- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Joe Lieberman
- |
- GOP
- |
- Blackwater
- |
"Flag City" Just Another Media Myth About Obama
Read More:
2008 Election, Barack Obama, Barack Obama Media Coverage, Flag City, Obama Media, Obama Muslim, Obama Muslim Smear, Obama Washington Post,
Politics News
Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio -- the "Flag City" -- where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. What the Post didn't report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.) It's just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.
But reality says otherwise. Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided." State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes -- with hints that November could become a rout. Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates). The media won't admit that the presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.
Eli Saslow's Washington Post article was the worst example of "journalism by anecdote" -- where a handful of interviews in a town most readers have never heard of is supposed to suggest a national electoral trend. Apparently, some Findlay residents believe that Barack Obama is "a gay Muslim racist born in Africa who won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance." That Findlay's official nickname is "Flag City, USA" only feeds the perception that it's Middle America -- and the fact that it's in Ohio (whose electoral votes swung the last election) suggests that where goes Findlay, so goes the nation.
But the Post failed to do what took me about five minutes to look up online. According to past election results, Findlay doesn't represent Ohio -- much less the nation. In 2004, George W. Bush got 11,866 votes there compared with 5,724 for John Kerry -- a two-to-one margin that far outpaced Bush's statewide victory. Even in 2006, when Ohio swung Democratic and booted out a longtime Republican Senator, Findlay stuck with the G.O.P. incumbent by a twelve point margin.
If the Post interviewed voters in Harlem to gauge what's going on with the Obama-McCain race, they would be ridiculed for asking a sample of voters who don't "represent" America. But here they get away with painting a picture of this election based on a small Republican town.
Saslow's piece did indicate one statistic that's supposed to alarm pundits about Obama's chances in November -- one in 10 Americans falsely believe that the Illinois Senator is a Muslim. But more Americans than that believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. When we hear malicious rumors meant to undermine Obama's candidacy, journalists fail to ask if those who believe them would ever support him in the first place. As Randy Shaw wrote, Barack Obama is perceived as a weak candidate because he's failing to get the racist vote.
But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base -- and is on a clear path to winning the presidency in November. After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election. Women are not supposed to vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he's run a "terribly sexist campaign." Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for a black candidate -- and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party's xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.)
But the facts are getting into the way of that theory. A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28 for Obama over McCain, with other polls showing similar results. When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it's obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P. in droves. Along with labor's unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada -- and possibly all three states.
And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa. Not only have Democratic women united behind Obama, but polling shows McCain's anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability. "I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election," said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, "but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane."
Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 -- even swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While the blue states won't be enough to win the presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense -- giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states.
To surpass the magic number of 270, Obama just needs to win all the Kerry states, Colorado (where he's been consistently ahead in the polls) and Virginia (whose demographic shift favors Democrats.) But Obama is likely to also win Iowa and New Mexico (Gore won both), and he's ahead in Ohio -- regardless of what people in "Flag City" believe. Florida will be tough but winnable, while Nevada, Montana, Missouri and North Carolina are all still in play. Even Georgia -- where Obama is firing up the state's many black voters and young voters, coupled with former Congressman Bob Barr playing spoiler for McCain -- could generate an upset and help Obama win that state.
But what's even more encouraging is how Obama's strategy differs from John Kerry. In 2004, Kerry's chances dwindled as the campaign zeroed in on fewer swing states -- precluding the odds of winning and not leaving much room for error. When he stopped advertising in Arkansas and Missouri to focus on Ohio, he reduced his supporters in those states to mere bystanders. But that won't happen this time -- with superior resources and more grassroots supporters, Obama is running a "50 state strategy" that will give all his supporters something to do. The campaign is even putting money in states like Texas where they have virtually no chance of winning -- but a little help could put Democrats running in targeted races over the finish line.
Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race -- even when their own national polls show Obama winning by double digits. Newsweek recently had Obama up by 15 points, while the Los Angeles Times had him up by 12 points -- but the press dismissed these polls as mere outliers. Of course, polls are just a sample of the electorate -- and you can never be sure if a single poll is a fluke or an accurate trendsetter. But when a series of polls start showing the same pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore.
Naturally, nervous Democrats refuse to believe that these latest polls show Obama is going to win -- because they're still haunted by the ghost of Michael Dukakis (who famously blew a 17-point lead in 1988.) But Obama is not like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore -- who failed to excite their base and resisted fighting back at the right-wing noise machine. Not only has Obama proven a willingness to be a "street-fighter" in this campaign when he faces attacks, but the Democratic base is likely to turn out in droves for him -- regardless of what they think his chances are at prevailing.
Because the media is fixated on the narrative that Democrats are divided and Obama is a "weak" candidate, they focus on any sign of his vulnerabilities without an overall context of what it means for the presidential race. The fact that some voters in "Flag City" think that Obama is a Muslim doesn't mean he will lose Ohio -- and it certainly doesn't belong on the front page of the Washington Post. Democrats should work hard for Obama in the general election regardless of what the odds are - but they shouldn't let the media's myth cow them into believing John McCain has a shot.
In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama's field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
But reality says otherwise. Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided." State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes -- with hints that November could become a rout. Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates). The media won't admit that the presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.
Eli Saslow's Washington Post article was the worst example of "journalism by anecdote" -- where a handful of interviews in a town most readers have never heard of is supposed to suggest a national electoral trend. Apparently, some Findlay residents believe that Barack Obama is "a gay Muslim racist born in Africa who won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance." That Findlay's official nickname is "Flag City, USA" only feeds the perception that it's Middle America -- and the fact that it's in Ohio (whose electoral votes swung the last election) suggests that where goes Findlay, so goes the nation.
But the Post failed to do what took me about five minutes to look up online. According to past election results, Findlay doesn't represent Ohio -- much less the nation. In 2004, George W. Bush got 11,866 votes there compared with 5,724 for John Kerry -- a two-to-one margin that far outpaced Bush's statewide victory. Even in 2006, when Ohio swung Democratic and booted out a longtime Republican Senator, Findlay stuck with the G.O.P. incumbent by a twelve point margin.
If the Post interviewed voters in Harlem to gauge what's going on with the Obama-McCain race, they would be ridiculed for asking a sample of voters who don't "represent" America. But here they get away with painting a picture of this election based on a small Republican town.
Saslow's piece did indicate one statistic that's supposed to alarm pundits about Obama's chances in November -- one in 10 Americans falsely believe that the Illinois Senator is a Muslim. But more Americans than that believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. When we hear malicious rumors meant to undermine Obama's candidacy, journalists fail to ask if those who believe them would ever support him in the first place. As Randy Shaw wrote, Barack Obama is perceived as a weak candidate because he's failing to get the racist vote.
But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base -- and is on a clear path to winning the presidency in November. After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election. Women are not supposed to vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he's run a "terribly sexist campaign." Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for a black candidate -- and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party's xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.)
But the facts are getting into the way of that theory. A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28 for Obama over McCain, with other polls showing similar results. When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it's obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P. in droves. Along with labor's unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada -- and possibly all three states.
And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa. Not only have Democratic women united behind Obama, but polling shows McCain's anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability. "I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election," said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, "but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane."
Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 -- even swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While the blue states won't be enough to win the presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense -- giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states.
To surpass the magic number of 270, Obama just needs to win all the Kerry states, Colorado (where he's been consistently ahead in the polls) and Virginia (whose demographic shift favors Democrats.) But Obama is likely to also win Iowa and New Mexico (Gore won both), and he's ahead in Ohio -- regardless of what people in "Flag City" believe. Florida will be tough but winnable, while Nevada, Montana, Missouri and North Carolina are all still in play. Even Georgia -- where Obama is firing up the state's many black voters and young voters, coupled with former Congressman Bob Barr playing spoiler for McCain -- could generate an upset and help Obama win that state.
