Editing Anyone

Bill Kristol's column from Monday:

In a New York Times/CBS News poll in late February, Obama was defeating John McCain 50 to 38. Two months later, the Times/CBS poll had McCain and Obama tied. The poll that came out yesterday showed Obama reopening a lead over McCain — but clearly over this period a vulnerability for Obama was exposed.

As Noam Scheiber notes it's a bit curious of Kristol to have left out the precise numbers from the new poll. But what it says is that Obama hasa lead of 51 to 40 which is identical to Obama's previous lead. I'm hardly shocked to see Kristol playing some funny games, but shouldn't there be some kind of editing of the Times columnists? Surely the NYT has it within its powers to be aware of the results of its own polls and get its writers to characterize the trends accurately.

Comments

christ, matt, if the Times is going to start fact-checking Kristol's columns, nothing else will get done!

Posted by rob! | May 7, 2008 12:49 PM

All polls involving a contest between Senator Obama and Senator McCain are totally worthless. Just ask Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder.

Posted by SLC | May 7, 2008 12:51 PM

get its writers to characterize the trends accurately

Huh? How did Kristol mischaracterize the trend? He said Obama had a lead, the lead went away, and then Obama's lead reopened. Which is what the numbers show.

WTF is Matthew talking about?

Posted by Al | May 7, 2008 12:53 PM

The poll is immaterial anyway because Hillary will be the democratic nominee.

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 12:55 PM

Surely the NYT has it within its powers to be aware of the results of its own polls and get its writers to characterize the trends accurately.

You seem to be under the strange impression that Kristol was hired to be something other than a hack who phones in his columns. The only time he does fact-checking is to ensure that he can conceal facts like this one, to better troll the readers of the New York Times.

Of course, this won't stop David fucking Gregory from featuring Billybob as the first item in his idiot 'Smart Takes' bit, in which he reads out wingnut op-eds as if they're doing something other than filling in the right-wing frame.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 12:55 PM

If Obama can't stand up to misleading scrutiny from Bill Kristol in May, how will he win in November???

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Matt, your editor dropped the ball, too. There should be a comma after "Editing" and a question mark after "anyone."

Posted by Brian | May 7, 2008 12:59 PM

Yeah I'm pretty sure Bill "The Bloody" Kristol had it written into his contract with the NYT that he wouldn't be required to use facts, or be subject to liberal editors.

Posted by Jake | May 7, 2008 12:59 PM

Sucks to have to defend Kristol but this criticism is ridiculous. He didn't mischaracterize any trend.

Posted by Decided | May 7, 2008 1:01 PM

Matt, seriously, for too long the NY Times was a paper the had a bias towards accurate facts. This was pole in the eye of god-fearin' 'mericans. After conservative scrutiny (i.e. temper tantrums) they have agreed to amend their ways and start printing lies. Of course, I hasten to add that they actually had a pretty good start towards reform when they hired Blair and Judith you-neocons-are-so-dreamy-and-serious Miller.

Posted by David | May 7, 2008 1:03 PM

Anyone else here think that Hillary has a killer ass?

Posted by Daniel Cardenas | May 7, 2008 1:03 PM

@Al,

We're talkin about Kristol's wanton effort to frame the polls in a way that tries to make Obama look weak.

And it's done in a manner that's so flagrantly obvious. Sometimes, when you omit something, it becomes more apparent, then what you actually mention.

So here he says, "reopening a lead," instead of acknowledging, the more important point, which is, Obama has "reclaimed his lead."

Because that would completely undermine, his pulled out of air, bullshit conclusion, that "this period has exposed a vulnerability for Obama."

No but seriously, why the fuck does that cheshire cat grinning, war mongering, motherfucker have space on the most prominent opinion page in the United States. I understand the Times desire to have some "right/left" balance. But this guy's a clown.

Posted by NattyB | May 7, 2008 1:04 PM

The poll is immaterial anyway because Hillary will be the democratic nominee.

Daniel Cardenas, ladies and gentleman, Hillary troll come lately.

