Tag Archives: MSNBC

Debate Over The Debate: Judge v. Jury Verdicts

Posted on by
Reply

Groucho Marx once observed “I was married by a judge.  I should have asked for a jury.”

I am having a similar reaction after browsing the coverage of last night’s final Presidential debate.

The Judges’ Verdicts

“I think it’s unequivocal Mitt Romney won.  Romney went large.  Obama went very, very small – shockingly small.” – Charles Krauthammer, Synidated columnist

Headline:  “Few seemed swayed by final presidential debate”  - Associated Press (The headline on 5460 articles, according to Google)

Headline:  “Presidential debate: Times opinionators divided on Monday’s winner” - Los Angeles Times

“Mitt Romney came across as reasonable, thoughtful, serious presidential, rational, not someone who is going to start another war in the Middle East.  …overall, I think they both did an effective job tonight.  I don’t think it changes anything.  You saw Mitt Romney talking about the economy tonight, messaging to Ohio.  I thought he was very effective talking about China.  Whether you agree or disagree with his positions on these issues, I think if you’re a worker in Ohio tonight, I think his message would have had some resonance.”  - MSNBC Analyst Steve Schmidt

“In a presidential debate largely lacking the combativeness of last week’s town hall, President Obama and Mitt Romney both seemed to achieve their goals in Monday’s foreign-policy face-off.”  - Christian Science Monitor

 

The Jury Verdict

However, instant polls of the voters’ reaction to the debate tell a dramatically different story.

 A CNN poll of registered voters:  Obama won: 48%.  Romney won: 40%.

A PPP poll of swing state debate watchers:  Obama won:  53%.  Romney won:  42%.

A CBS poll of uncommitted voters:  Obama won:  53%.  Romney won: 23%.

To be fair, these polls were done immediately after the debate, before voters were given their instructions by the judges.

- Loveland

 

Whatever Happened to Firebrand Franken?

Posted on by
Reply

When Al Franken announced in 2007 that he was running for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat then held by Norm Coleman, I was worried whether he could sell in the land of Minnesota Nice.  Like others, I had an image of what I expected to see in Senator Al Franken. I expected to see a wise-cracking, fire-breathing, attention-seeking political hack who was constantly making mild mannered Minnesotans roll their eyes during an endless tour of contentious cable TV and talk radio appearances.

In other words, I expected Senator Al to be a lot like the Al that appeared on Air America Radio, and in books with titles like “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.”  I expected him to be, well, Michele Bachmann.  And Bachmann doesn’t sell statewide.

Last night, I was reminded once again  how wrong I was.  During MSNBC coverage of the Democratic Convention, host Rachel Maddow, Al’s former Air America Radio colleague, became positively giddy when the network secured a very brief, non-substantive interview with Franken.  Maddow repeatedly noted that Franken doesn’t give interviews to national media outlets, even to liberal outlets, even to outlets populated by his pleading friends and former colleagues. As Senator, Franken apparently has gone cold turkey on cable.

Moreover, what Franken said last night in the MSNBC interview was telling.  He repeatedly tried to put the national spotlight on his fellow Minnesotans, not just himself.  And frankly, he was only mildly funny, and pretty boring.

I have to imagine this is all by design.  Underexposed by design.  Locally focused by design.  Only mildly humorous by design.  Dispassionate by design.   Franken and his team have successfully navigated the evolution of Firebrand Comedian Franken, a national figure, to Thoughtful Senator Franken, a Minnesota figure.

And in Minnesota, it’s working.  Here is what a recent Public Policy Polling survey found about Franken’s political strength at home:

 Al Franken’s proven to be a stronger than might have been expected Senator. 50% of voters approve of him to 36% who disapprove. Democrats have ended up being pretty universally happy with him (85/4) and he’s strong with independents as well (48/33).

Franken leads hypothetical contests with Minnesota’s three leading Republicans. He has a 51-41 advantage over Norm Coleman, a 52-41 one over Tim Pawlenty, and a 57-35 advantage on Michele Bachmann. It’s impossible to say what the political climate will look like in 2014, but at least for now Franken finds himself in a strong position.

