GOP and Math: Their Problems Go Beyond Poll Number Blindness

Much has been mentioned since the results of the recent presidential election about the GOP’s problem with math. More specifically, about the apparent willingness among many conservatives to blatantly shun polls numbers and other data before the election that had pointed to the high probability of a President Obama win. Many conservative pundits and commentators, especially those broadcast on the Fox News Channel, asserted with unflinching certitude, even gleeful self-assurance that Mitt Romney would “win in a landslide!”  Of course, Obama’s commanding Electoral College sweep proved those predictions to be not just wrong, but dead wrong.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow believes the party’s shock and denial about the election was the consequence of living in a Republican bubble fueled by a rightwing spin machine. She noted that the election result “was not magic; it was just math -- math that was completely invisible to the political right.”

But the GOP’s problems with arithmetic goes well beyond absurdly false predictions and partisan skewing of poll numbers. Conservatives made fundamental miscalculations across the board about the electorate, political issues and changing cultural attitudes in the country. The party’s challenge moving forward will require a major re-calculation of the political landscape that today is quite different than one the party has long relied on to win elections.

Having often been indifferent to the concerns of minority voters, the GOP got a rude awakening by the sheer growth of Latino, black and Asian voters as a percentage of the overall electorate this year. And even more shocking was the astounding level of support these group gave to Democrats over Republicans: More than 90 percent of blacks and nearly three-quarters of both Latinos and Asians voted for Obama.

But this demographic trend showing a burgeoning minority presence in the country, particularly among Latinos, has been apparent for years. The GOP, with the exception of George W. Bush who received about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, simply chose to ignore it. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer suggested two years ago that the GOP’s challenge with Latino voters was more of a long-term problem for the party and not an immediate concern - again another gross miscalculation.

And like the Latino vote, the GOP completely misread the emerging youth vote, which overwhelmingly backed Obama by 60 percent, a slightly larger margin than in 2008.  The flawed assumption was that young voters, who had expressed some disappointment with Obama, wouldn‘t come out in mass in 2012.  The fact that young voters don’t have a strong history of voting consistently may have also aided the GOP’s flawed assumptions. But as with minority voter turnout, their political calculation completely missed the mark.

On the economy, Republicans made another political blunder.  Mitt Romney staked his entire campaign on pitching voters a gloomy narrative about the state of the U.S. economy under Obama, claiming it was worst than it was four years ago. His calculation was that a "bad" economy meant certain election defeat for an incumbent president. The problem, however, was that his dubious claims didn't square with current economic reality: a declining unemployment rate, consumer confidence at a five-year high, increasing housing prices and improvement in economic growth. Sometimes reality simply trumps political spin.

On the social issue front, the GOP suffered yet another miscalculation.  Despite polls that had been showing a dramatic shift in public attitudes toward gay marriage acceptance, with a slight majority now supporting it, GOP opposition persisted.  Conservatives even touted the fact that whenever same-sex marriage was put before voters, it was always defeated.  And that held true until Maine and Maryland and Washington all approved marriage equality for same-sex couples on Election Day. The result offered more evidence of an American society holding ever more moderate views on gay marriage and other social issues. This shift is being fueled in large measure by a more socially liberal young generation. But while this seismic cultural shift continues, the GOP clings to a rigidly conservative base and outdated approach to some social issues that fails to resonate.

So yes, the GOP has a math problem.  But the issue isn’t just that they sometimes choose to ignore inconvenient facts such as polls; it’s that too many things they advocate and represent as a party just doesn‘t seem to add up. Conservative strategist and commentator Matthew Dowd said it best in describing the current GOP’s challenge as a “Mad Men party in a Modern Family America.”

“Mad Men” is of course a reference to the popular AMC drama set in 1960s America where white men ruled and women were relegated to being stereotypical housewives. ABC’s successful “Modern Family” depicts a prominent married gay couple raising an adopted daughter. The former is a throwback to a time long past and the latter captures family life in today’s more tolerant society.

If the GOP expects its party’s fortunes to improve it must start by re-calculating how to adapt its message and policies to align with this new cultural and political reality. Only time will tell if their changes add up to any value by the next election.

George Will's Shameless Racial Theory of Obama Presidency

I have long regarded conservative columnist George Will as a rational and thoughtful intellectual, but both of those attributes were betrayed by his shameless recent Wall Street Journal column, in which he suggests President Barack Obama may be re-elected simply because of his race.  What Will fails to acknowledge in his insulting essay is that there are numerous objective assessments one may use in deciding whom to support for president.  Will’s list of select so-called Obama “failures” is skewed to support his own narrow thesis.  One can just as easily produce a listing of substantive Obama accomplishments that include: health care reform, student loan reform, financial regulatory reform, credit card reform, successful auto industry bailout, rescuing the economy from the precipice of collapse, ending the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, etc.  These may be considered irrelevant achievements from Will’s perspective, but they could be among the many factors influencing how others choose to view the president. 