Posted by Bill | May 7, 2008 1:04 PM

"reopening a lead" is not the same as "reopening virtually the same-sized lead."

that said, it's hard to believe that matthew doesn't know that the official position of the times is that op-ed writers produce opinions which cannot, by definition, be fact-checked.

it's an inane position to take (as keynes told us, people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts), but happily, oped writers are going to disappear the day an intelligent publisher (which rules out pinch sulzberger) realizes that they add no value for their immense cost: who buys the times to read bill kristol?

Posted by howard | May 7, 2008 1:06 PM

I'm hardly shocked to see Kristol playing some funny games, but shouldn't there be some kind of editing of the Times columnists?

They knew he was a neocon when they hired him, for gawd's sake. If they don't edit Brooks's work for gaming, why would they do (or not do) differently for Kristol? Indeed, why would they pay for something--neocon opinion--and then neuter it?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 7, 2008 1:09 PM

AI:
Huh? How did Kristol mischaracterize the trend? He said Obama had a lead, the lead went away, and then Obama's lead reopened. Which is what the numbers show.
WTF is Matthew talking about?

Decided:
Sucks to have to defend Kristol but this criticism is ridiculous. He didn't mischaracterize any trend

For the reading impaired, the reality is according to that poll, Obama was up 12 then tied then up 10. Kristol subistituted "reopened a lead" for "back up by 10 a substantial lead." My question is what the fuck is Kristol's point? So Obama is ahead again according to this poll and that is somehow good for McCain? Are polls always right? Did they predict Obama trouncing Hillary in North Carolina and breaking even with her Indiana? If they had, Hillary probably wouldn't have had morning TV and public appearances scheduled today, which she ended up canceling after her defeat. Kristol's column just seems like a waste of space.

Posted by Peter K. | May 7, 2008 1:16 PM

11

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 7, 2008 1:20 PM

11

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 7, 2008 1:27 PM

As others implied, from the NYT's perspective, this is a feature, not a bug, of Kristol's columns.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 1:29 PM

Kristol isn't saying that the change from the old lead to the new lead demonstrates a trend.

He's saying that the period when Obama slumped demonstrates that certain issues and dynamics can harm his electoral prospects.

It's like this: "I used to bench press 300 pounds, then I had an attack of MS and couldn't exercise. I lost muscle mass, and when I started lifting again, I could only bench press 150 pounds. Now, I've been working out again, and can bench press 290, but that episode demonstrates a vulnerability."

"Reopening a lead" is dodgy language, but that's just spin.

I don't like defending Bill Kristol, but there's nothing wrong with what he wrote.

Posted by joe | May 7, 2008 1:31 PM

11 != 12

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 7, 2008 1:31 PM

Kristol isn't saying that the change from the old lead to the new lead demonstrates a trend.

He's saying that the period when Obama slumped demonstrates that certain issues and dynamics can harm his electoral prospects.

It's like this: "I used to bench press 300 pounds, then I had an attack of MS and couldn't exercise. I lost muscle mass, and when I started lifting again, I could only bench press 150 pounds. Now, I've been working out again, and can bench press 290, but that episode demonstrates a vulnerability."

"Reopening a lead" is dodgy language, but that's just spin.

I don't like defending Bill Kristol, but there's nothing wrong with what he wrote.

Posted by joe | May 7, 2008 1:33 PM

I don't understand how someone as chock full of sh*t as Kristol can get numerous forums to vent his utter nonsense. Nothing he says is believable, and it's almost invariably incorrect. Nonetheless, we see him appearing with frequency on Jon Stewart's show, on Fox, in the NYT, in opinion articles in numerous periodicals, and in his odious Weekly Standard.

If a media organization gives a platform to this buffoon without refuting the blatant lies that he delivers, what's that say about that media organization? I think it says that perhaps that media organization's viewers or readers should get their news elsewhere....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | May 7, 2008 1:40 PM

"if the Times is going to start fact-checking Kristol's columns, nothing else will get done!

OK sure, but it would only mean inserting the data they themselves produced one day earlier when it is omitted without a possible legitimate reason

If you read the ombudsman there is some suggestion that they do fact read and edit the columns before they're published, but maybe that's only for Krugman, and Herbert.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 7, 2008 1:42 PM

I've never seen any evidence that the Times edits its op-ed columnists' work. Grammatical mistakes, poor phrasing... I remember a Safire column that was almost impossible to comprehend.