But what's even more encouraging is how Obama's strategy differs from John Kerry. In 2004, Kerry's chances dwindled as the campaign zeroed in on fewer swing states -- precluding the odds of winning and not leaving much room for error. When he stopped advertising in Arkansas and Missouri to focus on Ohio, he reduced his supporters in those states to mere bystanders. But that won't happen this time -- with superior resources and more grassroots supporters, Obama is running a "50 state strategy" that will give all his supporters something to do. The campaign is even putting money in states like Texas where they have virtually no chance of winning -- but a little help could put Democrats running in targeted races over the finish line.
Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race -- even when their own national polls show Obama winning by double digits. Newsweek recently had Obama up by 15 points, while the Los Angeles Times had him up by 12 points -- but the press dismissed these polls as mere outliers. Of course, polls are just a sample of the electorate -- and you can never be sure if a single poll is a fluke or an accurate trendsetter. But when a series of polls start showing the same pattern, it becomes impossible to ignore.
Naturally, nervous Democrats refuse to believe that these latest polls show Obama is going to win -- because they're still haunted by the ghost of Michael Dukakis (who famously blew a 17-point lead in 1988.) But Obama is not like Dukakis, Kerry or Gore -- who failed to excite their base and resisted fighting back at the right-wing noise machine. Not only has Obama proven a willingness to be a "street-fighter" in this campaign when he faces attacks, but the Democratic base is likely to turn out in droves for him -- regardless of what they think his chances are at prevailing.
Because the media is fixated on the narrative that Democrats are divided and Obama is a "weak" candidate, they focus on any sign of his vulnerabilities without an overall context of what it means for the presidential race. The fact that some voters in "Flag City" think that Obama is a Muslim doesn't mean he will lose Ohio -- and it certainly doesn't belong on the front page of the Washington Post. Democrats should work hard for Obama in the general election regardless of what the odds are - but they shouldn't let the media's myth cow them into believing John McCain has a shot.
In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama's field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
sKTSIA1uuMnl%2BX7bk%2FkD%2FKBlrndP7ovUkcg%2FjQjisnYty9DNcFLJO3kAmqe27GOUNUgZEYh4Oh0ddIR2XfCLUA%3D%3D
2e0elfoUp3NNam66C3KjVtxCRduMZnNry73FzuF%2B5q7sq4TjAWrn8SZ2vtDbGeHbCkawlZJWkogFET7Er3Qfpg%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
NyBXDb6DbbalrLPnHvVKFpf1ARq9%2BcLX
c2nf0wyP6qApez2ZfNjPM7X4CerzpyoY
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Findlay, Ohio is nothing but a bigoted backwater town. Once you get south of Canton or west of Lorain, it is like crossing the Mason-Dixon line. It's no longer "Ohio," but "Uh-hyah." ("You ain't from 'round here, are ya, boah?") I'm a city girl who has lived in NE Ohio my entire life. The racism here is as rampant as anywhere in the deep South. At least southerners are honest and up-front about it and, frankly, I believe they have progressed more in race relations. Here, it just gets cloaked in euphemisms and code words.
Anyone using Findlay as being indicative of "Middle America" is truly desperate and reaching to make a spurious point.
HuffPost's Pick
Actually it is much less insidious than any great "MSM conspiracy" against Obama and for McCain.
It is ALL about eyeballs and Advertising revenue.
The last Presidential election generated almost 2 BILLION dollars of advertising for the MSM (print and broadcast.) If there IS no viable "horse race" to flog to the viewers (along with the Beer, Deodorant, and Wal-Mart commercials) they stand to lose HUGE amounts of money.
The more they can drive eyeballs to their advertising, the more money they make, so they MUST generate SOME KIND of controversy to create the illusion of an actual "horse race" so they can book the political and tangential advertising dollars they desperately need right now. All of the giant media conglomerates are hurting this year with the hangover of the Writers Strike devastating their Prime Time numbers and the prospect of a major disaster in the the Olympic ratings looming in the distance.
