The American public has been slowly but steadily tuning out of the State of the Union. I wonder who the speech is geared toward. The rhetorical choices made by the President and his speechwriters are clearly aimed at a popular audience. At the same time, the president is placing the Republicans and some Democrats on the defensive.
Some of the members in the chamber had clearly tuned out. They already have their talking points and so they don't think it is important to listen. This is a potential problem for a representative democracy that is predicated on compromise between competing factions.
President Obama has a higher approval rating than Congress. That should give the president some leverage with the American people.
The tax policy proposal places Republicans in a tight spot: arguing against giving the Middle Class a tax cut, a group that has not seen wages increase as the economy has grown. Republicans may be seen as protecting the rich over the Middle Class. This fits the Big Business, protector of the 1% stereotype, and this is a long term negative for the Party.
My guess is that many Americans turned on a rerun of Friends when he subject turned to Foreign Policy. While an important topic, the serious nature of foreign policy is likely pushing people away from learning more about ISIS and/or relations with Cuba.
If nothing else, the State of Union is a good reminder of American values and how they often clash when they are made into public policy.
It should come to no surprise the President Obama wants the Republicans in Congress to know that he has two more years before the next president is sworn in. The energy with which the President delivered the speech should be taken as an indicator on the president's desire to be relevant.
It's the economy, stupid.
The call to compromise is important to the President's legacy, but Republicans should have an interest in showing voters that they can govern wisely. BUT working with the President is not a positive for all. The president is going to need to create several different coalitions in order to accomplish his agenda.
Certainly the most authentically optimistic speech President Obama was able to give.
In the middle of the protests over SB-5 and the referendum to repeal it, it was difficult to think that
Governor Kasich would have an easy path to re-election. Early in 2011 a mere 30% of Ohioans approved of the way Governor Kasich was handling his job. But times have changed.
A poll from late July shows many things in the Governor's favor. Now, 55% of Ohioan approve of his job performance. Sixty percent of Ohioans are satisfied with the way things are going in Ohio today and 50% think the Governor deserves re-election. On top of that Kasich has a +16 favorability rating. This good news for the Governor helps explain his 12 point advantage over his challenger Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald.
Bad news for FitzGerald is good news for Kasich. The worst of bad news for FitzGerald is that 65% do not know enough about him to have an opinion. This could have been good news for FitzGerald except that the news surrounding him and his campaign has only been negative. A big win in November 2014 would make Kasich an interest candidate, either Presidential or VP, come 2016.
Now that we are less than 80 days from Election Day, the FitzGerald campaign is in dire need of a bus tour and media blitz - social media, broadcast, anything - if his campaign has any chance of persuading swing voters to support him let alone getting diehard Democrats to get to the polls.
I'm not in the business of giving advice to politicians, so maybe FitzGerald should take some advice from Jerry Seinfeld: "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right."
The political theater going on in Washington seems to be for the political elite only and is disconnected from the rest of the country. In a recent Washington Postarticle Ezra Klein offers 13 reasons Washington is failing. I offer 3.
1. Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering is a major factor because it creates safe-seats for members of Congress, thus protecting them from the public. Some argue that this helps maintain a level of stability, but what has that stability brought us? What is more, there is something perverse when 5% of the country "approve" of Congress, but over 90% of incumbents who run for re-election win. Gerrymandering limits choices and it certainly does not create a more representative system. In a political system built on competition, Congressional Districts should be competitive, at least; they should NOT be shaped like a Rorschach inkblot. Plus, gerrymandering makes it more likely the polarization in Congress goes, while moderate elected representatives are squeezed out. Yes, when tend to approve of our own Congressperson more than Congress as a whole, but this leads to another problem: us.
2. Public Choices of Media
We have all sorts of choices we can make. For instances, we have all sorts of places to get news and information. The Internet and Cable News offer more choices than a generation ago, but we are selecting news and information that re-enforce what we think it true. Political communication research shows that given a list of headlines attached to a network logo, Conservatives and Republicans picked FOX news, while Liberals and Democrats divided themselves between CNN and NPR. When media help shape political reality (and they do), these choices we make lead to groups of political active people that see the same issues but from conflicting perspectives. As a result, this fragmented media is facilitating polarization among those who pay attention to politics. The political attentive public may feel that their issues are being well represented, but the rest of the public is stuck asking themselves: why bother?
3. Public Apathy
Tied to the fragmented media problem is public apathy. Because of all the options we have in our media, many people can opt out of political news. They can focus on sports, cooking shows, "reality" shows, twerking, or celebrity gossip (among many others). This public apathy has allowed representatives to become disconnected from the public. And this disconnect is important. In a system built on the consent of the governed, when representatives are not held accountable for political shenanigans we are giving them the green light to continue doing what they are doing. If we want Congress to function better, than we all must pay attention to what is going on. And, vote in the primaries in our states. The political active, those who seem to becoming more polarized, are also most likely to show up during the primary election.