In 2008, Franken defeated Norm Coleman, now a Super PACman, by the slimmest of margins.  Now, polls show he would defeat Coleman handily, as well as the state’s other leading Republicans.

The lesson?  Al is minding his Minnesota manners, and it matters to Minnesotans.

- Loveland

 

 

Note:  This post was also featured in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report “Best of the Blogs” feature

How Liberal Wonks Like Me Are Inadvertently Making the Conservatives’ Case

Posted on by
2

There is a recurring pattern in modern political discourse that goes like this:  Republicans make a ridiculous charge about President Obama being a socialist on Issue X, which is outrageous because Obama has been blocked by Republicans from being even somewhat liberal, much less socialist.

Outraged liberals then come to the rescue!  We start spouting data proving that Republicans are overstating their case.  But to the casually involved public, the liberals’ rebuttal sounds a lot like liberals are asserting that “Obama is actually a conservative.”  More conservative than Bush, for instance.

With both sides sounding like they are claiming to be conservative, the public concludes that the conservative position must be the good and right position.

The pattern repeats over and over.  Here are specific examples:

Public Investment in Things Creating Long-term Growth

  • The Big Lie:  Fact-free GOP accuses Obama of being a “big spending socialist.”
  • The Big Rebuttal:  Outraged liberals prove that Obama “is not a big spender!”
  • Debate Residue:  The casually involved public concludes that both the left and right agree that spending is always a very bad thing.
Tax Fairness
  • The Big Lie:   Fact-free GOP accuses Obama of being a “tax raising socialist.”
  • The Big Rebuttal:  Liberals prove that Obama “has not been a big taxer!”
  • Debate Residue:  The casually involved public concludes that both the left and the right agree that more taxation of any type is a very bad thing.
Deficit Spending To Stimulate the Economy
  • The Big Lie:  Fact-free GOP accuses Obama of “running up historic deficits.”
  • The Big Rebuttal:  Outraged liberals prove that Obama isn’t responsible for most of the deficit spending.
  • Debate Residue:  The casually involved public concludes that both the left and the right agree that deficit spending is always a very bad thing.
Regulation of Reckless Corporations
  • The Big Lie:   Fact-free GOP accuses Obama of blocking their no-holds barred “drill, baby, drill” dreams.
  • The Big Rebuttal:  Outraged liberals prove that domestic oil production is higher than ever.
  • Debate Residue:  The casually involved public concludes that both the left and the right agree that limiting drilling is always a very bad thing.

Damnit, we liberals can prove it!  We can prove that Obama is more conservative than Republicans say!  But the unintended consequence of this repetitive pattern of proving that Obama is more conservative than conservatives assert is a national perception that investing, taxing, stimulating and regulating are bad things.

The truth is, President Obama is a center left leader — not a “socialist” and not a “conservative — who has been trying to invest, tax, stimulate, and regulate MORE, not less.   The only reason he hasn’t done those things is because Republicans have blocked his center left proposals.

And liberals believe the President has been CORRECT to nudge the nation lightly to the left.  Why?  Because the economy needs a jumpstart, and austerity is the wrong thing to do during an economic down turn.  Because wise investments stimulate long-term growth.  Because the Bush tax policies were breathtakingly unfair, and killing the consumer demand we need to help the economy. And because corporations have repeatedly proven that they need limits to protect the environment, the economy and consumers.

Therefore, liberals should be unapologetically making the pro-investment, pro-tax fairness, pro-stimulus, and pro-regulation case, not taking the Republicans message bait, and wasting our breath making the “Obama is actually conservative” case.

What we are seeing is the MSNBC-ification of the left.  Liberal propeller-headed policy wonks adore having easy access to policy data on MSNBC and the blogosphere, so we now blurt out this data Turrets-style, even though much of the blurting effectively makes it appear as if we agree that the positions the conservatives are advocating are actually desirable.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone on this front.  It feels good to rebut the ridiculous “Obama is a socialist” hyperbole coming from the right.  But upon reflection, methinks, we liberals doth protest too much.

- Loveland

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on Minnpost’s Blog Cabin feature.