It’s also important to note that presidents sometime face the electorate with mixed records, leaving voters to weigh the pros and cons of their accomplishments while in office.  On balance, the judgment rendered so far seems to tilt in favor of the president over his challenger this election cycle. Personal characteristics such as likeability and charisma no doubt factor into voter assessments as well.

Glaringly absent from Will’s narrative was any substantive critique of Mitt Romney's shortcomings as a candidate, someone Will himself once called a “recidivist reviser of principles.” The reality is that the GOP ran a weak general election candidate routinely regarded as an unprincipled flip-flopper who speaks in platitudes and whose ideas (tax plan and entitlement reforms) have so far been rejected by many voters.  Romney has also run an incompetent campaign filled with numerous gaffes and political miscalculations, not the least of which was making a poor choice for his vice presidential running mate.

So if Will wants a more plausible reason for why Obama might win despite the country’s economic woes, blame the sadly deficient candidate GOP voters chose to challenge him.

Should Struggling CNN Become a Liberal Version of Fox News to Survive?

Is there value anymore in nonpartisan broadcast news? That’s the question cable news giant CNN must ponder as the network tries to figure out a way to reverse its precipitous decline in viewership over the last several years. As Fox News has risen to the top spot in cable news followed and MSNBC, the once dominant CNN struggles in third place. Its ratings decline is startling: CNN averaged 519,000 total viewers in July, which is a 42% drop from July 2008. By comparison, Fox News averaged more than 2 million viewers in July with MSNBC attracting 855,000 total viewers.

Attempting to be neutral in an increasing partisan news environment today has become more difficult. The disconcerting reality is that viewers seem to want news with an ideological slant. This became apparent to me when I conducted a qualitative media study while in graduate school in 2005. The study, which involved conducting focus groups research on distinct political groups (Democrats, Republicans and independents) to assess how they used partisan news and opinion sources to make voting decisions, proved quite revealing.

Republican focus group participants, in particular, complained about there being too much opinion in major network news, yet they seemed perfectly content watching the unabashedly conservative learning Fox News network. One self-defined independent described major network news as “bland” because it was hard to discern their point of view. Just recently, during a discussion about cable news, a friend described CNN as “boring.” He much preferred the left-of-center tilt of MSNBC’s coverage. I concluded that viewers are fine with news bias so long as it tilts in their perceived ideological direction.

Such reflections make CNN’s quandary all the more difficult. How does one stake out a middle ground in news coverage when viewers seem to prefer partisan extremes. As an opinion journalist, I certainly appreciate the value good political commentary can offer news consumers. Thoughtful and intelligent commentary as a supplement to news, can help enlighten the public with insightful perspectives on importance issues. And while such commentary does exist on the Left and the Right, what viewers are more often subjected to on cable networks is a constant barrage of vitriolic partisan loudmouths seeking to inflame rather than responsibly inform, e.g., Sean Hannity, Bill O‘Reilly and Chris Matthews.

We can thank Fox News for poisoning the political commentary well with its bellicose and rancorous commentary over the years. The network has also shown little regard for the value in distinguishing reported news from opinion. As a result, the lines between the two are so blurred that viewers can probably no longer tell the difference.

MSNBC has of course gained viewership by becoming a more outspoken liberal counterpoint to conservative Fox News, a necessary but still regrettable development. If the 24-hour news cycle is going have one dominant conservative cable news network, it only seems fair that an equally dominant liberal alternative be available.

Of course this bring us back to where CNN fits into this partisan news landscape. I strongly believe that there is still great value in a neutral news source, and I commend the network for its commitment to maintaining such a journalistic standard. However, to be competitive, CNN will need to carve out more broadcast space for partisan commentary. Such shows can be separate and distinct from its reported news coverage. Instead of trying to have balanced liberal and conservative commentary within one program, which has failed to attract viewers, e.g., the Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker flop, the network should consider a slate of purely liberal and conservative political opinion shows. This approach still allows the network to maintain balance while attracting viewers who crave a partisan viewpoint.

It’s unfortunate that cable news has taken such a sharp partisan turn, and CNN deserves credit for its attempt to maintain a balanced approach to its news coverage. But as the cable news environment has changed, CNN -- no longer the only cable news source -- must adapt. The good news is that it can still feed the partisan commentary beast and take a middle-of-the-road approach to reported news. Let’s hope that formula works, if for no other reason than to dethrone Fox News.

Music Legends Leave Legacies Today’s Artists Can’t Match

With the recent passing of singer Donna Summer, I was compelled to reflect, with a sense of sadness and nostalgia, about the many great vocal talents we have lost in recent years. In addition to Summer, a few others of particular note include: Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Luther Vandross.

Each of these iconic singers possessed a truly unique vocal style that not only created phenomenal music, but had a profound impact on popular culture and music history. Their musical legacies will undoubtedly live on for decades and generations to come.

As the anointed “Queen of Disco,” Summer’s distinctive sound helped define an entire genre of music that was popular in the ‘70s. The long-haired songstress, who scored many memorable hit songs, clearly left her mark.

