The (primary) problem with “Double Down”

[DonViejo]

Stop pretending these stories actually had any meaningful effect on the election, and just admit it's gossipy trash

BY ALEX PAREENE

There is a new book out today about the 2012 presidential election, by reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, the authors of “Game Change.” The book is called “Double Down: Game Change 2012.” Its authors have been promoting the book heavily, and the book is billed, like its predecessor, as the inside story of the presidential race, a peek behind the curtain at the previously unknown events that led to the reelection of Barack Obama. It’s not that. It’s a bunch of gossipy stories about politicians and people who run campaigns. Which is fine. Let’s just stop pretending it’s a different thing, please?

The only thing wrong with these Game Change books, besides the meaningless cliche titles, horrific prose, virulent sexism, heavy reliance on and implicit endorsement of the viewpoints and biases of plainly self-interested anonymous sources — ok, the primary problem with these Game Change books, then — is that people take them seriously. News anchors and pundits tell everyone that these books explain how or why a politician won or lost an election, or how they nearly lost. These books tell funny stories about famous people.

Here are some of the reasons why Barack Obama won reelection: because the Republican Party and conservative ideas are unpopular, because the economy was improving and the president’s approval ratings were decent, because incumbents win more often than not, and because his campaign was better at identifying, motivating and turning out voters. Here are some things that had very little to do with the president’s victory: His rebound performance in the second debate, Clint Eastwood talking to a chair, and his ability to tolerate golfing with Bill Clinton.

Newspapers, thankfully, generally obtain these sorts of books before publication and print all the good/juicy/new bits, so you don’t have to buy the whole book. Thanks to these reports, we know, basically, what new or new-ish information “Double Down” contains.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/05/the_biggest_problem_with_%E2%80%9Cdouble_down%E2%80%9D_it%E2%80%99s_a_pr_scam/

[vinny9698]

1. People Magazine, National Enquirer,

Plus all those supermarket checkout magazines make tons of money. People enjoy this kind of gossip.
It is human nature. People love to talk about other people.

[davidpdx]

2. Well you don't necessarily have to buy the book

*wink*

I've got a copy and will probably read it. I am glad I didn't buy it as it doesn't sound as good as the first one.

[CTyankee]

3. Michael Kinsley has a funny review of it in the NYT Book Review yesterday

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/double-down-by-mark-halperin-and-john-heilemann.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. I laughed my ass off reading that yesterday morning

Easily the funniest filleting of a book I've seen in years. Brutal, even. One of my favorite paragraphs:

Halperin and Heilemann try hard to pump some drama into 2012. Mitt Romney doesn’t just wake up some morning after sleeping badly. “The morning light shone harshly on Romney’s fitful reverie.” When the former governor Jon Huntsman (“the Utahan” to you) enters the race, it’s “Mormon rivals” on a collision course “with all the drama that implies.” Which unfortunately is not much. “But then came a bolt from the blue: a new . . . survey . . . that put him at 10 percent.” This is Santorum in Iowa, and getting 10 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses is not exactly what you could call a mandate to govern. But Halperin and Heilemann might.

[Cosmocat]

5. Its more of the in the bubble, completely out of touch with the real world

self aggrandizing, patting one another, horse race bullshit that passes for journalism today.