Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
Colorado voters picked their nominees for the upcoming election last night. There were some interesting results. Dan Maes edged out Scott McInnis for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.
Ken Buck beat Jane Norton for the Republican Senate nomination. And Obama-backed Michael Bennet beat Andrew Romanoff for the Democratic Senate nomination.
After a year of brutal defeats for Obama, his team was understandably pleased by this outcome. They immediately bragged to their press friends and so stories about the vote yesterday told readers that this was all about Obama being awesome again. Or something. John F. Harris' story in Politico was headlined Primary night yields good news for President Obama and Democrats. Sam Youngman's story in The Hill was headlined Axelrod says Colorado results show Obama voters will show up for midterms.
And Marc Ambinder's piece at The Atlantic advanced the story a bit by getting Bennet pushback against Team Obama's braggadocio. That might confuse most readers of Ambinder -- known for his quick capture of White House views. But Bennet's brother James is Ambinder's boss. It was headlined: White House, Bennet Moving in Opposite Directions
Now, I'm a native of Colorado and most of my family lives there and is politically involved. None of these headlines seemed to match with what they were reporting. Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi was also perplexed. He takes apart various claims:
But as of right now, Republican Ken Buck is leading in every poll I’ve seen, and the only “energized” party around here seems to be the party that wants to drive out incumbents.
You wouldn’t know that reading most national coverage. And in just a few posts, Ambinder describes Bennet as a brilliant campaigner (he spent millions more than Andrew Romanoff) as “relatively independent” (he voted down the line for the Obama agenda) an “education innovator” (DPS has, at best, mixed results) and so on. ...
Ambinder claimed that “Democratic turnout was high (though a bit lower than Republican turnout).” In the Colorado Senate race, despite a registration advantage for Dems, 338,537 Democrats voted as opposed to 407,110 Republicans. Is that a “bit,” or is that a lot? Put it this way, more people in Colorado voted for Jane Norton than Michael Bennet on Tuesday.
That last stat makes the Axelrod claim seem pretty silly. All of these stories seem to suffer from too much inside-the-beltway perspective.
Who knows what will happen in November? Colorado campaigns can be infuriating for all involved. But when including White House spin in stories, reporters really should work overtime to avoid contradicting easy-to-find data.
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
I read Ambinder to divine what Axelrod wants me to think. Isn't my view of him pretty common?
Re: Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
People harsh on Ambinder for just that. But I actually like knowing what the White House spin is.
May '10
Re: Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
Oh, I do too. It's like having a source in the Directorate of Disinformation. Very revealing, ultimately.
May '10
Re: Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
It's come to this. When a sitting President trumpets the victory of his favored candidate in a primary, he's running out of straws at which to grasp.
Re: Under the Beltway: Sizing Up Colorado Without the White House Spin
But let's not disturb them as they begin spinning the cocoon. Is everything going to plan, Mr. President? Yes it is, sir, yes it is. The people love you, sir.