Full Circle
Gerrymandering helps perpetuate the problem. Our media choices are leading to a polarized political class, and political apathy among a large segment of the public leaves political decision-making to those who show up.
In the first State of the Union after his re-election, President Obama was confident and energetic as he outlined a vision that may well define his legacy. No president is assured that Congress will follow the agenda that he articulates during the State of the Union, in part because the President does not own the agenda. Those who occupy the Presidency are reactive creatures.
What the President was attempting tonight was to frame many of the debates that will be, or already are, on the public agenda.
He begins by framing the duty of the representatives sitting in the room by quoting JFK: "'the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress…It is my task to report the State of the Union – to improve it is the task of us all.'" The President states a truism, the Constitution calls for cross institutional cooperation and collaboration. That is often forgotten by the public, but it is critical in the game of governing because it forces Congress to take ownership of the problems and solutions; they are not bystanders.
To the policy debates, the President wants to set the terms of the debates because it can potentially give him an upper-hand in bargaining. Framing deficit reduction he stated, "To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?"
Here the President credits Congress, and both parties, with the idea of closing loopholes which reaffirms the legitimacy of that branch of government; he then puts those opposed to the idea on defense by framing the deficit debate as an either or proposition. Question becomes: Is it fair to give tax breaks to oil companies while Senior citizens are asked to pay more for healthcare? Where would you want to be on that question?
To Congress the President continued to attempt to frame the debate about jobs and the economy by stating: "Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?"
This is indicative of the President's belief in an active government, but it also frames how to think about job creation in the United States.
Finally, in the most emotional segment of the speech, the President attempts to frame the response to gun violence and reminds the Representatives of their duty. "Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government."
The President was not out to set the agenda, after all, many past presidents have tried and failed. But what he may have success in doing is framing these policy debates that are already on the public agenda in ways that benefit him as he searches for a legacy.
Romney had energy, and frankly, he had to show some kind of emotion. He could not go folksy because that doesn't seem quite him.
President Obama appeared like he wanted to be somewhere else.
Jim Lehrer probably wanted a bit more control over the debate, but his questions were wide open and created real back and forth between the candidates. In past debates it seemed as if the candidates could have had the debates on separate nights. For me it was refreshing. For others, it may have been off putting.
Couple that with how wonky the debate was. Fact Checkers rejoice: you will be earning your pay today. From the $5 trillion tax plan to the 716 billion in "cuts" or "savings" to Medicare, whichever you like, there was a steady stream of numbers and statistics that may have moved many to bang their heads against the wall. Who's right? Probably both, just to certain degrees.
The debate was a win for Romney. But from most analyses, debates matter little. What seems to have a greater effect is the coverage in the news media. This is more complex now than it was twenty years ago because the American public seems to be sorting itself into partisan media diets. That is to say that Republicans tend to hear from fellow Republicans and Democrats hear from fellow Democrats.
I'm just wanting to see what Saturday Night Live does. That may be more important than the actual debate.
This election shouldn't be this close. From several economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, Mitt Romney should be running away with this election. At least this is what Charlie Cook has argued in a recent analysis of the 2012 Presidential Election.
However, Governor Romney and his campaign have a few challenges that they must confront if he's going to win in November.
A Failure to Connect
Governor Romney must connect with the voters. It's a broken record, but true. This has plagued him since he ran in 2008 and has continued to weigh him down in 2012. On top of this, his remarks two weeks ago with the protests and riots in Middle East and how the 47% video do not help his campaign.
A recent survey from Pew reveals more troubling news for his campaign. Even after the Republican convention and the efforts to appeal to a wider swath of the American electorate, especially women, Romney has the worst favorability rating of any recent Presidential candidate.
This perception of Romney is not going to make it any easier to win in November. Voters want to have some sort of connection with their elected officials, and they want to feel that their elected officials is looking out for their best interests. It's a two-way street.
From Pew's data, favorability matters quite a lot. With the exception of Vice President Al Gore, the candidate with the favorability advantage won the election. Compounding this, the bad news for Romney is that he has a -5 net favorability, he is the only recent candidate to be in negative numbers in the September before the election.
In addition, according to Pew, only 23% of voters think that Romney "connects well with ordinary Americans" better than President Obama. This perception and the negative favorability numbers are not going to get any better as the effect of the 47% video spreads.
Bad news begets bad news . . .
Along with the favorability data, Pew shows a widening margin for President Obama in the national head-to-head match up. To make matter worse for the Romney camp, Romney has no advantage on any issue associated with the economy except for reducing the federal budget deficit, hardly a salient issue with voters.
These national data are important, but what is critical to the 2012 Presidential Election is Ohio.