Remember the adage of the infotainment industry; "If you can't make it real, make it UP".
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 19 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
Yes, this is a very important issue. Thanks for the info.
I lived most of my adult life in SF where I would've believed what you've written.
But in 2000 I moved to the Flyover where the dismay of watching two elections has made what I've seen disprove every word you've written.
Unfortunately the Democratic Selection Committee has come up with a candidate the Washington Post article reflects absolutely accurately.
You'd just rather not know it now that HP has chosen to become a bastion of affirmation rather than information.
The reason that silly rumor is going to indelibly stick is simply it gives acceptance and a place to anchor the free floating reluctance on every level to accept the unquantified hologram that is Obama.
And I'm not for McCain either.
But I'm finding it more and more a dissonant experience to read urban writers who're missing the real story.
It's not that Obama is going to lose . It 's by how big a margin.
The other story is how Obama, or rather his supporters, may be the single most destructive thing to have ever blighted the Democratic Party. It is losing lifelong Democrats in turned- off droves.
Along with the advantage they 'd have had in the GOP crossovers. I spent 8 bemused years listening to more and more GOP faithful who 'd never yet voted for a democrat saying they would this time.
And then you chose Obama.
And then every single one of them went back to the fold posthaste.
Heck of a job Democratic Selection Committee.
Whilst I agree with the premise of your article - that the media latches on to false narratives to create drama - I would caution against over-confidence. Statements such as "The media won't admit that the presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win" are silly and overlook the fact that a lot of work needs to be done between now and November to ensure a Democrat victory.
FINALLY! Barry gets some vetting and the Barry koolaid is not quit so sweet.
Dude, I think your posting to the wrong thread. There is no mention of anyone named 'Barry' or 'koolaid' in the article.
Thank you.
I have to admit it, as a Gore supporter and Hillary Supporter, I've decided that I will vote for Obama in November.
Why?
Not really because I am for Obama but really to vote against George W Bush and his Republican Cronies who are, even as we speak, STILL TRYING TO SINK THIS SHIP OF STATE!
I say, send a message to Bush...
We are voting for your Permanent Vacation!
Good to hear you are using your brain and not just your emotions.
As a 'white-anglo-saxon-protestant' from the deep south, can I state the obvious and say that "muslim" is not a dirty word. Even if he were a muslim, why does that amount to a character flaw?
It is an endictment of our limited thinking that we cannot seem to seperate the terrorists from the muslims.
It is a sad byproduct of this thinking that is causing Obama to insult Muslims by overly vehement denials and offensive treatment of scarf clad supporters at one of his rallys.
Obama has the opportunity to create a cultural bridge to an international community that has not been very pro-American in recent history. Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe having links to the muslim world might help us establish better relations.
Instead, he is being painted into the corner and forced to play the cutural politics of us(christians) versus them (muslims).
Christians...get over yourselves. There are a billion muslims in the world and the vast majority are not evil.
Get the facts straight. Obama had nothing to do with the Muslim women being moved from the camera view. It was some workers who was responsible, not Obama.
Obama would never do that. When he found out about it he was very disturbed.
You are right and I agree with your clarification. I realize Obama doesn't control those kinds of decisions. It was a result of shorthanding to meet the space limitations imposed by HuffPo. I apologize for conflating Obama with Obama's Camp without clarification
Nevertheless, the point is the same even though he should not be blamed for it.
The decision represents a fear of being associated with muslims that is unwarranted and is causing unnecessary insult.
Post 9/11 xenophobia.
Great post and example of how pathetic the media coverage has been. They all just seem to pass around the same stories and themes. I think it is part agenda and part laziness. The exception has been Keith O. I know he's not objective, but he's the only one that seems to have the guts to call McCain on anything. He also does his homework and doesn't just regurgitate the same hash.
WaPo is a failure even as toilet paper.
