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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.