PA primary, and a question for Bostonians

[cellio]

No surprises here -- with 99.3% counted Clinton won PA by 8.6% (54.3 - 45.7) (full results here), enough to continue an increasingly-ugly fight but not the clear win she needed in order to be viable. Obama isn't much affected; a win would have helped him but everyone expected him to lose, so a loss doesn't seem to hurt. Apparently she got the older rural white vote and he got the younger urban black vote, as everyone expected. I wonder if months of arguing about demographics will be better or worse than months of mud-slinging? Though I guess after the people are done voting, with no winner, things might change. I do wish that, in the absence of news in one area, the online media were more inclined to report actual news in other areas. (I'm glad my dead-tree newspaper still does a reasonable job of that.)

Some folks have been claiming that the media are biased against Clinton. I don't see it, really; there's plenty of bias against Obama too. Who actually believes that "the media" speak with one voice? It's important to use multiple news sources precisely because they don't. But for those who claim an anti-Clinton bias, what's with reporting this as a win by 10%? At best you can round (legitimately) to 9. (While I was writing this the site updated, now reporting 54.6 to 45.4. That's still not 10% unless you do your math by rounding one number and then substracting from 100 to get the other. I could see some sloppy reporters doing that, but those weren't the published numbers this morning when I saw 10% headlines.)

In unrelated news... friends in Boston, is this report accurate? (Link from Metahacker on LJ.) Legislation is pending to restrict public movement of people suspected of being gang members -- sponsored by Democrats? WTF? That seems really out of character for most Democrats at all, let alone New England Democrats. Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?

Comments

On the 10%

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Earlier projections in some major papers, based on a 75% count, rounded to 10%, but those projections were incomplete.

Yes, the result is well within expectation of everyone.

The bias allegations are a symptom of the increasingly ugly nature of the race. A number of studies show that the more intensely people feel about an issue, the more likely they are to perceive "bias" in reporting that does not exactly agree with them.

In Clinton's case, there was some truth to the eagerness with which the press pounced after Iowa in declaring her dead in the water, but that flowed from a long history of Clinton acting as if she had the nomination sewn up and the perceived (in the press) arrogant way she treated reporters who didn't want to say anything bad about the presumed front runner. It was very human pay back by reporters. You still see some of that, but it has evened out considerably. The media has reverted to its usual herd beast self.

Re: On the 10%

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

A number of studies show that the more intensely people feel about an issue, the more likely they are to perceive "bias" in reporting that does not exactly agree with them.

That sounds very believable.

Do you by chance have any links to studies that show this? (I'm not doubting your word, actually I'd like to be able to cite this same point myself some day.)

If not...or if it's not easily accessible...no worry.

Re: On the 10%

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that's from memory of a (I think) Washington Post article I read about a year ago. But I imagine a few minutes of online searching should turn it up.

Re: On the 10%

[cellio]

A number of studies show that the more intensely people feel about an issue, the more likely they are to perceive "bias" in reporting that does not exactly agree with them.

That makes sense to me.

Clinton's arrogance extends well past reporters, too. Offering the front-runner the VP slot on the ticket took chutzpah, for instance. And I'm not sure anyone who's made $100M so far this decade is in a position to be accusing her opponent of being elitist and out of touch with the common man. Sadly, it all seems par for the course to me. It's always bad, but this election feels worse (for where we are in the process).

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

So far as I know, the story is accurate.

And I hate to shatter an illusion, but that type of thing doesn't even raise an eyebrow when it comes from Massachusetts Democrats. This state's answer to anything is "Pass a new law against it."

Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?

Probably not. The news story said "The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi."

That's Boston Globe code speak for "This bill has the right people behind it, and is expected to pass." The short-and-easy lesson of Boston politics is that if DiMasi is behind a bill, it will pass...if he's against it, the bill will go down in flames.

Oh...this is my opinion only, but speaking as a guy who doesn't support any of the three candidates (and will be voting for none of them no matter who gets the Democratic nod), I wouldn't say that the media is biased against Clinton so much as a lot of reporters seem mesmerized by Obama and are willing to let things slide. There seems to be a conventional wisdom that Obama is a great guy, so he shouldn't be pestered with tough questions that might burnish the image. I could be wrong about that, but it's the impression I get as a neutral observer.

