That's the-Market Monetarist!-argument of Jon Bernstein on the question of the effect of the IRS pseudoscandal on public opinion to the claim some in the Very Serious Media are making that we can't know if the Obama pseudoscandals have hurt the President yet but only after voters have time to "think it over."
He argues that scandals normally hurt a President's popularity immediately. He makes the case that both Nixon and Reagan saw their popularity hurt immediately. If Obama hasn't been hurt, we already have the answer to the public's assessment.
"The point of all this is that we shouldn't expect some sort of delayed reaction to the current scandalmania."
"Assuming, that is, that the basic facts stay more or less the same. But don't expect continued publicity about the same facts to change public opinion in any dramatic way, and don't expect people to mull it over for a few weeks and then decide they no longer approve of the job Barack Obama is doing. That's not what happened in those other cases, and it's not likely to happen with this one."
He argues that scandals normally hurt a President's popularity immediately. He makes the case that both Nixon and Reagan saw their popularity hurt immediately. If Obama hasn't been hurt, we already have the answer to the public's assessment.
"The point of all this is that we shouldn't expect some sort of delayed reaction to the current scandalmania."
"Assuming, that is, that the basic facts stay more or less the same. But don't expect continued publicity about the same facts to change public opinion in any dramatic way, and don't expect people to mull it over for a few weeks and then decide they no longer approve of the job Barack Obama is doing. That's not what happened in those other cases, and it's not likely to happen with this one."
I agree. We saw this same dynamic-Market Monetarist dynamic- during last year's election races. When Todd Akin talked about "legitimate rape" he saw his numbers get hammered immediately as did Richard Mourdock who also made a bizarre comment about rape victims and abortion
Bernstein gets it right off the bat; he's totally right that in this case it's right to go after a bad headline:
"Is it worth a post over a headline? I suppose so...that's what people read, after all."
He's right, there are lots of terrible headlines out there that totally get it wrong and create the wrong impression. It's impressive what lengths the media will go to deny that the President is not being hurt in the polls thinks to the media's feeding frenzy.
My guess is that this isn't hurting Obama for the same reason that so many were shocked by Obama's strong win over Romney: the public is not as dumb as the VSP want to believe they are.
I just want to mention the IRS scandal is a complete mess that is nothing but Republiscum protesting and jockeying for 2014.
ReplyDeleteConsider the real scandal for a moment: Many of these so called "social-welfare" 501(c)4 organizations are indeed political and do in fact primarily "educate" the public on matters that concern conservatives and their causes. The scum were of course incensed when "Media Matters For America", the watchdog nipping at FOX News' lies, received 501(c) status. Of course now that their 501(c)4's are being scrutinized they are calling for the overthrow of the government and the impeachment of the President (ok maybe not yet, but wait two months). So the real scandal here is the fact that these groups are being given tax exempt status, not advocating for social-welfare, and are instead being used as a blunt club to smear, defame, and destroy Democrats--all the while they shielding their donors AND, if you can believe this part, allows these anonymous donors to claim a fat exemption on their taxes!
Ok WTF!? You said that rich guys are able to donate unlimited and untraceable funds to faux social-welfare groups AND get a tax break? You gotta be kidding me!
PLUS the IRS was never given a set of rules by which to follow when trying to figure out who was a legitimate cause applying for tax-exempt status and who was not. "So, Mr. IRS please enusre these guys are following the law, but I can't tell you how to do that.", "Hey, best of luck guys!". Wow! Really?
And now, thanks to an apparently incompetent group of IRS employees doing their no-rules job, the rich guys who are making these anonymous donations will never have to worry about the real scandal! Man Scott Free must be nice.
And this is why I hate The Republiscum!
P.S. Would not surprise me if the folks doing this were Republiscum at the IRS! Never forget Monica Lewinsky and the Dirty Tricks Crew at the RNC and what they have done to discredit and destroy good (but conflicted) people.
Thank you Anon. I agree with much of what you say. I think I've died and gone to some crazy parallel universe when I hear that the Koch brothers are civil liberties victims and it's a terrible thing that someone that donates $1 million personally to Mitt Romney being audited is similar to suffering in a concentration camp.
ReplyDeleteAs you said the real crime is being unaddressed. Just what is "social welfare" anyway? Why should we give Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers a tax subsidy? Both of them are able to make unlimited contributions yet pay no tax on it.
This is going to be sued to intimidate the IRS from even trying to do oversight on Tea Paraty groups in the future. As I've mentioned in a previous post since the GOP started baiting the IRS they've now allowed 45 Tea Paraty groups to have 401(c)(4) groups in 13 months.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/05/in-last-year-irs-has-approved-tea-party.html