The Pre-Election Push To Delegitimize A Potential Obama Win

SIMON MALOY/media matters for america

It's obviously too early to know for certain, but on the final day of the 2012 presidential campaign  there seems to be a general consensus forming that President Obama is well-positioned to beat Mitt Romney at the polls tomorrow. And in the face of that prospect, some in the media are already beginning to challenge the legitimacy of Obama's reelection.

On November 4, Politico published an article enumerating the "lessons learned" from the 2012 campaign. Among them was the surprising assertion that the coalition Obama put together to win reelection -- "Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites" -- is insufficient to provide the incumbent the political capital he might otherwise enjoy were he to have the support of independents and white voters. "A broad mandate this is not," declared authors Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.

Politico didn't explain why broad mandates rest on the shoulders of whites and independents, simply asserting instead that Obama, should he win, will win in a way that lacks legitimacy. Part of their analysis, however, rested on the myth that the United States is "a center-right country," which certainly helps to explain why they'd view an electoral coalition that excludes the center-right's top constituency -- white men -- as a political nonstarter.

While Politico went the route of demography, conservative pundits are instead opting for catastrophe. Specifically, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy, suggesting that Romney was poised to run away with the election until Sandy halted his "momentum" and gave Obama a boost in public opinion going into the campaign's final week. 

Karl Rove told the Washington Post: "If you hadn't had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy. There was a stutter in the campaign. When you have attention drawn away to somewhere else, to something else, it is not to his [Romney's] advantage." He added: "Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps." (Rove, who wheedled millions of dollars from wealthy conservatives with promises that his American Crossroads Super PAC would help take down Obama, obviously has an ulterior motive for pinning Obama's reelection on an exogenous event.)

Pundits like Joe Scarborough and Mark Halperin eagerly passed along and adopted Republican complaints that the storm had halted Romney's political ascendancy. GOP insiders like Haley Barbour all but creditedSandy with helping Obama across the finish line.

There was also a rush among conservatives to attack New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a Republican and Romney surrogate, for praising Obama's response to the storm and appearing with the president to discuss federal and state responses to the devastation. The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis wrote on October 31: "The question is whether -- with just days left before Election Day -- Christie should have gone out of his way to lavish praise on Obama, and to provide him with a terrific photo-op for which to look presidential."

The problems with this notion of Sandy saving Obama from Romney's relentless momentum are obvious. As theNew York Times' Nate Silver points out, by the time Sandy hit the east coast Obama "had already been rebounding in the polls, slowly but steadily, from his lows in early October -- in contrast to a common narrative in the news media that contended, without much evidence, that Mr. Romney still had the momentum in the race."

At a more basic level, the claim directly contradicts a longstanding conservative attack on Obama -- that he tends toward fecklessness and "leads from behind." One would think that the occasion of a devastating storm would serve to highlight that supposed lack of leadership. And yet, conservatives are complaining that the storm helped Obama by allowing him to be the national healer for a few days. Essentially, Obama doesn't demonstrate leadership, but when he does it's not fair.

This all fits into the four-year pattern of conservative assaults on the legitimacy of Obama's presidency -- from the undiluted toxicity of the birther movement to the many trumped-up "scandals" of Obama's first term to the claims that Obama won election in 2008 owing to insufficient "vetting" by the press. The possibility of a second term requires new rationalizations (like a patchwork coalition that isn't representative of the country, or a fortuitous disaster) to explain why Obama really doesn't belong in the Oval Office.

Fox News blames ‘left-wing blog Politico’ for weak GOP field

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Fox News revealed on Wednesday what they believe could be a conspiracy between the “liberal-leaning press” and the “left-wing blog Politico” to make Republican presidential candidates appear weak.

“Is the mainstream media trying to spin the election?” Fox News host Gretchen Carlson asked legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr.

“There was a story in the left-wing blog Politico yesterday that basically said Republican candidates were too small,” Johnson complained. “Then I watched some of the less-successful news channels last night and they talk about a cancer on all the Republicans — the Republican political candidates, a cancer that they have, that the Republican Party has a Romney problem.