Posted by DNS | May 7, 2008 1:43 PM

as usual, the bigger problems are in dowd's latest ravings.

obligatory dailyhowler mention here.

Posted by marc h. | May 7, 2008 1:53 PM

I once asked Anthony Lewis how much the Times edited his columns. He said, "not a word. Not a single word." I gather that's part of what comes with being on the NYTimes op-ed page. They only put you there if they've decided they trust you. The fact that they gave this honor to Bill Kristol, well, that's the source of the problem.

Posted by Andrew | May 7, 2008 2:06 PM

"reopening a lead" is not the same as "reopening virtually the same-sized lead."

Uh, yes it is. I'd draw a Venn diagram if I could, but "reopening virtually the same-sized lead" is just a subset of "reopening a lead".

Kristol subistituted "reopened a lead" for "back up by 10 a substantial lead."

Which is perfectly accurate.

What the heck does the size of the reopened lead have to do with what Kristol wrote? Kristol didn't say the "reopened lead" is smaller than the old lead (which, as it happens, it is, even though by only one point). He just said that Obama reopened a lead - which is exactly correct.

Maybe someone can tell me why the lack of precision in Kristol's description of the latest poll has anything to do with anything. It seems to me that Kristol was perfectly accurate in what he wrote and that whether Obama's "reopened" lead is 5 points or 15 points is completely irrelevant to the Kristol's column.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2008 2:14 PM

Hate to be the skunk at the party, but that NYT poll is a total outlier. Pretty much all the other polls are showing Obama behind McCain by more than the margin of error. And further behind McCain than Hillary is. Obama is going to have to dig himself out of a hole in the general.

Posted by mq | May 7, 2008 2:15 PM

Kristol is a movement conservative who was placed on the Times staff in response to conservative threads. He does not answer to anyone on the Times, and if the Times tries to discipline or edit him, there will be consequences.

He's like the Mafia plant in the union leadership, or the Communist Party commissar in a Soviet-era Russian university.

A lot of opinion people have always been Republican plants: George Will, William Safire, Peggy Noonan, and Pat Buchanan all had careers as Republican operatives before they ever went into journalism, and continued to work that way. (Stephanopolous, Estrich, Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert were Democratic operatives once, but they've all made names for themselves since then by trashing Democrats.)

Posted by John Emerson | May 7, 2008 2:22 PM

"threats" Damn.

We regret the error.

Posted by John Emerson | May 7, 2008 2:26 PM

Irregardless of what you think of Kristol's column, the Wright matter is a big weakness for Obama. It's just hard to see many regular Americans voting for a guy who's best friend hates America so vocally. Most liberals have the decency to keep such thoughts to themselves.

Elites will embrace Obama, but that's it. He has a max support of about 40% in the general -- 12% blacks and 28% elites.

Posted by DougJ | May 7, 2008 2:33 PM

Whoops, my post above was based on last week's polls. The NYT poll is still a huge outlier, but Obama now seems to be in a statistical tie with McCain.

Posted by mq | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM

Good grief! Whether Obama re-opened a smaller. larger or equal lead has no impact on Kristol's observations. I doubt Matt even read the column. Not sure what Scheiber's excuse is.

Dumbest discussion ever.

Posted by Decided | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM

Hate to be the skunk at the party, but that NYT poll is a total outlier. Pretty much all the other polls are showing Obama behind McCain by more than the margin of error. And further behind McCain than Hillary is. Obama is going to have to dig himself out of a hole in the general.

BTW, while I don't think this is accurate, it does hit on an actual problem with Kristol's column, as opposed to Schreiber's moronic "problem" (which for some unexplained reason Matthew found compelling): why anyone pays attention to a single poll escapes me. Look at the polling averages at RealClearPolitics or Pollster.com if you are interested in seeing what happened. Using RCP, the race went from a 5-point Obama lead in early March, to a 1-point McCain lead in late March, to a 2-point Obama lead in mid April, to a tie in late April, to (now) a 2.4-point Obama lead. That indicates to me that the initial Wright controversy - where the "God Damn America" clip was widely shown on TV, cost Obama about 6 points. Obama slowly regained that, but that the second Wright controversy (when Obama finally disowned Wright) cost Obama two points, but Obama has gained that back.

