Spin (Re-)Cycle

We watch a decent amount of politics-oriented television... and try to stay even keel, some things just drive me nuts after awhile.

Thanks to this past weekend's Democratic South Carolina Primary we heard a lot about the black vote. Apparently I was supposed to feel a mix of shock and awe that Obama received a vast majority of the black vote... and how devastating it is to the Clinton campaign, who have always received backing from the African American community.  The punditry places much of the blame on allegedly divisive comments made by the Clintons, rather than the "Duh?!" reality that, to the best of my knowledge, neither Clinton has never run against an African American opponent and had competition for this traditionally Democratic voting bloc. 

Now it's true that Clinton had the lead among African American voters in early polls... but this was before a vote was ever cast and before Obama became (in a rapid manner) a viable candidate -- the ever popular, everybody loves a winner/bandwagon syndrome.  I don't see how this is surprising or unexpected.  Likewise, and on the flip side, I don't read much into Obama not getting much of the SC white vote.

Now I am not naive enough to think that race and gender issues are not in play, but I think are being over-stated.  When there is a nominee, how many Democrats will flip to the Republican Party?  I am voting Clinton in the upcoming primary... that said, there is absolutely no doubt that I will vote for whoever the ultimate Democratic nominee is... Obama... Edwards... heck, Gravel (he's still in it right?!).  While our preferences for the Democratic nominee are more passionate than I can ever recall, I don't see a whole heck of lot of votes in the (D) column in jeopardy.  (Again, this is not saying that I don't have my worries about the outcome of the election)

That leads me to my other pet peeve, the "half glass empty" spin.  After the New Hampshire primary, one very well-known journalist (of the "household name" variety... well, I guess... depending on the household) said of Clinton's 39% victory that subtext was that "over 50% of Democratic voters rejected Clinton."  Huh?!?!  Beyond the one vote for their preferred candidate, I had not realized that NH voters were asked whether or not they would never vote for a particular candidate if they were the party nominee?!?

Before going to bed last night, we also caught some of a CNN special where they noted how political polls are used (or mis-used) in the same way.  Their example was a poll question from a prestigious newspaper asking respondents "Who is the best leader?"... Candidate A gets 57%, B 22%, C 18%.  So is it wrong or misleading when Candidate B's political ad states (without ever citing these actual numbers)... "In a recent poll, over 40% of respondents do not think Candidate A would be the best leader for our country."

While I am not "PollyAnna" enough to think that the presidential or any political race is about issues or qualifications, some of this stuff does bug me.  While it's easy to blame the media, it has only become a phenomenon given that it works (or the perception that it works!)... and that "news" channels have to fill-up 24 hours a day one way or another...   

... whether its the lack of context for a quote turned sound-bite, a tear-less "crying" episode, how a poll question may be asked (or the results presented), an "outburst" that didn't involve a raised voice, how you would act if your "first choice" is not the nominee, that 5 might not be the conclusion when presented with the hypothesis of 2 + 2... stop and think... pretty often "doing the math" really ain't that hard.

Comments

[Scott-O-Rama]

It's getting really bizarre some of the spins/stories the pundits are coming up with for this election. I try to tune them out as best as I can, but every once in a while they'll really piss me off. Such was the case when Hillary "cried." I never saw actual tears, and they failed to point our Mitt Romney blubbers all the time.