Tag: bruce braley
How Reporters’ Bias Is Helping Republicans

How Reporters’ Bias Is Helping Republicans

Nov. 3 (Bloomberg View) — A Catch to Norm Ornstein, who explains a case of media bias that’s helping Republican Senate candidates Joni Ernst in Iowa and Tom Cotton in Arkansas.

This isn’t an instance of the “neutral” press preferring Republicans and slanting its reporting to match that partisan preference. Instead, it’s about how the press settled on a theme about the 2014 elections early on, then interpreted what has happened since through that lens:

The most common press narrative for elections this year is to contrast them with the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. Back then, the GOP “establishment” lost control of its nominating process, ended up with a group of extreme Senate candidates who said wacky things — Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle — and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in races that should have been slam dunks. Now the opposite has happened: The establishment has fought back and won, vanquishing the Tea Party and picking top-flight candidates who are disciplined and mainstream, dramatically unlike Akin and Angle.

As Ornstein notes, any “evidence to the contrary” of this narrative “tends to be downplayed or ignored,” while stories that show the “personal gaffes or bonehead moves” by the candidates’ opponents are played up. Thus, for example, when Democratic speakers such as Michelle Obama mispronounced the name of Ernst’s opponent, Bruce Braley, the story is played up, while Ernst’s conspiracy theories on sinister United Nations plots get less traction.

This is yet another example of how the broadcast networks, CNN and the news pages of national newspapers can produce biased results even when they have no partisan or ideological motives in doing so. In this case, it’s about telling a consistent story (one that, as Ed Kilgore notes, they adopted early in the 2014 cycle). Perhaps the best example was in the 2000 presidential campaign, when the media decided that Al Gore was a liar and George W. Bush was stupid, and interpreted everything they said through that lens. It isn’t as if the press couldn’t point to examples to back up their preconceptions. It is just that it yielded a distorted picture of the candidates and the campaign.

Yes, Republicans and conservatives are convinced that the media has a liberal bias. The “neutral” press does have biases – but they are more for sensational stories, for individual-level explanations over institutional ones, for bad news over good. So partisans on both sides have plenty of ammunition. For example: A Democrat convinced the news media was biased for Republicans might note how the media had hyped the Ebola threat and relatively minor government errors in handling it just weeks before the elections, then played down the government’s success at keeping the disease from spreading (or, in some cases, still hyped the view that the policies were a disaster). Again, this impression is far better explained by reporters’ tendency to sensationalize than by any supposed conservative bias.

The bottom line is that while media bias frequently produces liberal or conservative results in newspaper, online and broadcast stories, the biases themselves aren’t liberal or conservative.* They have to do with what sells, or with the incentives of individual reporters and editors, or simply with the way that news gathering and publishing are organized. And in the case of the Senate races in Iowa and Arkansas this year, that means leaving voters misinformed about the candidates.

So: Nice catch!

* Yes, it’s absolutely true that reporters tend to be liberals in their personal politics — and that most media outlets are owned by large corporations that tend to be conservative. Neither, scholars find, turns out to be important in influencing news coverage. For much more on media bias, see the links in this old Monkey Cage post.

Screenshot: YouTube

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Senate Races 2014: Why Michigan Never Became Iowa

Senate Races 2014: Why Michigan Never Became Iowa

By Alexis Levinson, CQ Roll Call (MCT)

WASHINGTON — Earlier this cycle, Republicans viewed the Michigan Senate race as a potential pick-up opportunity, much like the seat in Iowa.

But it didn’t turn out that way — not even close.

Both Iowa and Michigan featured open-seat races. In these states, Democrats had cleared the field to nominate a House member with partisan voting records. Meanwhile, the GOP’s top candidate picks took a pass on these Senate races, forcing the party to settle for second-tier recruits. To be sure, Michigan was a slightly more favorable battleground for Democrats — but Republicans were bullish about it.

Now, with two weeks until Election Day, the Iowa race is a dead heat with both parties spending massively to win the seat. Nearly 500 miles away, Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) solidly leads former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land in every public poll. Earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee pulled more than $850,000 out of the state, canceling its final two weeks of television for Land and indicating the race was over.

“I’d rather be on Gary Peters’ campaign than on Terri Lynn Land’s,” said Michigan Republican consultant Dennis Darnoi.

So what happened?

The Iowa race had distinct events that changed the trajectory of the race: a television ad about castrating hogs that propelled Republican Joni Ernst to an overwhelming primary win; a video showing Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) denigrating Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”

By contrast, the Michigan race has been “sort of boring,” in the words of state Democratic consultant Mark Grebner.