Jackson, as the well-earned “King of Pop,” was a music sensation like no other. Along with his groundbreaking dance moves, he delivered a string of hit songs, dynamic stage performances and spectacular music videos that still reverberate across the contemporary music scene.

Houston, arguably one of the most gifted female vocalists of our generation, leaves behind a treasure trove of great songs with her trademark powerful voice.  Her rendition of “I Will Always Love You” was a vocal triumph, easily ranking among the greatest hits of all time.

And Vandross was a modern crooner extraordinaire.  His soulful voice and impressive range set a new standard for male vocal excellence.  His songs were melodic and lyrically rich. Not many of today’s male singers can match his strength as an R&B vocalist.

Contrast the enduring greatness of these talented industry titans with the pre-packaged, studio enhanced and mediocre singers we hear today. Will anyone be talking about the musical significance of Beyoncé, Justin Bieber or Rihanna decades from now?  Are their tunes destined to become “old-school” favorites that future generations of music lovers will be listening to – not likely?

And then there are all the wannabe instant-fame seekers who made their way onto the music scene via “American Idol,” “American’s Got Talent” and other TV talent shows that promote the notion of overnight stardom at the expense of honing great talent through years of hard work and artistic dedication to one’s craft. As a result, much of today’s music is more about image than substance; and market packaging as opposed to genuine talent.

Rest assured, the vocal talents of Summer, Jackson, Houston and Vandross weren‘t manufactured in recording studios. As true singers, each were just as vocally strong on CD as they were in live performance. But what further sets them apart from their industry contemporaries is that the scope of their influence goes beyond being the fad of the moment. Their music evokes memories of significant times and places in pop culture history, transporting listeners back to cherished periods growing up.

  For those who came of age in the ‘70s, hearing a song by Summer probably takes them back to the sounds, colorful fashions and imagery unique to that cultural period. Likewise, for those of us who grew up as teens in the ‘80s, we witnessed the Jackson phenomenon first hand. The experience was akin to our generation’s “Beatles” moment.

And speaking of great moments, I’m heading to the Los Angeles Greek Theater in July to hear two luminaries of the music industry: Natalie Cole and Gladys Knight. As these classy singers grace the crowd with their amazing vocal talent, I’ll be thinking about their respective rich musical legacies and those of the great singers who are now gone but not forgotten.

Summer, Houston, Jackson and Vandross all left an indelible mark on music history. As new industry trends and artists come and go, their music will live on for future artists and music fans to appreciate.

GOP Should Stop Playing Extremist Politics

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who will face voters next month in a recall election recently assessed his fate by suggesting that political courage would suffer defeat if he were to lose. Nice spin governor, but the position Walker finds himself in was the result of his own political extremism, not courageous leadership.

In deciding to pass a law to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights as a means curb the rising cost of pensions and other benefits for public employees, Walker and fellow Republicans chose the most controversial course of action. As a result, they provoked the ire of voters who believe they went too far. Ohio voters recently rebelled against a similar anti-union law passed by a GOP governor by overwhelmingly repealing it at the ballot box.

Of course, in both cases, there were other less extreme solutions available, such as trimming benefits and requiring public employees to pay a higher percentage of their healthcare and pension costs, concessions many public unions had already agreed to make.

So why weren’t these more sensible and modest solutions seized upon by Republicans? Well, to answer the question you have to examine conservative political philosophy, which too often tends to see issues in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. Conservatives seem to perceive moderation as weakness, and strive to define themselves in a way that’s unquestionably distinct from their Democratic counterparts. Essentially, the GOP has become politically invested in always trying to position itself at polar opposites to Democratic or more liberal positions on similar issues. Whatever the Democrats favor, Republicans reactively have to oppose.

When political parties become too entrenched in a partisan “our way or the highway” approach to governing, it can invariably lead to extreme positions on issues that eschew more common sense solutions to problems. In such instances, holding the party line for partisan political reasons trump sensible compromise. Fortunately, when voters feel such political overreach is afoot, they rightly revolt against the extremist tactics, forcing politicians to re-examine their positions. That’s the reality that humbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich when he acknowledged the following after voters repealed that state‘s collective bargaining law:
“It's clear the people have spoken. I heard their voices. I understand their decision. And frankly, I respect what the people have to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”

Such is the predicament Walker now find himself in as possible eviction from office looms next month. Walker wants to portray himself as a principled political hero who stood up to organized labor to make tough fiscal choices for his state. That distortion of reality might have an ounce of credibility had he not acted in his political party’s self-interest by blatantly excluding police and firefighter unions from the collective bargaining law restrictions. Both union groups tend to support Republicans candidates.

If Walker really wanted to demonstrate political courage, he should have resisted his party’s partisan lurch to the extreme right and charted a more sensible moderate course with the unions. So despite Walker’s claims to the contrary, the cause of political courage will more than survive if he is recalled from office, so long as other leaders have the courage to not follow his bad example.