If my impression is right, it's too bad for Obama because after Denver, he's going to get hammered and he's not going to know how to handle it. I see a parallel here between Obama and Kerry in '04. Kerry was used to years of kid-gloves treatment by the Massachusetts press, and then after the convention when he had to face the national press he got beat up routinely by reporters who didn't feel beholden to be nice to him.

The way things look right now, you can expect the same thing to happen to Sen. Obama around Labor Day (assuming he gets the nomination) and the poor guy is going to look shell-shocked when it happens.

[cellio]

And I hate to shatter an illusion, but that type of thing doesn't even raise an eyebrow when it comes from Massachusetts Democrats. This state's answer to anything is "Pass a new law against it."

Ok; thanks for clarifying that. You guys have PR that much outpaces reality, it would appear. (You can probably tell that I have never lived there.)

I don't support any of the three major candidates either, though Obama (uniquely in this field) has distinguished himself as someone with character, and that's one of the things that matters to me. If PA is deemed a swing state I might be willing to do a vote trade with someone in a state with a foregone conclusion; I've done that in the past. For Obama it would be a straight trade; for Clinton or McCain the price would be much higher. :-) (We're talking "get an electoral vote for the libertarian" higher.)

[siderea]

sponsored by Democrats? WTF?

The dominant party always attracts assholes, the guys who just want power and will affiliate with whatever party they think will get them there. So yes, here in MA, Democrats.

One interesting non-obvious-to-the-outside wrinkle: the sponsor is from Charlestown. Charlestown is the white... neighborhood (will get back to this in a moment)... with the really bad gang problem. Charlestown was the setting, and, really, main character of the movie "Mystic River", which has some freaky cultural veracity in it.

Charlestown is, geographically, a walled city-within-the-city. There are only five roads in/out. It is geographically separated and culturally differentiated (see "Mystic River".) Much has been written about it's "code of silence" and the difficulty cops have of investigating crime there.

Frankly, it sounds like this would put Charlestown under a de facto state of martial law, which may be precisely what they have in mind.

Co-sponsor is from Brockton. I don't know anything about Brockton politics.

[sethg]

The dominant party always attracts assholes, the guys who just want power and will affiliate with whatever party they think will get them there.

And in MA, the Democratic party is very dominant. (One reason Republicans had been fairly successful at getting their folks in the governor's mansion is that the Democratic party machine put up hacks rather than strong contenders.)

See also Hall's Third Rule of Politics: "Constituency always beats consistency."

[cellio]

(One reason Republicans had been fairly successful at getting their folks in the governor's mansion is that the Democratic party machine put up hacks rather than strong contenders.)

Because the governor is that powerless (so why bother), or because the Dems have a blind spot?

[cellio]

One interesting non-obvious-to-the-outside wrinkle:

Indeed! I did not know that.

Frankly, it sounds like this would put Charlestown under a de facto state of martial law, which may be precisely what they have in mind.

Then they should consider doing so in Charlestown. (Yeah, I know -- preacher, choir.)

[jducoeur]

That seems really out of character for most Democrats at all, let alone New England Democrats.

It's a safe rule of thumb that politicians cannot be trusted with civil liberties. Just because the Democrats are quite the neo-Fascists that the Republican leadership are, doesn't mean that they are in general good guys on this score -- they're just somewhat less bad.

Really, it's nothing more than a reflection of the populace. The politicians vote for security over liberty because they perceive that as being the priorities of the voting public. And they're probably right about that. One of the reasons the Constitution had to use such strong language guaranteeing freedoms is because the citizenry, given half an excuse, are always likely to toss them away casually...

[cellio]

I don't, as a rule, trust politicians with either my civil liberties or my wallet. Usually Dems are better about the first, though, obviously, not always.

The politicians vote for security over liberty because they perceive that as being the priorities of the voting public.

Yup. I just had the impression that folks in MA were way more likely to care about liberty than, say, many of the residents of my state. (They might still be, of course.)

[jducoeur]

I think you're extrapolating a little too much from your friends.

