In politics, there are three main types of analysis that are offered.
One type is from the technician who draws pretty straight-forward conclusions based solely on data. Another is from the analyst who usually offers opinion based on what they see and synthesize it based on their own experiences. The third type is from the so-called objective media.
So, I sorted the currently available electoral map projections by these three groups, putting actual pollsters and the traditional media in their own group, with the others in a third group. In all cases, each of these groups offer a Toss-Up category containing between 86 and 137 electoral votes (FiveThirtyEight.com doesn't include toss-ups and was not included).
Here's what you find:
|The Pollsters||Independent Groups||The Media|
(Note: Charts updated to include Cook Political Report and The Washington Post per update at bottom.)
What's remarkable is just how out-of-touch the media is with their electoral map assessments. They are, by far, the only group offering an effective dead heat, while the independent groups show a modest Obama lead, and while the pollsters offer a considerable Obama lead.
So, what to make of this?
The first thing that strikes me is the vested interest that the media has in creating the appearance of a close race since they all depend on interest to drive coverage and hence ad revenue. But I actually think -- having spent a considerable amount of time wondering about this disconnect -- that this is a secondary reason.
Instead, I believe we're seeing the same personality trait we also see in politicians -- which is to only offer opinions within a comfort zone that create hyper-cautious analysis out of fear that they'll be wrong and viewed as out-of-touch or not being knowledgeable in their field. It's the fear of being wrong. Hence, it is a lot easier to rationalize a blow-out victory when you predict a close race than it is to be wrong if an expected blow-out doesn't happen.
But this problem has far deeper, and more problematic roots, and is instead an outgrowth of one of the most serious flaws in American journalism -- the exaggeration of "false balance" that we see in so many stories.
In fact, in June, I noted remarks that The Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington made concerning this very problem of a media-created false balance and its illusion of neutrality:
One of the worst things the old media do, the author and founder of HuffingtonPost.com said, is present two sides of a story as if the two sides had equal value, creating a false neutrality that often does not exist. They fall back, she said, on "the illusion of neutrality instead of ferreting out the truth."
...But, she said, the old media has "given up the truth for pursuit of a fake neutrality." As an example, she pointed to the debate over global warming and said journalists stood in the middle presenting the public with two sides.
Not only is Arianna spot-on with her media criticism in a general sense, but I suspect we're seeing it manifested in the electoral map projections they're offering today. How else can you explain that Karl Rove sees an Obama lead which is two and one-half times larger than any of these media outlets? Or how about the fact the real pollsters give Obama a lead more than four times the media margins?
What is particularly noteworthy is where the media bias lies here. It's a clear willingness to give John McCain (R) the benefit of the doubt, but not Barack Obama (D):
|Cook Political Report||240||174|
|Real Clear Politics|