Ohio and the Economy
A recent Ohio Newspaper Poll shows a 5 point margin for President Obama, a bit wider than the 3 point margin found last month before the conventions. This gap not insurmountable, but the numbers are moving the wrong way for the Romney camp. The bad news for the Romney campaign is that the likely voters in Ohio see President Obama as better fit to fix the economy than Romney. Last month Romney had a 7 point advantage over the President, now there's been an 11 point swing.
The economy was supposed to Romney's; throughout the primary it was the heart of his campaign; however, in Ohio, a critical Battleground state, he is not only losing ground in the head-to-head match up, he's losing ground in the area that was going to his ticket to the White House.
Good News?
The good news for the Romney campaign is that it's only September and that there are four debates from now until Election Day. Plus, a lot can happen outside of the campaign that will throw a wrench into anyone's predictions.
At this time in the 2008 campaign, McCain was ahead of Obama in Ohio. Obama moved ahead in Ohio during the last month and a half in part because of the debates, the Palin interviews, and the economy tanking the same day Senator McCain said, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Is the election over? Hardly. But the last six weeks of the campaign will be a lot like riding an old wooden roller coaster, so hold on tight.
This past week's news media have focused on the "47% video" of Romney from way back in May of 2012. Then, in response to this problem for the Romney campaign, FOX News and the Romney campaign reveal the video recording of President Obama talking about redistribution in 1998.
Claims of media bias have been lobbed from news network to news network. It's a bit like Groundhog Day.
To make sense of all of this, it is critical to pin point what is meant by "the media." Second, but equally as critical, we must zero in on what we mean by bias.
In this case, we are talking about the news media as "the media:" network news, newspapers, cable news networks, and online news sources.
Bias is trickier: most claim some overriding ideological bias in news that favors liberalism over conservatism. But this is not as straight forward as many would like it to be. For example, the news media goes to great lengths to maintain confidence in the American political institutions, a indication of conservatism, to be sure. Media criticism tends to focus on the individuals, those representatives within government. The bias that is most evident in the news media is, ironically perhaps, the elite bias. This bias favors the voices of the powerful: Republicans and Democrats, business leaders, labor leaders, etc. There is a bias for the sensational: man bites dog rather than dog bites man. And, the news media has a short attention span: squirrel!
The effect on the public conscious of a short attention span and a tendency towards the sensational is notable: how is life in New Orleans since Katrina or the rebuilding efforts in Haiti? Squirrel!
But back to the question of bias. In an extensive study from May 29, 2012 to August 5, 2012, the Project for Excellence in Journalism tracked how media covered Governor Romney and President Obama. What they found illustrates the complex nature of media bias, and underscores that talking about "the media" as one giant Leviathan is misguided to say the least.
Here's some data:
From the first piece of data we see that the coverage this year is more like 2004 than 2008 or 2000. But more importantly this reveals what the next two charts underline: the news media is critical of presidents and those who want to be president.
For those who claim that "the media" is in the tank for Obama, these data do not support such claims. What to watch for is the old adage: good news begets good news. Since the Democratic National Convention the Obama campaign has been riding high. But good news for Obama means bad news for Romney.
"Poor" Romney, he can't catch a break. He too has seen consistently negative coverage. Couple this with the recent campaign missteps, and his campaign narrative will continue to take a beating. Bad news begets bad news. From these data, "the media" does not seem to be biased towards either candidate.
However, when we take a look within "the news media" to the fragmented segments, especially within the cable news universe, we see what can be considered bias.
The FOX News cable network has been "fair and balanced" in its coverage of Mitt Romney, but certainly not balanced in its coverage of President Obama.
MSNBC shows its bias. It is the mirror image of FOX or FOX is the mirror image of MSNBC (it doesn't really matter). Their coverage of Mitt Romney is as negative as FOX's coverage of Obama.
Thus, it is easy to see why many Liberals and Democrats view FOX as the media wing of the Republican Party and Conservatives and Republicans see MSNBC as the media arm of the Democratic Party.
What is important to note from these data, and something that should be discussed in diverse groups of people, is whether this new version of the partisan press is bad for democracy. Academics write about this and spend time thinking about this stuff, but the public is not engaged in this question. The partisan press is almost as old as our republic, but what is different now compared to then is that public is less likely to have face-to-face discussions today. TV and the Internet have made leisure time increasingly private. We may be less aware of what others think.
Cable news and the Internet has democratized our news media choices but at a cost to public dialogue. From looking at cable news viewing habits, Republicans pick multiple shows from the FOX News channel, while Democrats pick shows from MSNBC. We run the risk of creating a bubble; a bubble, yes a bubble. In the process, narrowing our view of the world. In an increasingly global world, this is bad.
Many people self-select news media that confirms rather than challenges what they believe. Compounding this behavior is the "Hostile Media Phenomenon:"
people with highly committed points of view, such as strong Democrats
and strong Republicans, perceive impartial news stories to be biased in
favor of their opponents. We have a role in the mess within the news media.
To paraphrase Pogo: "We have met news media bias, and it is us."
