left-wing? I hope for the sake of the country that many people are tuning these folks out because their rage is a little unsettling.

Posted by PaulE | February 4, 2008 5:25 PM

I like the fact that 7% of McCain voters hold an unfavorable opinion of the man they're voting for.

Chances are they like their other options even less. Gawd knows however the p[rimaries go, I'm gonna wind up voting for "sucks the least," not "like the best."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | February 4, 2008 5:35 PM

Surely Rush and the other radio hosts have rather sizable audiences?

Posted by John | February 4, 2008 5:47 PM

I dunno. Maybe the right-wing pundit class doesn't win every battle, but I'm not about to declare the pundit class in general to be powerless. They continue to have tremendous power in setting the agenda of the nation and deciding what is and what is not conventional wisdom.

Sure, they don't necessarily pick and choose every candidate who wins. But didn't they decide for us that Clinton is scandal-plagued, McCain is a straight-talker, Al Gore didn't know who he was, that war is always a good idea, that national health care is for sissies, and on and on? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 4, 2008 5:48 PM

Paul Krugman was just being objective and reasonable. Yes, Bush was that bad.

Posted by Barry | February 4, 2008 6:25 PM

Matt, you should try making a video or something if you really want to have some influence ;-)

Posted by Vaughan | February 4, 2008 8:02 PM

The torch has been passed to a new generation: it used to be Al Gore who was our national Cassandra, now everyone believes Gore, so it's Paul Krugman. Oh well, we almost had real health care reform.

Posted by abc | February 4, 2008 8:11 PM

"maybe all pundits everywhere are powerless."

You just figured out that you entered the wrong business to get rich, laid and appreciated?

See. Harvard did you no good at all...

Look, most of you guys are just shills for one group of rich people or another. Another word might be "pimps". You got the bling for that, but that's about it.

So far, you just haven't got the moxie to be enough of a shill to make the really big bucks.
But don't worry. All you chimps die sooner or later, so Kristol will be gone and Krugman, so you'll get paid more some day.

You might even get laid.

But you'll never be appreciated. Because nobody appreciates shills and pimps.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 4, 2008 8:25 PM

Wow, Romney supporters really like Romney. I have no fucking idea why. He was better than Jane Swift, but then again so why that helicopter she used to fly herself all over the place.

Posted by Reality Man | February 5, 2008 1:56 AM

I'd like to see someone make the argument that McCain's success makes Obama's reconfiguring rhetoric seem more plausible. The rise of McCain, in spite of all the deep-voiced conservative resentment and anger against him, indicates that the electorate isn't as polarized as Rush et al would have you believe. Which means that the idea of a game-changing candidate like Obama isn't that absurd after all. As far as I can tell, the whole Republican primary thus far has simply proved Obama's point.

Posted by nicholas | February 5, 2008 10:15 AM