Tomorrow they're pushing a hatchet-job revealing that - gasp! - the O's negotiated a good price for their home and a competitive rate on their mortgage!
Get ready for daily slime from the sewers of DC.
The election is four months away. Please recall that Hillary devolved from "presumptive nominee" to "struggling for her political life" in the span of just 6 weeks this past winter. Lots can and will happen. Keep the cork in the bottle.
While it's good to always fight like you're 20 points behind, I'm getting tired of Democrats constantly referring back to our prior pathetic candidates like Michael Dukakis, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton to say "but ... but ... but ... we could still blow it."
Mark Penn dug Hillary's campaign to the ground, and her whole campaign team had this sense of entitlement that was clueless in understanding that 2008 is "the year of change." I'm not saying that Obama could still lose this, but stop throwing out these analogies of different candidates to suggest that such an outcome is probable.
I didn't say probable. What I said was that it's in no way impossible. It's too early to be celebrating our victory.
Washington Post seems to be wearing it's republican stripes or they are sure acting like it lately with even reporters havingto appologize for bad talk about Obama being "more white than black". Odd to think a national newspaper who has been struggling to put trash out on the front page no less. Wonder why it's failing to reach people who want to buy it?
There are people who want to buy it?
Ohio turned blue in 2006. What exactly has happened since then that makes Republicans think it's going back red this year?
The Democrats had the presidential election in the bag. There was no way they could lose and they played the one card that could lose... the race card. It is as if they would rather lose than have Hillary as president. America will not put a black man in the White House.Well as Hillary supporter I say thanks a lot Ted. You put Liberman in the White House beside McCain (as Sec. of State). Of course you all will blame Hillary and Bill when Obama loses .
If Obama loses, which I think is highly unlikely, you're damned right we're blaming Hillary. And you.
If you are a Democrat and you would vote for McCain instead of Obama based solely on the fact that you are emotionally upset because Hillary is not the Democratic nominee, then you are making a big mistake. Nevertheless, in spite of people like you, Obama is going to win this. There are too many of us out here who know how incredibly important this election is and realize that four more years of a Republican presidency would do great harm to our country. You need to figure out that you are an American before you are a Hillary supporter. To put her above your country is insane. If you vote for McCain, you will be on the losing side in this battle for our country's future. There will be no blame put on Hillary or Bill or you simply because Obama will not lose this election. The Republicans are going to be in for the shock of their lives in November when this country makes them pay dearly for the many destructive Bush policies that the Republicans, in lockstep, blindly supported and still do support. There will be a reckoning. And Obama will win in a landslide that will astound and amaze you and the media and more than anyone, the Republican Party. It's gonn be fun.
Hillary would never be in the White House I would do every thing in my power so that would not happen. I would not have voted for her in a one person race.
"Nevertheless, the mainstream media still acts like this is a horse race"
It's called "ratings"
This is one the most articulate posts I have read on the failings of the MSM during this campaign. I saw an MSM report on this story on TV and it struck me that the reporter failed to mention that none of the rumors cited above were true and refute them with facts. They were doing just what this post says, spreading the rumors while implying Obama is somehow weak if he's unable to convince the stupid and the bigoted that pure nonsense is pure nonsense. What IS pure nonsense is that Obama should have to grovel in response to the media's pandering to the ignorant, and validation of the stupidity of some of the electorate.
Do the votes of the stupid and the bigoted count just as the votes of the smart and non bigoted?Is one stupid vote as good as your vote?
Just because everyone you know is stupid and bigoted, it doesn't make you the majority.
Of course. But since 2000 these two "interest groups" so beloved by the Republicans have been elevated in stature while the intelligent were mocked as being elitist, the teaching of science was considered anti-religious while flourishing in Asia and other parts of the world now moving forward while we decline, and ignorance and fear were exploited so that people would vote against their own interests. Is it no wonder so many of the foreclosures are occurring in places like Ohio? People voted for their own demise, but unfortunately their stupidity has negatively affected the more wise.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