The fraction of MA that you know is largely the techie/fannish contingent, which is about as civil-libertarian as any group you'll find anywhere. But that's still only a modest fraction of the populace. There are far more traditional liberals in the state (who are pro-civil liberties, but it's far from their only high priority, and some of those priorities conflict), and a very large chunk of just plain traditionalists of various stripes. That's more than enough to swing some votes.

It's true that, statistically, MA is more civil-libertarian than just about anywhere else in the country. But that's not saying all that much...

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I think you're extrapolating a little too much from your friends.

As one of those MA friends, alas, yes. I'm glad we gave that impression, but it's often when we're reacting to the authoriatian tendencies of many of our fellow citizens. *wry smile*

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

And yet, and yet....

If the story itself is accurate (and it seems to reflect a long line of stories about places like Charlestown, Dorchester, Brockton, Lowell - it is a matter of competing civil liberties.

If the gangs are, in essence, removing the civil liberties of the general population through violence and intimidation, then it would follow that the legislature is looking to take some form of action to amend that.

I do not have inside information, and am merely a speculator.

cellio, to answer your question above, basically the Democratic Party in MA has put forward two sorts of Democratic candidates for the Governorship - either rather weak people with poor resumes, or former prosecutors who were a bit too even handed, and therefore undersupported by people who might have been investigated or charged... Or whose constituents felt somewhat abused by legal process.

It is hard to be a legitimately strong public prosecutor, and have people love you.

[cellio]

If the gangs are, in essence, removing the civil liberties of the general population through violence and intimidation, then it would follow that the legislature is looking to take some form of action to amend that.

If they are being violent and intimidating, why not charge them with that? If they're not being disruptive, why charge them with anything?

It is hard to be a legitimately strong public prosecutor, and have people love you.

True.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Because - they are not stupid, but they are ruthless.

They do not commit crimes in front of the police.

They commit crimes that require witnesses. And no witnesses seem to be forthcoming, what with gangs being unafraid of witness intimidation.

I don't know if that's the case specifically in those towns, but it has been often reported as how these situations arise in gang-related environments.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

Who actually believes that "the media" speak with one voice? It's important to use multiple news sources precisely because they don't.

One solitary voice? No. But if you look at just television, the only source of information used by a vast number of Americans, it is close enough to one voice.

Even across different forms of media, look at how much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings) News Corp owns. It's scary.

[cellio]

Ah, hadn't thought about TV news, which I don't watch. I based my comment on newspapers and online (text) sources.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

Newspapers may depend on what area you live in. Out here, the three main newspapers (SF/Oakland/San Jose) are all owned by the same company. You get different editorials, but the basic news is pretty similar. Online sources, though, are excellent.

And there are ways to balance out television news, such as watching foreign news.

[cellio]

The two local newspapers here are usually sniping at each other -- definitely no common ownership there. :-) (I read the one whose bias I find less annoying, and supplement with online sources, including those that lean the other way.)

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

I rambled on in my journal about this just now, but here is a recent example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TxjplGs5YM). At about 3:00 mintutes in, Keith Olbermann comments that a superdelegate needs to "take her into a room and only he comes out". I find implied violence against women (or anyone) a little unfair.

[cellio]

Oh, there are certainly examples. Some media sources are biased against Clinton, some against Obama, some against the Republicans... bias at that level is normal. I was questioning the assertion I've heard from time to time that there is an overall bias against her.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

There is, from MSNBC (and CNN from a lesser extent), I just happened to run into that and remembered your comment. I can only speak to cable news, however, as we rarely watch network news, and my local newspaper is so conservative, they hate both candidates.

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

Please, at least, watch the first three minutes of this montage. If you still don't see it, I'll STFU.

http://livejournal.madwonderland.net/hillary_ad_shutthefreudup%20copy.mov

[cellio]

I've tried this link several times over the last couple days, and so far can't get it to load (giving it several minutes to try). :-( Got any alternatives?

[alice-curiouser.livejournal.com]

I do! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM (sorry, I save stuff in .mov, which works great on a hard drive, but is annoying as on online file).

Keep in mind, it was made by a Hillary fan, so the second half is a lot of Clinton propaganda set to a good song. :) But the first half is a good sampling of some of the crap she's gotten from the main stream media.