The Midterm Elections

Mark Halperin is the political director of ABC News and the founding editor of The Note. John F. Harris is the national politics editor of the Washington Post and the author of The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House. Halperin and Harris are co-authors of The Way to Win, a book about modern politics and presidential campaigns.

Who are these people?

Dear John,

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Not only have I read the final chapter of our book, but Tuesday, I got plenty of ideas for the updated paperback edition.

The polarizing Bush Politics that we write about in The Way to Win—part of which involves conservatives using their superior clinical skills in the politics of the freak show—were on full display yesterday.

You say all this won't work over the long haul, but it might work for the next week. You also say that "most people do not want to approach politics as a nonstop holy war."

Read the reader comments on Slate about our exchange. Look at the us-versus-them-through-the-looking-glass divide on TV, the Internet, and talk radio, about whether John Kerry was inelegantly joking about the president or about America's troops. If there is some group out there that doesn't want a nonstop holy war, they do not seem to be on the town square jousting against, or alongside, the loudest voices.

In our work, generally, in this exchange and in our book, I think you and I always try to do a number of things at once:

1. Describe things as they are in politics and media, rather than necessarily how they ought to be (where we try to be optimistic, even though what we see around us contains a lot of the grim).

2. Acknowledge those skilled at political war, regardless of party or ideology (so Karl Rove tends to come off better than, say, John Kerry).

3. Be scrupulously fair and conscious of conservative complaints about media bias and liberal complaints about media softness on George W. Bush (a difficult balancing act, that).

4. Recognize that what we are covering impacts the real lives of real people (and make that compatible with 2 and 3 above).

5. Have fun (something that Peggy Noonan has pointed out is largely absent from our politics these days).

6. Take our jobs seriously and hold powerful interests accountable to the public interest (the most important and toughest of them all).

The problem is that in the current freak-show environment, and with greatly reduced news budgets, meeting all of those goals is nearly impossible. If this election is close, and if there are polling-place issues, I shudder to think what will happen.

Let me give you an example. Since Florida 2000, both sides of the divide are deeply mistrustful of the network/Associated Press exit polls. There is a lot of misinformation out there about how and why we do those polls, and I can guarantee you that even if they work perfectly this year, they will cause huge controversy on Election Day, driven almost entirely not by those trying to safeguard the public interest, but by angry partisans looking for every advantage and to indulge every conspiracy theory.

Two elements will compound this problem. First, concerns about the past practice in which leaked exit-poll data have started showing up on the Internet and talk radio by midday Eastern Time, have caused a change. This year, two representatives from each member organization (the five network-news divisions and the AP) will be the only ones with access to the data until 5 p.m. ET. They will be sequestered in a room together until then, pouring over their computer screens but unable to share the information in any way. The rumors and accusations this will cause as the wider polarized forces on either side learn about this fact will be as intense as they are irrational.

Second, there are no exit polls in any of the competitive House races around the country. The consortium members spend a fortune on the exit poll every two years, but not enough to have large enough samples in individual districts. This means there is no ability to use exit-poll data to "project" winners in the races that will be the greatest focus of the evening and no "cross-tab" data to talk about why voters in these competitive districts voted the way they did. I predict that this will also cause a huge furor on both sides.

Add in the now-biannual polarized debate over allegations about how the projections are made and the motivations of the media, and you can see why I am pretty concerned.

You can cite Joe Lieberman all you want, John. But the lingering fight over what John Kerry said (and what he meant to say) and the looming (inevitable) fight over the exit polls, suggest to me that the freak show is alive and well.

So, some questions:

What encouraging lessons can you draw from yesterday's Kerry-McCain-Bush dust-up?

Based on his performance in the last 24 hours, does Sen. McCain seem inclined to deploy the freak show or fight against it?

What did you think John Kerry's chances were to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 two days ago, and what do you think they are now?

Cheers,
Mark

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

SPONSORED CONTENT

• The Supreme Court Breakfast Table
  Ricci shouldn't have happened this way.
  Emily Bazelon | June 29, 2009
• Obama Law
  Loose legal ends.
  Emily Bazelon | Dec. 11, 2008
• The Supreme Court Breakfast Table
  Should there be a shooting range next to the Supreme Court gift shop?
  Walter Dellinger | June 27, 2008
• Search for more Breakfast Table, The articles
• Subscribe to the Breakfast Table, The RSS feed
• View our complete Breakfast Table, The archive