Hillary's drop in polls fueled by same media machine that reinforces Republican narratives.

[Karmadillo]

Interesting that Matthew Yglesias agrees with Bowers.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2255

Clinton's Downturn: Careful What You Wish For
by: Chris Bowers
Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:30:00 PM EST

<edit>

One thing, however, it for certain: the debate itself did not cause this drop for Clinton. How it could it have? Two and a half of the polls showing a downward trend for Clinton were conducted before the debate. Another poll showing a downward trend for Clinton, Rasmussen, didn't actually start showing that trend until four days after the debate. And, most importantly, only about two million people actually watched the debate, and these polls are sampling voter universes of about 50-60 million people. It wasn't the debate. There is just no way that is possible.

What did happen, however, is a replay of the first 2000 debate between Bush and Gore. Clinton might have faced a series of attacks, and she might have fumbled the immigration at the end, but where she really got creamed was in the post-debate news coverage. In that coverage, she was almost universally seen as having stumbled, to the point where she has seemingly been forced to apologize to the press for not admitting this earlier. I don't know exactly how not admitting you did poorly in a debate became a gaffe for Clinton, but it is probably connected to the outrage, outrage I say! that the press has felt when Clinton played the "gender card," or something. I think that is what she is actually being forced to apologize for.

<edit>

I imagine most people reading this blog are either happy that Clinton is somewhat down, or at least not disappointed. However, they should be careful what they wish for. In this case, what appears to be a Clinton drop in the polls was largely fueled by the same media machine that, most of the time, happily reinforces Republican narratives as conventional wisdom. The lesson here, I think, is to remember that the corporate, established media is still very good at creating national convention wisdom as they see fit. While in this case that conventional wisdom might make many people in the netroots happy, most of the time it won't. It is still a powerful institution that Republicans and conservatives are better able to control than Democrats and progressives, and we shouldn't forget that. After the fact re-branding of debates remains of the biggest reasons George Bush is President instead of Al Gore, for example. Their after the fact coverage of Howard Dean's concession speech in Iowa, or General Petraeus's rosy portrayal of Iraq are even more gratuitous examples. Most of the time, it feels as though the conventional wisdom machine works against us, and even in instances where we might enjoy the conventional wisdom that is being created (and I admit that I enjoy it simply because a blowout campaign is a boring campaign), we shouldn't forget that.

more...

[jmp]

1. The same media machine ...

That pushed her to the front of the pack in the first place? My heart bleeds for her. :eyes:

Hillary was the corporate narrative.

[goodgd_yall]

16. The corporate media has never favored Hillary Clinton

You've got to be kidding if you think they want a Democrat in the White House. They like the ratings that they can draw from their spin on the various Democratic candidates, but, in the end, the media will use it's influence to sell America on the Republican candidate.

[jmp]

18. Clinton made it to the top based on grassroots support, right?

The MSM has been cramming her down our throats this whole campaign. The MSM made her inevitable. If they turn around and bring her back down, all the better.

[info being]

26. Republicans need that advantage

If the playing field was level, Dems would always win.

[bvar22]

28. "The corporate media has never favored Hillary Clinton"????

This is the same unfavorable Media who donated large blocks of unopposed FREE campaign time to Hillary on 5-Major Sunday Morning Talk Shows simultaneously?

[calteacherguy]

2. Sounds like sour grapes to me. nt

[neutron]

3. Chris Matthews, a longtime Hillary hater

was selected by MSNBC to lead the post debate discussion, in which he predictably did nothing more than use his big mouth to fan tiny spark into flames.
National media, forever aping each other, picked up on it and turned nothing into a big deal, ala Howard Dean.

[desi]

24. It's not just Motormouth Matthews..

It appears that the all of the "experts/talking heads" and hosts at M$NBC AND NBC are on the "Tear Hillary Down" bandwagon. ALL except Keith Olbermann who was not at the table with Matthews that night. I'm really sorry to see that David Schuster at times tries to emulate Matthews but maybe that is what the producers expect in order to compete with Fox Noise for ratings. It appears that another loose cannon, Dan Abrams, has been demoted at M$NBC and has joined the anti-Hillary chorus. Also remember that Matthews voted for Bush so we should know where his "loyalty" resides.