And so what’s going on is that the Republican candidates, including frontrunner Gov. Romney, are not only running against each other, but they are running against the mainstream media, and they are also running against the president of the United States,” he explained. “So, it’s a very difficult scenario for Republican candidates in this climate, when the mainstream media is all over them in such a big, big way.”

Johnson continued: “In terms of scrutiny, there has to be fairness. And so, if you’re a commentator and an analyst — and I’m a commentator and an analyst — say you’re a commentator and an analyst. If you’re an activist, say you’re an activist, but to pretend you’re a news person, to pretend that you’re giving a fair and balanced view of things, when in fact you have no credentials to do that and you’re only history is to engage in activism, is to engage in politics, is to engage in propaganda, then that’s an unfair portrayal of the news to the American people.”

“Because when Debbie Wasserman Schultz says that Mitt Romney had a bad night after a win,” Carlson added, “we might expect that from the head of the [Democratic National Committee], but maybe not from the media.”

“No, you shouldn’t,” Johnson agreed.

Just last week, Fox News also found a conspiracy within the Girl Scouts to “promote a clear liberal ideology.”

Watch this video from Fox News’ Fox & Friends, uploaded Jan. 4, 2012.

Politico runs interference for Scott Brown

by Eric Boehlert

Politico's Ben Smith seemed to go out of his way to create a false equivalency with his recent report on the Mass. special election:

Headline:

Massachusetts gets ugly

Lede:

Given the stakes and the growing possibility of a historic upset, the two campaigns closed with fervor. Coakley’s backers accused Brown of indulging a crude, violent remark by a supporter, while Brown blasted Coakley with claims that she had misused the legacy of Martin Luther King on a day that brought the candidates into the same room for the last time for a sedate breakfast honoring the memory of the slain civil rights icon.

See, both sides were getting ugly, according to Smith. But was that really true? According to Smith's reporting, the claim that Democratic Martha Coakley's campaign had become "ugly," was the suggestion by her opponent that she inappropriately campaigned at an MLK event.

Is that "ugly"? Doesn't really seem that way to me. And yes, that's the only example Smith included to document how the Coakley campaign had become "ugly." So we'd say that's pretty thin stuff.

As for Republican Brown? Behold [emphasis added]:

[He's accused of] smiling and encouraging a supporter’s entreaty to “shove a curling iron up [Coakley’s] butt.” A video shows Brown smiling, nodding, and saying, “We can do it,” immediately after his supporter shouted the words at a West Springfield event.

Now that sounds kinda of ugly. (Brown's rep claimed the candidate didn't hear the vulgar remark.) But according to Smith's telling, both sides on Mass. campaign were getting ugly, even though Smith only provided evidence of the Republican doing so.

UPDATED: Politico conducted an "exclusive" poll on the Mass. race with InsiderAdvantage, which uncovered horrible news for Coakley. News that InsiderAdvantage chief Matt Towery seemed eager to tout in Politico:

"I actually think the bottom is falling out," said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, referring to Coakley's fall in the polls over the last ten days. "I think that this candidate is in free fall. Clearly this race is imploding for her."

And who is Matt Towery? He's "a former aide to Newt Gingrich." An interesting choice in polling partner for Politico, to say the least.

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Reporting on criticisms of right-leaning pollster Scott Rasmussen, Politico presented as fact his official bio as “an independent pollster” who “has never been a campaign pollster or consultant.” The article quotes Rasmussen’s critics, but fails to question his supposed independence:

While Scott Rasmussen, the firm’s president, contends that he has no ax to grind — his bio notes that he has been “an independent pollster for more than a decade” and “has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office” — his opponents on the left insist he is the hand that feeds conservative talkers a daily trove of negative numbers that provides grist for attacks on Obama and the Democratic Party.

According to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. The RNC paid Rasmussen $95,500 between 2003 and 2004 for items listed as “survey,” “survey cost” and “voter data.” Bush’s campaign paid Rasmussen $45,500 for “survey research.”

M.C.L. Comment: When it comes to the Rasmussen polls I always believe the opposite what the poll say. Like the article stated Rasmussen is the first poll firm that right wingers in the media like to cite anytime they want to push their attacks on the Democrat, or if you're like Communication guru and have a kick ass liberal blog the right wingers fill up your comment section with links to the various Rasmussen polls numbers.