January 31, 2007 9:01

I Hate the Money Primary

Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (30) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

I've got to dispute Karen on the importance of money in politics. I think that it's less important than it's been in recent campaign cycles for several reasons. I mean, why do politicians feel compelled to raise gazillions? To buy television advertising, mostly negative. It's just a gut feeling, but I suspect the public is increasingly inured to negative ads. People also have access to these wonderful new inventions--clickers and Tivo--to skip past the garbage when it comes on. Negative advertising, which was used overwhelmingly by Republicans, didn't seem all that effective in 2006, which may be a sign of things to come. Of course, candidates do need to raise some money--the Democrats' ability to respond cleverly to Republican trash was an important aspect of their 2006 victory--but they don't need to raise as much as they think they need to raise.
Second, I think the perambulations of various money people--Bob Farmer, for example--are less important than they used to be. I'm far more interested in money raised on the web as a thermometer for what's going on in a campaign.
So why do journalists obsess about The Money Primary? Because it's quantifiable. Journalists overvalue things you can count: money, poll ratings (which are completely meaningless at this point--except, perhaps, in places like Iowa and New Hampshire) and endorsements. The thing really matters in presidential politics--character, or the appearance of same--is an entirely subjective matter. The presidency is our most intimate office. The President lives in your TV room, your kitchen, your bedroom. People do tend to vote for the candidate they'd rather live with for the next four years--that's why the warmer candidate has won every presidential election in the television era except for 1968.
....Oh, oh...what's that? Oh! I can hear Swampland's beloved commentariat thundering about the importance of substance. And you're right, in a limited way--courageous positions on matters of substance are important insomuch as they illuminate the character of the candidate. In fact, given the messy State of the Union, I would say that specificity on policy is the most important character issue this year. I'll have more to say in a few weeks, in the dead wood zone of Time Magazine, about which specific issues I think are absolute character tests this year.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (30)

James, Los Angeles:

Which of the candidates do you find warm this time around, Joe?

Posted by James, Los Angeles | January 31, 2007 9:34 AM

...Crust:

Plaudits from Glenn Greenwald to you guys for engaging with the blogosphere...

Posted by ...Crust | January 31, 2007 9:44 AM

Ghost of Tom Joad:

Joe,
If money raising on the web is that big, have you checked out ActBlue lately? Have you seen how much Hillary has raised through it? She's raised exactly $1.00. That's right, the only money she has rasied there is from someone being snarky. Look at what Edwards has done, or Richardson. That should tell you something about what people think about Hillary. Her support is a mile wide but 1/8 inch thick. Substance isn't all that important, if it was, Feingold would be blowing away the field. It is about other things than having the most substance.

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad | January 31, 2007 10:05 AM

pva:

Ghost,
The money raised on the Internet can't be the only metric used to measure a candidates viability. Like Karen said (and I shudder at referencing her) look at Howard Dean. HRC may not be popular at ActBlue but you can bet your ass she's gonna be in the race for a long time.

Posted by pva | January 31, 2007 10:12 AM

JJ:

Yes, the presidency is an intimate office. And an important aspect for people is how he appears on our television sets. But just because it tastes good doesn't always mean it's healthy.

Maybe the media market corrects things in the long run, but what's the saying? In the long run we're all dead. I don't think the early generations of politicians in this country intended the fourth estate to run this way.

As Iraq is showing, there are some concerns that trump whether Al Gore does or does not wear earth tones. And we would have been much better off if these issues of substance had gotten more emphasis.

Take the recent dustup about Obama's "madrassa". A right leaning magazine wrote a substanceless story and bubbled it up to the MSM:

***"I said, 'That is a sexy story, if you can confirm it,' " Mr. Kuhner recalled. After Insight posted the article on Jan. 17, Mr. Kuhner said, he was disappointed to see that the Drudge Report did not link to it on its Web site as it has done with other Insight articles. So, as usual, he e-mailed the article to producers at Fox News and MSNBC.***

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?ei=5090&en=21220d5fc5855749&ex=1327726800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

It was a "sexy story." And apparently the "confirmation" was done with all the care of the preperation of a Big Mac and fries. Is that what our media runs on? Can we afford to run a country like that?

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 10:33 AM

Pierre:

"I would say that specificity on policy is the most important character issue this year"

I'd rather say it's always an important character issue. My guess is that the most important character issue will be the capacity of being humble. America needs a strong leader, but a very humble one. Somebody able to hear multiple advices before he/she takes his/her decision.

Posted by Pierre | January 31, 2007 10:46 AM

Ghost of Tom Joad:

PVA,
Why do you think Hillary gets no love online? It's because we all know that she'll get plenty of big money, hence she doesn't give a damn about the little people. Why should we waste our money on her when we all know she won't need it? Of course she'll be around for the whole race, what else will she do with all that money?

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad | January 31, 2007 10:50 AM

Anonymous:

"...courageous positions on matters of substance are important insomuch as they illuminate the character of the candidate"

Bah! Give me a CEO president who can run the country well. Help everyday Americans by helping make health care more affordable, put the tax rate on the top 1% back where it was before Bush, give us a common sense policy for dealing with other nations, put the nation back on course to a surplus...