Which indicates that Wright is a vulnerability for Obama - it has cost him in two instances over the past couple of months - but it is not a very large vulnerability. Whether anything else comes up, whether the Republicans can exploit it, etc., will determine whether the Wright issue is something that will cost Obama on election day.

Posted by Al | May 7, 2008 2:40 PM

More than a quarter of all American voters are elites -- the 28% who vote for Obama, plus the considerable number of very rich elites who vote for McCain. This is the most elite country in history!

Posted by John Emerson | May 7, 2008 2:41 PM

Obama now seems to be in a statistical tie with McCain.

That means nothing -- consider the Bradley effect.

McCain beat Obama 61-39 in the general. With Hillary as nominee, it's a tight race.

Posted by DougJ | May 7, 2008 2:41 PM

More than a quarter of all American voters are elites -- the 28% who vote for Obama

Twenty-five percent of Americans have degrees from four year colleges. That makes them elite. Another 10 percent can be classified as elite for economic or other miscellaneous cultural reasons.

Posted by DougJ | May 7, 2008 2:45 PM

Al only wishes he got paid the same per-word as Kristol. He'd be richer than Warren Buffett, given that he produces equally stinky bullshit at a much greater rate.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 7, 2008 2:57 PM

"Another 10 percent can be classified as elite for economic or other miscellaneous cultural reasons."

Let's see, drinking any sort of latte, or wine. Also, eating arugula automatically makes you elite.

BTW: DougJ are you elite? On the one hand I would say yes, according to your definition, because I am assuming that you went to college; on the other hand your use of the non-word "irregardless" might mean that you aren't. Of course you might have used it to gain cred, like the hipsters who loudly proclaim their love of Dunkin' Donuts coffee--which objectively sucks.

Posted by David | May 7, 2008 3:00 PM

Can I suggest that Kristol had written the column before the latest Times poll had come out, and, rather than go back and re-think (assuming Kristol thinks to begin with) because of new and contradictory evidence, he simply tried to awkwardly patch it over?

The part of the column Democratic Eeyores (some in this comment thread) should have read was where the McCain staffer said, If Reagan's approval rating in '88 had been 30%, Dukakis would have won. It's sad that GOPers see the situation more clearly than Dem loyalists: this electoral environment is SO bad for Republicans, even a candidate with weaknesses will win (and for Obama, the weakness is not his "elitism", it's his race, which will dissuade some older voters). It's our 1980, folks -- the previously unelectable will become the new normal, thanks to the abject failure of our opposition.

Posted by demtom | May 7, 2008 3:31 PM

Al's 2:40 post is actually a sensible and objective read of the polling evidence.

Posted by mq | May 7, 2008 3:43 PM

"What the heck does the size of the reopened lead have to do with what Kristol wrote? Kristol didn't say the "reopened lead" is smaller than the old lead (which, as it happens, it is, even though by only one point). He just said that Obama reopened a lead - which is exactly correct."
Al

While factually correct, his conclusions are deceptive. Had Obama opened a considerably smaller lead, it would show evidence of vulnerability on the issue. By returning to essentially the same lead, he demonstrated that there is no vulnerability. People were briefly swayed, but came to their senses.

Posted by Njorl | May 7, 2008 4:03 PM

Kristol just tries to argue that the Wright episode hurt Obama more than it did, which is partisan spin. North Carolina put the lie to that argument. By the fall it will be stale news.

Then Kristol argues that the Macaca Republicans should Indian-American Jidal as McCain's VP, which made me laugh the first time I read it too.

Posted by Peter K. | May 7, 2008 4:31 PM

should *nominate* Jindal, I meant

Posted by Peter K. | May 7, 2008 4:37 PM

Why the fuck does "Al" bother hanging around here and disputing nearly every God-damned post on this blog?

Some may say he is just a fucking troll, and I will grant you that much, but how satisfying can it be to live over here to the extent that he does?

Some people are easily amused.

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 7:32 PM