There has been no game-changing remark. There were no debates (the two campaigns could not agree on a format), so there was “no zinger moment,” said Darnoi. Republicans were never able to get off a clean, clear hit on Peters the way they did on Braley.

In Michigan, Republicans have attacked Peters on immigration, health care and for owning stock in a company that produces petroleum coke, or petcoke — a gross manufacturing byproduct the congressman has condemned. The Land campaign maintains this is an example of Peters’ hypocrisy. But political observers said they discern no single, clear line of attack with which to define the opposition — on either side of the aisle.

“The messages have been all over the place,” said Michigan GOP consultant Dan Pero.

“Our message is simple: You can’t believe anything Gary Peters says,” Land campaign spokeswoman Heather Swift pushed back. “He says he supports women, meanwhile he pays women in his office 67 cents on the dollar. He says he’s against petcoke, meanwhile he owns petcoke stock. He marched with Occupy Wall Street, meanwhile he was a Wall Street broker. The guy will say literally anything to get elected. You always know where Terri Lynn Land stands — she has a record of putting Michigan first. She’s made government work before, she’ll do it again.”

But unlike Ernst, Land never had a breakout moment like the “castrating hogs” spot. Her most memorable ad tried to rebut “war on women” attacks by pointing out that she is a woman. For about 11 seconds of the ad, she sat there drinking coffee, looking at her watch, and not saying anything. It was widely panned.

Instead, Land’s most memorable moment on the campaign trail was in May, when she burst out in a scrum of reporters, “I can’t do this. I talk with my hands,” as they asked her questions. Since then, story after story has portrayed Land as hiding from the media, with national reporters traveling to Michigan to find unannounced campaign events.

Darnoi pointed out Republicans had not been sold on Land’s candidacy since the beginning. Like Ernst, Land was not the top choice: There were early efforts to recruit Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) to run. He passed.

Meanwhile, Ernst exceeded expectations as a candidate, proving one of the best retail politicians this cycle.

What’s more, Peters had experience with tough races. In 2002, he lost a bid for state attorney general by 5,200 votes. In 2008, he challenged an established Republican and won handily. In 2010, Peters fought a Republican wave but survived by fewer than three points — becoming just one of a few Democrats in competitive districts who voted for President Barack Obama’s health care law.

In 2012, Republicans targeted Peters when they redrew the state’s congressional map, effectively eliminating his district. He took on another member in strong Democratic, majority-minority district and won by a double-digit margin.

Compare that to Braley: Since he won his first term in 2006, he’s had relatively easy re-election challenges with one exception. In 2010, he won re-election by a couple points.

Of course, Michigan and Iowa are different states politically. Both states have GOP governors, but Michigan is more favorable statewide for Democrats. Obama won Michigan by ten points in 2012; he won Iowa by six.

Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of that difference comes next week, when Obama will campaign for Peters. First lady Michelle Obama has campaigned for Braley instead.

Regardless, it’s hard to see how Land recovers in the final weeks.

Public polling heavily favors the Democrat. A Detroit News poll from early October found Peters ahead by nine points, 44 percent to 35 percent. It follows a string of polls that found him leading Land anywhere from five to 11 points. Since April, Land has led in only two polls — one in July and one in late August.

Still, Republicans argue the race is not over in Michigan.

Even with the NRSC no longer spending there, there is a huge amount of money flowing into the state to help Land. Much of it is coming from Ending Spending Action Fund, which, as of Tuesday, had spent $4.8 million to boost Land and attack Peters since the beginning of August. A source tracking media buys says the group has not reserved air time for the final week.

“Land is down, but I think that race is going to close,” said NRSC executive director Rob Collins.

The Republican ground game had reached 3.5 million voters as of Monday, said Michigan GOP spokesman Darren Littell.

“I think that’s premature in a state like Michigan, and particularly if you look at the national environment,” said GOP consultant Stu Standler.

The Michigan race is rated Favored Democratic by the Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call.

Screenshot: YouTube

Castrating Conservative Principles In Iowa

Castrating Conservative Principles In Iowa

There exists a government boondoggle that offends conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, oil refiners, cattle ranchers and taxpayers alike. It’s not easy to get that kind of Kumbaya going, but the corn-based ethanol program has done it.

This has put Joni Ernst, the Tea Party favorite for Iowa’s open U.S. Senate seat, in an awkward position. The Republican has vowed to both end government subsidies and preserve the freight loads of taxpayer dollars chugging into Iowa’s corn belt in the name of ethanol.

