the low accuracy of political forecasting-2002 article

[MBS]

Cleaning out papers, I found this from a May 6, 2002 issue of the New Yorker.
The article, "The Newcomer", was about the possible Dem contenders for the coming 2004 election.
Sort of delightfully far off! Article was mostly about John Edwards, as the Coming Thing.

The author, Nicholas Lemann, isn't my favorite, but he's not an idiot, either. . . and he got it wrong anyway. And the batting average of most cable-TV/talk-show hosts has got to be way lower than New Yorker writers. .. If you're as anxious as I am about the post-2010 political future, maybe you'll find it comforting to remember that of all the 24/7 chatter in cyberspace, TV and elsewhere, at least 90% is bound to be wrong.

Eight years isn't really so long ago, but, reading this article, it feels like ancient history: SO much has happened since then. And -- this is the point -- most of it wasn't anticipated. JK as 2004 nominee, getting to a hair's breadth of winning the presidency! Obama as our president in 2008! Of the people mentioned below, Gephardt is long retired, Daschle lost his reelection bid for the Senate and Edwards' political career is completely over. So much for the Coming Thing.

The 2004 Democratic Presidential campaign began more or less officially a few weekends ago, at the state conference of the Florida Democratic Party, in Orlando. So many Democrats are already running flat out for President that it was a relief to have the race come out into the open. . . Gore’s appearance, at such a resonant location, dominated the conference. .. Most of the political talent on display mingled casually with the conference-goers, but Gore maintained the charged scarcity that befits a top act. . .
Senator Joseph Lieberman, of Connecticut, who had the second-most-featured speaking slot at the conference, after Gore, and would plainly like to run if he can get free of his pledge not to compete directly with his former running mate . . Senator John Kerry, of Massachusetts, who also spoke at the conference and is almost certainly running . . The House Minority Leader, Richard Gephardt, of Missouri, who is probably running. . The Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, of South Dakota, who is thinking about running. . .
There are always newcomer Presidential candidates. This time, the leading one is Senator John Edwards, of North Carolina. . .
What you hear about him (since this is the insiders’ time, when people don’t feel the need to dress up what they’re thinking in public-policy garb) is: This guy’s a big, big talent, maybe the biggest since Clinton. . .

[Mass]

1. True. You can also go back to early 2009, where so many preditioneerers (is it even a word), said

The GOP was done forever, or at least for the next 10 years.

This is why I totally ignore the handwringing on our side and in the media concerning the demise of the Democratic Party. In politics, two years is an eternity.

[karynnj]

2. Good to keep in mind

It is completely true that the "smart money" in both 2002 and 2006 would have been wrong. The media completely missed Kerry's growing popularity in Iowa - I think because they were all blinded by their own preconceive opinions that tended to echo each other. It is stunning looking back, to see that the main comment on Kerry in December 2003 and even into January was when he would drop out. Yet the Des Moines Register tracking poll showed his numbers rising - and Kerry was the one getting the excited crowds in Iowa (someone has snippets of each - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk

In December 2007, the articles were a little, but not much, closer to the truth. There were many that noted that Iowa was not one of Hillary's better states, that argued that she would be a winner if either she pulled out a victory or Edwards, who had little support in NH, did. The vast majority of articles still saw the nomination as Clinton's. At least in 2008, coverage did follow victories in a logical way - with Clinton and Obama being seen as the only two likely to win after Iowa.

This seems the polar opposite of the Palin coverage. Most polls show that a majority of Republicans don't think she is fit to be President. Yet, just last weekend, CNN covered a huge segment of a speech at a fund raiser - because it was the first major speech since the election. Not to mention, we have seen far too much of her and her family. (Imagine the brilliant, well crafted speeches given by Democratic nominee had been given as mush coverage - instead of seen mostly by those attending and those watching CSPAN.) I suspect that the Republican nomination may be more like 2004 - in that while the media obsesses over Sarah, someone will quietly gain the support of people in Iowa.

This lead me to take a step back and ask what qualities in a nominee lead to the media support that makes winning easier. Why were Bill Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton (think Gil Collins and others) media favorites when Kerry, Biden and Gore never were. As people, it is pretty likely that Kerry is likely overall the nicest - with only Biden close on that. In terms of interesting, I have a problem with anyone who thought Bill Clinton or John Edwards had more interesting lives or more accomplishments when running for President than Kerry.

That article shows what the media values in candidates. The fact is Edwards had a very slim resume and a completely undistinguished Senate record. In addition, very very little was really known about him. Yet, he was referred to as a "big, big talent" here and elsewhere. Ironically, the phrase I most remember is Clinton without bimbo eruptions.

Yet, think of what "Clinton without bimbo eruptions" leaves. It ignores that, even worse than womanizing, Clinton had (and has) a major problem with telling the truth. The author here is referring to Clinton's charisma and the love that they the media felt for Clinton - that resulted in people generally getting positive stories about him. What is ignored with both is substance. In 1992, Clinton's actual accomplishments as governor were not all that impressive and his character issues were already evident by NH - where it was clear he lied about Gennifer Flowers, changing his story repeatedly as proof required. The lying there and the smearing of her now can be seen as a warning of exactly what most harmed his Presidency. A few contests later, it was clear he was not honest about how he avoided being drafted. Yet, the media coverage of him was that of a rock star - and while I really don't care about any character flaws the Beatles might have, I do think we should care about those of our leaders.

What amazes me is that it was media favoritism that made Edwards one of the "viable" candidates in two elections - based totally on looks, a smile, and a chameleon's ability to be what they wanted him to be. In 2004, I was shocked at a NYT op-ed written a week or so before NY's (and MA, CA, VT and other states) primary that had a lead sentence that the first name of the Democratic nominee was know, but not the last. At that point, Kerry had won 16 contests and Edwards had won South Carolina. They did mention this, but ignored that Kerry was more than double digits ahead in polls for the upcoming Super Tuesday contests, but went on to argue that Edwards would be a better choice. When that election day came, Kerry became the defacto nominee and the media shifted to pushing Edwards as the "obvious" VP - unless Kerry's vanity and unwillingness to be outshone prevented it. (Not to mention the nearly all positive coverage was the basis of the polls that showed he did most for the ticket. That coverage continued even when Kerry picked him as VP - (watch this CBS interview of the two - http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=628735n )