None of it involves character. Make the right choices, w/o being a jackass. It ain't rocket science.

Posted by Anonymous | January 31, 2007 10:53 AM

Anonymous:

"The President lives in your TV room, your kitchen, your bedroom."
No, he doesn't. He's on TV.

"... the warmer candidate has won every presidential election in the television era except for 1968."
We don't meet them. We don't know them. We are introduced to them by the likes of you. That impression is largely formed vicariously through people like yourself. Please help us make that stop. When you are sitting on Chris Matthews' panel and he starts in with his weirdness and his mind reading, call him on it. Please, there are lives on the line.

Posted by Anonymous | January 31, 2007 11:01 AM

pva:

Ghost,
Fair enough but I don't think that backs up your contention that her support is like the Missouri River. Talking about wide but shallow support would seem to imply she's not gonna be able to stick it out - I don't think that's an accurate assessment. But I agree she's got no netroots love.

Posted by pva | January 31, 2007 11:15 AM

flounder:

I can't believe you are so biased. Why is it just "Republican trash"? I mean a REAL journalist would use what we in the business call "balance"-you know give some examples, say how Republicans used race-baiting ads in Tennessee, and Democrats did the same thing...probably...somewhere. Otherwise you make Republicans look like they they are scared to run on their merits, which we know can't be possible, since they have done so many awesome things the last few years.

Posted by flounder | January 31, 2007 11:26 AM

JJ:

Paul Krugman, 12/26/30:

****During the 2000 election, many journalists deluded themselves and their audience into believing that there weren't many policy differences between the major candidates, and focused on personalities (or, rather, perceptions of personalities) instead. This time there can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right's takeover is complete.

But will the coverage of the election reflect its seriousness? Toward that end, I hereby propose some rules for 2004 political reporting.

• Don't talk about clothes. Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean was a momentous event: the man who won the popular vote in 2000 threw his support to a candidate who accuses the president of wrongfully taking the nation to war. So what did some prominent commentators write about? Why, the fact that both men wore blue suits.

This was not, alas, unusual. I don't know why some journalists seem so concerned about politicians' clothes as opposed to, say, their policy proposals. But unless you're a fashion reporter, obsessing about clothes is an insult to your readers' intelligence.

• Actually look at the candidates' policy proposals. One key proposal in the State of the Union address will, we hear, be the creation of new types of tax-exempt savings accounts. The proposal will come wrapped in fine phrases about an "ownership society." But serious journalists should tell us how the plan would work, who would benefit and who would lose.

An early version of the plan was floated almost a year ago, and carefully analyzed in the journal Tax Notes. So there's no excuse for failing to report that the plan would probably reduce, not increase, national savings; that it would have large long-run budget costs; and that its benefits would go mainly to the wealthiest few percent of the population.

• Beware of personal anecdotes. Anecdotes that supposedly reveal a candidate's character are a staple of political reporting, but they should carry warning labels.

For one thing, there are lots of anecdotes, and it's much too easy to report only those that reinforce the reporter's prejudices. The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he's a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported.****

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/122603.html

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 11:39 AM

JJ:

Oh and Krugman's final paragraph:

****I don't really expect my journalistic colleagues to follow these rules. No doubt I myself, in moments of weakness, will break one or more of them. But history will not forgive us if we allow laziness and personal pettiness to shape this crucial election.****

(And hence the intemperate, P.O.'ed media consumer that you've heard from on this blog...)

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 11:46 AM

Playgoer:

On TV ad's-- What about Harold Ford in Tennessee? That awful embarassing ad probably factored into the small margin of his defeat.

You're right about the TiVO-Effect. But you're forgetting the main venue for exposure for these ads. Not the paid time in the regular cycle, but the FREE continuous airing these ads get on cable news shows "reporting" about them. I don't live in Tennesee, but I'm sure I saw that "Harold, call me" clip more than anyone in Chattanouga because I watch Hardball.

If journalists want to take a stand against negative ads, they should refuse to replay them. God knows the "Swiftboat Veterans" relied on that free media to get at Kerry.

On "Warmth"-- Sorry to be "one of those" but I do hope Joe you've factored into your "most warm candidate wins" stats that Gore DID win the popular vote in 2000, no matter which way you count Florida. I've had it with people forgetting to "astirisk" that election.

Posted by Playgoer | January 31, 2007 11:59 AM

Ghost of Tom Joad:

PVA,
Maybe the mile wide and shallow support was the wrong analogy. She gets no love from the netroots because she would rather ignore them. It's her DLC thing. The DLC hates the base, so the base hates the DLC right back. I'll just leave you with this. I know plenty of people, and I am one of them, that would have quit jobs, school or just dropped everything we were doing to work for Feingold's campaign, if he had decided to run. I don't see any of that kind of love for HRC. People will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but there are a lot of people that hope it doesn't come to that.

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad | January 31, 2007 12:02 PM

JJ:

"no matter which way you count Florida"

That's another interesting case in media decisionmaking:

****IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.

That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote.*****

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 12:15 PM

linda:

e-Voting with no paper trail still looms over the elections. Are some really programed by Venezuelans? Which candidate will stand up for Optical Scanning--a voter friendly ballot, quick count and a paper trail?