Welcome to DU neutron.

[OHdem10]

4. Having watched the Debate, I did not thinK HRC did all

that badly. It did not merit days and day 24/7 coverage describing
it as something terrible. As usual the Media using their handy
tools (National Polls) have decided they need a horse race here.
Hilary was gliding right up to the finish line. It is time to
push OBAMA up for a while. Review CMatthews show Hardball. He
is working to push Obama up now. I have watched too many
campaigns on TV. Horse Race is easy and the lazy way to cover
campaigns. Reporters do not then have to know and understand
issues. This is how they have contributed to the fall of America.

They like Rudy and are incapable of showing it. Remember Folks,
the Media gave us George W Bush. They loved him back then.
They cannot seem to learn from their mistakes.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. The continuing coverage is 90% her own fault...

her response to this has been mind blowingly bad.

[goodgd_yall]

13. You really believe that, don't you

The media has control over the whole campaign process. You speak as though the corporate owned media has no stake in this.

[pnwmom]

15. I think her response has been good.

I think a lot of women, particularly in their forties and up, have been reminded of their own painful experiences trying to get into the old boys club.

[mwb970]

21. Wow, I disagree totally.

Hillary's response to this manufactured "crisis" has been measured and mature. Oh, that her bashers could show the same wisdom!

[goodgd_yall]

12. Then Obama will get the royal MSM treatment too

Just as any Democrat candidate in the lead will.

[mmonk]

5. No, I think it was performance related.

I don't see the comparison with Gore and 2000 either. Gore was a target while Hillary began as a media darling (despite rightwing radio).

[goodgd_yall]

17. Do you think she was the "media darling" for a purpose?

You know, the inelectability of HRC? If the media believed that too, wouldn't it be in their best interest to build her up?

[mmonk]

22. No. They went along with the party elite in that regard

in my opinion, but it's only my opinion. They are bad, but I'm not sure that calculating in general except of course, Fox. I think in the general election if HRC gets the nomination, the criticisms resulting from a poor debate performance will be much more vicious.

[pnwmom]

7. This is the same media that had Gore rolling his eyeballs, and

inventing the internet, etc.

Very little has changed. They'll be out to get whoever our leading candidate is.

[goodgd_yall]

14. And the voters will still have their blinders on and not see the manipulation n/t

[ecstatic]

8. Bowers articulated this so well. I hope you guys pay attention

The part that irritates me the most is this whole thing was started by Matthews telling OUTRIGHT LIES after the last debate.

1. Clinton did not say she supported licenses for illegals
2. At no point did Clinton say she was being picked on because she was a woman

If you can't acknowledge those two basic points, then how are you different than someone who still believes Saddam had ties to 911?

[jmp]

9. "If you can't acknowledge those two basic points ..."

"If you can't acknowledge those two basic points, then how are you different that someone who still believes Saddam had ties to 911?"

:eyes:

[cuke]

10. And many DUers will help the repukes

[goodgd_yall]

11. Exactly!

The MSM is not our friend, folks. Even if you want HRC to lose, whoever your candidate is will get the same treatment if he becomes the lead candidate.

[jmp]

19. I'll risk it.

...

[Perry Logan]

20. NBC/WSJ Poll: Hillary's Numbers Unchanged Despite Debate Skirmishes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3694956

[Sparkly]

23. I agree

"...where she really got creamed was in the post-debate news coverage."

[zulchzulu]

25. Just a hint and wake-up call that Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate

If a little scrutiny in a debate about a couple issues is enough to make the polls show her numbers dropping and her campaign's excuses ranging from "sexism" to "ganging up" to help the eventual implosion, then it's pretty obvious to those who cover politics to see that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is weak.

The Clinton team will flail in the water about how it's "just not fair". Boo hoo. And the more they flail with trying to say that it's a "Republican narrative" to criticize Hillary, the more desperate they look.

[Bread and Circus]

27. So was her success. Live by the MSM, die by the MSM...

welcome to Clarkland, Goreland, and all the rest that go down by the whores and the assholes of the MSM, corporate establishment, and the fucktard rich elites of the democrat and republic parties. Goddam rich people screwing every one else over, doesn't matter which party it is.