Photo credit: AP
I listened to the VP debate on the radio last night. Then afterwards I saw my RSS getting saturated with assessments. The Corner reverberated with agreement that Sarah Palin wiped the floor with Joe Biden. Over at Daily Kos the assessment was curiously inverted. No surprise. But then listening to the NPR and seeing Howard Fineman's column show up my RSS I had to wonder: who cares what these people think? I mean, this is kind of like watching a basketball match, and then getting the sports reporters together 5 minutes after the game ends and having them decide who won! Why do we listen to or read these jokers? We know who "won"; polls might only correlate to a modest degree with future electoral outcomes, or only imperfectly reflect the judgment of the people, but they sure track public sentiment better than the "pundits."
On a semi-related note, check out the site Culture 11. It's a new outfit which is stocked mostly with Rightish young intellectuals who don't seem to be Party-Men. Now, some of you might shudder at the thought of reading the scribblings of the Right-leaning...but you're doing that right now!
Politics
Comments
Now, some of you might shudder at the thought of reading the scribblings of the Right-leaning...but you're doing that right now!
But you make up for it by writing interesting essays on genetics. If Bush did that .....
...he would still be the worst US president in history, but at least he wouldn't suck at everything.
Posted by: Ethan | October 3, 2008 9:39 AM
Yeah, the pundits don't decide much maybe because the vast majority of people do not read them.
Also, I was stuck with the feeling that it is formidable to debate someone like Palin on a political stage because the temptation to prove her wrong or illogical is enormous. While winning the elections and winning the debate is not necessarily the same thing.
Posted by: milieu | October 3, 2008 9:39 AM
but at least he wouldn't suck at everything.
if he sucks at everything, then he doesn't suck at sucking. if you are a robot and you are reading this i just killed you....
Posted by: razib | October 3, 2008 9:58 AM
You should care what they think, gene boy, because maybe--just maybe--having spent years studying the political process, and talking to people involved in it, they know more about what's going on in politics and debates than you do.
Posted by: WarDog | October 3, 2008 10:26 AM
if he sucks at everything, then he doesn't suck at sucking
Yes he does. He might suck a lot - doesn't mean he's good at it. (I comment on blogs a lot, but...)
Posted by: outeast | October 3, 2008 10:48 AM
No, he sucks so much that he'd even suck at sucking. That's the logic I like.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 3, 2008 11:17 AM
aside from the occasional food for thought, i think there is some value in reading pundit reactions. why? because it gives you an idea of what the press response in coming days will be to the debate.. the developing press narrative about it effects future polls.
Posted by: ben g | October 3, 2008 11:51 AM
You should care what they think, gene boy, because maybe--just maybe--having spent years studying the political process, and talking to people involved in it, they know more about what's going on in politics and debates than you do.
i'm the type of kid who watched the mclaughlin group and read each new edition of the almanac of american politics asa kid. i'm not totally ignorant of this stuff. i came to the conclusion it was all bullcrap when in 1994 on an episode of mclaughlin group everyone basically agreed that there was 0 chance that bill clinton would be reelected. granted, eleanor clift made the argument that he had a chance to get reelected, but her body language and tone made it rather clear she didn't believe that at all and was just mouthing partisan talking points as was her modus. as a young person i thought two years was a long time, and it seemed historically polls can change really quickly (i remember that george hw bush had high poll numbers in 1991, and lost in '92). after 1996 i stopped watching those shows in large part because of that reason. that doesn't mean i don't read poll sites or policy related articles. it's just that i frankly think most pundits are retarded and less interesting versions of sports commentary; sports writers don't know jack, because if they did they'd be in the betting industry. they're to entertain. i don't think that political pundits often do a good job.
aside from the occasional food for thought, i think there is some value in reading pundit reactions. why? because it gives you an idea of what the press response in coming days will be to the debate.. the developing press narrative about it effects future polls.
good point; the press does have some effect. know any pol sci lit on this?
Posted by: razib | October 3, 2008 2:20 PM
If want to or think you know who is going to win try decision markets and for the influence of debates (or the response to them) look for blips. For the benefit of radio listeners, I noted the candidates were correctly positioned left and right from the audience perspective. (On several occasions I was looking askance, nay wincing, with my head turned firmly away from the television to the left of them both). A lengthy display (and intermingling) of lineages followed...
Posted by: Ben | October 3, 2008 4:18 PM
It really isn't a matter of winning or losing, it's a matter of who convinced more people, or who convinced enough people to give them the edge. I didn't follow the debate because I knew the quality of argumentation and rhetoric would suck green walrus nads. From what I've read today, I must account myself pretty spot on. We have let our rhetorical standards decay alarmingly, and that makes it hard to come to an informed decision.
Sloppy rhetoric means sloppy thinking. Sloppy thinking means a sloppy society. A sloppy society means ... Let's tighten up our rhetoric and our thinking and so improve our lives.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | October 3, 2008 9:47 PM
Razib - you wanted some numbers on the effects of media punditry - I don't have them but Engram has gathered the evidence on US MSM partisan bias:
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Media%20Bias
All the evidence, and that means *all* the evidence, is that the US media has a left wing bias.
Posted by: bgc | October 4, 2008 1:46 AM