Forget The Narrative

When I saw Newsweek's poll showing Obama with a huge 15-point lead in June, I thought it was an outlier. They've come back to Earth with a more modest 3-point lead, but instead of this being about Obama's epic crash or shift to the center, as some would suggest, the answer is massive sampling bias:

June:

231 Republicans sampled, 23%, 36% with "lean Republican" included
324 Democrats sampled, 38%, 55% with "lean Democratic" included
307 Independents sampled, 35%

July:

315 Republicans sampled, 28%, 42% with leaners
324 Democrats sampled, 35%, 47% with leaners
357 Independents sampled, 33%


Imagine that, when you poll the same number of Democrats, but 84 more Republicans (increasing their number by about 25%) and 50 more Independents, McBombBomb does better.

I think the first Newsweek Poll was pretty much overstating bullshit; and the second is almost a mirror image of bullshit.

One of the things I hope for which will never happen is that this whole country gets out of the narrative business to explain political action. If a poll confirms your personal suspicions it doesn't mean that the whole country agrees with you. If the opposite occurs, it doesn't mean the whole country disagrees with you. It means that polls have substantial variables, and people have idiosyncratic reasons for choosing candidates. I'd like it to be neat and say that x=y but this is simply too big a country for that. It's irresponsible to cherry-pick polls to satisfy your own pre-ordained narratives, and while this is how traditional media works, it's depressing to see the same in the blogosphere.

There has been a lot of big talk about Obama's lurch to the right or how lefty bloggers and civil liberties advocates are in hysterics or how Obama is not a liberal or a progressive and when he fails we shouldn't be blamed (which sounds like "Conservatism never fails, it's just never been tried" to me). There's merit in all of these and gross oversimplification in all of these, but ultimately this last paragraph from Digby's piece is right:

The question for all progressives remains what it always has been, in my view, from before and during the primary season and beyond. To the extent the American two party system allows, assuming we can get the most liberal politician available elected to the white house, what do we plan to do to make him actually govern progressively? I don't think our movement has thought enough about that and I think it's the only question worth asking.

Yes, this is the point. Obama is good on a lot of things and not so good on others. Understanding the impact of the judiciary on women's lives or the need for mass transit or the importance of bilingual education is far, far beyond what any national politician has emphasized in the past several decades. On the other hand, there have been very troubling positions, like FISA and mealy-mouthed rhetoric on abortion. He signaled his centrist intentions in very clumsy ways but I think he'll start signaling the other way pretty soon (in fact he already has). The point is how progressives can work together as a movement to ensure governance that is more than tinkering around the edges. Honestly that's where a lot of this is going to start. But I believe we are starting to build coalitions and institutions that are working toward this goal. The Get FISA Right group and the Accountability NOW PAC are two such examples. Also, what's being done by Obama supporters in a self-starting manner on the ground is far more important than an oversampled poll, and it's eventually what's going to allow for a pressure point on a Democratic President. Because the grassroots organizing being done by people empowered to do it themselves will not flame out after the election. It's built to last, and it's easily transferable from candidates to issues.

At the same time, we have to understand that the cauldron of politics ends up overheating everything, producing overreactions to the slightest data, and it's beneficial to step back and assess these things in a more calm manner.