Can we Google campaign contributors and go to issues like the impact of Hu's bumper crop of male babies as it relates to Hu on the Woo in leftest S. America and Africa.

Posted by linda | January 31, 2007 12:29 PM

circular firing squad:

"....Oh, oh...what's that? Oh! I can hear Swampland's beloved commentariat thundering about the importance of substance."

To the 10 percent or so of swing voters that determine elections, Klein is absolutely right that style determines votes over substance. Hence style wins presidential elections more than substance. What the blogonuts on this blog do not understand is that they are not the crucial voting bloc who determines elections. They are part of a minority of voters (along with the political elites, beltway pundits and political insiders that they scorn) whose mind is made up well before the election, based on a myriad of issues, well beyond substance.

So in conclusion, Just because you, pretentious kossak who already knows all two dozen candidates position on fair trade provisions in indonesia , may vote based on a careful measure of the issues, does not mean the rest of America will be with you.

Posted by circular firing squad | January 31, 2007 12:31 PM

Greg VA:

"When you are sitting on Chris Matthews' panel and he starts in with his weirdness and his mind reading, call him on it. Please, there are lives on the line."

I second Anonymous. When Chris Matthews gets that stupid grin and asks (as he did recently about Al Gore) "can a fat white guy win?" why doesn't anybody sitting there with him call him on it? Why don't they ask what Al Gore's weight has to do with his ability to run the country?

And if Matthews claims he's just trying to reflect on what people are thinking, why doesn't anybody tell him he's got a big, network platform to give them better things to think about?

Posted by Greg VA | January 31, 2007 12:35 PM

Jake Gittes:

"To the 10 percent or so of swing voters that determine elections, Klein is absolutely right that style determines votes over substance. Hence style wins presidential elections more than substance"

The 10% of swing voters that don't pay close attention to all the issues are almost by definition Time readers. When they stop to read Joe's latest mensa column, if he talked about substantial issues, guess what.....they'd become more educated about the issues.

The reason the Beltway pundits love "character" so much is that it is wholly subjective, and they can slime the Democratic candidates as "inauthentic", "fake" and generally laughable. AND they don't have to delve into policy issues at all, which is great for their Republican masters, because the American public agrees with Democratic positions on domestic issues FAR more than they agree with Republican positions. So "character" is a terrific hand-waving diversion to get the great unwashed to vote against their own interests.

Why have we not read one sentence on this blog about the Republican candidates and where they stand on the issues? What is Rudy Giuliani's character? What is McCain's plan for Universal health insurance?

Silence.

Those are the things these columnists are loathe to talk about, and they only come up if the columnists are dragged kicking and screaming to them by the commentators.

Posted by Jake Gittes | January 31, 2007 1:02 PM

JJ:

[Puts on aluminum foil hat]

Wow, it didn't take long for *this* controversial thread to rocket off Swampland's front page, especially considering its low posting activity over the past few days...

[/Removes aluminum foil hat]

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 1:46 PM

circular firing squad:

The reason moonbats like Jake Gittes deride "character" so much is because they look down on anyone who does not agree with them. You people show active contempt towards everyone who isn't as well informed by moveon.org emails as you are. Your becoming what you hate. snotty elitists.

Posted by circular firing squad | January 31, 2007 1:49 PM

JJ:

Just the facts, ma'am.

Posted by JJ | January 31, 2007 1:53 PM

Jake Gittes:

Hey, Joe...I mean...."Circular"....the reason I look down on "character" is because all of the beltway pundits sided on the side of Bush's "character" vs. Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. AND THEY WERE COMPLETELY F*G WRONG.

If you as Time columnists want to support the Republican candidates because you support the policy and direction they want to take this country....fine. Have at it.

But this phony test of deciding who has "character", who is "fake", and who is "authentic" is a stupid parlor game that shouldn't play a role in deciding who is our president. It's too damn important a time for silly nonsense.

Moonbat, my ass.

Posted by Jake Gittes | January 31, 2007 2:39 PM

George Etherege:

Dear Circular,

You assert that elections are determined by voters who are ignorant of issues and vote on the basis of style.

Do you think that's something people should work to change?

Posted by George Etherege | January 31, 2007 4:00 PM

the fixer:

money men are important because who else will buy the drinks on primary night the convention or the debates

Posted by the fixer | January 31, 2007 6:46 PM

libya:

ضحك,
ليبيا,
شباب ليبيا,
احاديث نبوية,
السيرة النبوية,
برامج اسلامية,
صوتيات اسلامية,
خواطر,
غرائب وعجائب,
الشعر الشعبى,
قصص,
اللغات الاجنبية,
تعلم الفرنسية,
تعلم الانجليزية,
الطب
تقنية الاسنان,
كتب طبية,
طب الاعشاب,
اناقة وجمال,
اناقة الرجال,
الاسرة والمجتمع,
الطبخ,
اثاث وديكور,
مقاطع كورة,
الدوري الليبي,
المصارعة,
الكرة العربية,
الكرة العالمية,
رسائل خيانة
مسجات عادية
منتديات,