Her footwork goes as follows: She says she’ll end this subsidy when every other subsidy in the American universe also gets the ax. And, she forgot to add, when Martians colonize Neptune.

Thus, Ernst has castrated a bedrock conservative principle as easily as the pigs she claims to have desexed on her family farm.

Two fierce winds have made it especially thorny for conservatives to justify blowing huge sums on energy projects — for oil and gas in Alaska, as well as for ethanol in the Corn Belt.

One is the conservative respect for market forces. A boom in production has actually created an energy glut. The global price for oil recently sank below $90 a barrel.

The other is the successful conservative crusade to curb federal spending. There’s less money sloshing around for dubious programs, as well as the noble ones.

“National support for the ethanol program is collapsing as the reality of corn ethanol has become more and more apparent,” Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group told me. EWG has been a forceful critic of U.S. farm programs and their impact on the environment.

The ethanol giveaway comes on top of the usual bonanza of farm subsidies. But now, because of the ethanol craze, “farmers trip over themselves planting every square foot they can find with corn,” said Cox, who’s based in Ames, Iowa.

The result has been fouled water supplies. There’s also a soaring world price for food — and for feed, hurting pig farmers and cattle ranchers.

Oil refiners are also taking it on the chin. Today’s big ethanol subsidy comes in the form of a mandate requiring refiners to blend 15 billion gallons of ethanol into motor fuels by 2015.

“There’s only so much ethanol that can be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply,” especially as fuel consumption declines, Cox noted. The blend is typically 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline.

The current flashpoint is a pending Environmental Protection Agency decision to possibly roll back the mandate. The American Petroleum Institute is leading the charge for that.

By the way, the one compelling rationale for ethanol was that it would reduce carbon emissions. And the blending mandate theoretically rests on ethanol’s cutting those greenhouse gases by 20 percent.

Recent science shows that on the contrary, ethanol increases them. But no matter.

“The funny little secret,” Cox said, “is the fine print in the 2007 energy law, which exempts all existing ethanol plants or plants that commenced construction from that requirement.” In other words, all 15 billion gallons stay.

Before we go, let’s make of a point of not pinning a medal on Ernst’s Democratic foe, Bruce Braley. He’s all for the ethanol scam. Liberals who support government programs should feel a special duty to weed out the dodgy ones.

Am I being unfair and unrealistic? After all, this is politics, and the corn folks make up a good hunk of Iowa’s voters.

Well, here’s the deal for Republicans: If you want to transfer huge sums of other taxpayers’ money into local scams, go ahead and try. Just expect to be mocked every time you call yourself a conservative. OK?

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Screenshot: YouTube

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Midterm Roundup: Dumbest Campaign Controversy Debunked

Midterm Roundup: Dumbest Campaign Controversy Debunked

Here are some interesting stories on the midterm campaigns that you may have missed on Thursday, October 2:

PolitiFact has finally weighed in on Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst’s oft-repeated claim that her Democratic opponent, Rep. Bruce Braley, “threatened to sue a neighbor over chickens that came onto [his] property.” Their verdict: False.

• Meanwhile, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a brutal new ad hitting Ernst’s support for a fetal personhood amendment that would outlaw all abortions and some forms of birth control. The ad is a clear appeal to female voters, whose support Braley desperately needs to win the tight election. Ernst is ahead by 2.8 percent in Real Clear Politics’poll average.

• Another poll suggests that South Dakota’s Senate race is getting tighter. According to a new Public Policy Polling survey, Republican Mike Rounds is still in the lead — but his support has dropped to 35 percent. Democrat Rick Weiland trails at 28 percent, followed by Independent candidates Larry Pressler and Gordon Howie at 24 percent and 8 percent, respectively. “This race is just as competitive as the ones in places like New Hampshire and Michigan that have drawn far more attention,” PPP’s Tom Jensen notes. “Rounds’ growing weakness makes this a race worth keeping an eye on in the stretch run.”

• The GOP appears to be in a strong position to build an even greater advantage in the House on Election Day. Seven of Roll Call‘s 10 most vulnerable House members are Democrats, suggesting that the Republicans are “poised to add at least a handful of seats to their majority in the midterms.”

• And at least one person liked the College Republican National Committee’s much-maligned ad comparing voting to buying a wedding dress. Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus thought it was “pretty clever.”

Screenshot: AmericanCrossroads/YouTube

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!