The Hill omits GOP's dismal polling numbers in article about possible GOP rebound
September 30, 2009 11:13 am ET by Eric Boehlert
From The Hill:
A cycle after the Democrats went all out to stretch the map to new lengths, Republicans are doing their best imitation. The GOP is attempting to go after a number of seats it hasn’t pursued in decades, along with others that have gone by the wayside in recent cycles.
The hyper-aggressive strategy stems from "an environment shift" politically. The Hill stresses that, "the magnitude of the change in the environment" means the GOP is now landing better candidate. The "environment" is never defined, but readers can assume it's referring to a downturn for Democrats.
But as John Amato at Crooks & Liars recently noted, while the press seems completely tuned into polling data that might reflect poorly on Obama and Democrats, the same press seems utterly disinterested in GOP polling results that are worse.
Wrote Amato [emphasis added]:
Mitch McConnell is polling at an 18% approval rating. That's eighteen percent. John Boehner is polling at 12% approval rating. Just think about that one. And it doesn't take much to make him cry. Mitch and Boehner are viewed less favorably than Dick Cheney was during the dark days of the Bush administration. Why don't we hear about that on teevee? The overall approval ratings of Congressional Republicans is 17% as a party!
I have no doubt the RNC is expanding its list of targeted Democrats. But in reporting the strategy, news outlets such as The Hill ought to acknowledge that the GOP itself faces a very difficult "environment."
The Democrats need to continue mobilizing the voters. There are these 912 rallies and tea bag events, but have you seen a televised Democrat rally? No. They won the election, and they are going to make the same mistake they make every election, and that is win, and then think you can't be defeated. They are not going to combat silly accusations, and instead, they will sweep it under the rug, and use conservative framing to discuss the issues.
----------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
But reporting that would have a negative effect on the media theme right now of a huge GOP revival.
So don't expect to see much of that being reported.
Correctamundo...and would be very appropriate if the Hill article was about national politics...but it was not.
The article talked specifically about the strategy of local politics and local candidates...and has little to do with the ratings of Boehner/McConnell.
Boehlert also fails to mention that his polling numbers come from a DKOS poll...one that finds little support for the leaders of either party...describing the results as "to perhaps put it more accurately...they still remain less unpopular than the GOP" when speaking of democrats.
Being "less unpopular" is a pretty hollow victory to claim.
The article talked specifically about the strategy of local politics and local candidates...and has little to do with the ratings of Boehner/McConnell.
The Hill article was about the political environment, and was using some local races as examples. It was not an article about those isolated examples. In short, Boehlert got it right, and you got it wrong. But that's nothing new, and certainly not surprising.
Goodness, even The Hill's readers understood the actual message of the article, as you could tell with a quick glance at their comments.