Today, the New York Times published a terrific editorial in which Bill Bradley examines the difference between the Republican and Democratic infrastructure. It’s a great piece, and it lays out explicitly many of the connections on the Republican side that you normally only see in left-wing blogs. I was particularly heartened that he analyzed the role of the media.
Anyone who thinks the media is impartial is fooling themselves. Jabley has a great list of keys to democratic victory, but I think there is only one. Get the media to report on facts and do real journalism. I firmly believe the Democrats have a vastly superior message, one that will easily win elections. On virtually every topic, those who are familiar with the facts of the topic side with the Democratic position. It is those who are not familiar with the topic, or have swallowed the lies that have been fed, that tend towards the GOP. Call the lies out, and you have an ex-Republican. I am convinced this is the absolute truth for the center of the political spectrum. If I can ever get around to digging up the links, I’ll post my 2004 election analysis, which is really only two paragraphs long.
Good points all. In response to jabley, it is impossible to change what comes out of those two mouths. It is very possible though, to make it so those two are not taken seriously as journalissts or as a version of the truth. Right now, their views recieve mainstream attention and veracity, whereas left-wing views and opinions do not. That is the dynamic to change.
In general, I agree that if you could get the media to report the truth, the Dems would win. The flaw, I think, is that this is impossible. What is a tangible strategy by which you can change the words coming out of Bill O’Reilly’s or Rush Limbaugh’s mouth? There isn’t one. The key for Dems is to a) identify items that that can control and b) use them more effectually than they have in the last two campaigns. With regard to the specific issue of the media, I think this means they will have to do a better job with their ad campaigns.
The comments from my good friend Yagov inspired me to list one interesting fact that I thought about sending the Kerry campaign so that he could use it as a zinger in a debate or something (not that he needed any help, or a more inept opponent). But I found it one of the most interesting tidbits in the NY Times during the election run.
It was buried in the Opinion section somewhere, and it listed each presidential term since Kennedy — five Democrat (Kennedy/LBJ, LBJ, Carter, and two Clinton) and six Republican (Nixon, Nixon/Ford, two Reagan, Bush I, Bush II). Next to each presidential term it listed the total number of jobs gained during that president’s term. The article wasn’t trying to make a particular political point, but being a statistician, I noticed an unmistakable trend in the data. After doing some calculations, the math was astounding — under a Democratic president, the average # of new jobs created was approximately 10 million per term, or roughly 200K per month. For Republican presidents, it was 5 million, or 100K per month.
I found this pretty remarkable. I mean, the last 44 years has had economic booms and busts under rule of both parties (contrast Carter vs. Clinton, e.g.). But the job outlook was consistently more rosy under Dems.
Is it luck-of-the-draw? Well, I didn’t run a t-test (although I should have). But even so, I found it funny when Bush would get up and tout even a 50K gain in jobs in a particular month leading up to the election, when any Democratic president in the past 40 years averaged 4 times that.
I have to take you to task on your claim that the Democrats have a vastly superior message, one that will easily win elections.
A superior message is all in the eye of the beholder. And, admittedly, living in a blue state like I do and firmly believing in those true blue beliefs, it is hard to see the appeal of the neo-con message. But let’s face it, there are a lot of people who that message appeals to:
Bomb countries that don’t tow the line, despite billions in cost, thousands of lives and limbs, and the ire of pretty much every other nation out there (even some among the coalition of the unwilling, that is). That message has got real appeal!
Give tax breaks now, hopefully find some magical economic growth that will pay for them later. Sounds good to me.
Lay to waste any environmental wonder if it has the misfortune to be situated on a few million SUVs full of oil. Hey, you gotta look out for #1, right?
Walk around with a swagger, constantly praise the Almighty, turn your back on modern science, and avoid transparent photo ops duck-hunting and windsurfing.
My point is, despite me making fun of these issues, we have to realize that a lot of this country sees eye-to-eye with them, and more importantly, they feel more fervent about them to get off their ass and vote than eco-loving college students. To them, this is a superior message.