I offer an unrelated anecdote to support your observation of the President’s eroding levels of support.
We here at The Doublewide are fans of a band called The National. When we saw them late in the summer of 2008, they were quite vocal from the stage in support of Obama’s candidacy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, free speech and all. I seem to recall the lead singer waving one of those Shepherd Fairy “Hope” shirts, which was annoying. We were also encouraged to stop by the campaign’s booth on our way out of the venue so we could join up. Needless to say, Bubba and I did not do so.
So when we saw The National again in June 2009, we were not surprised to hear some Obama-praise from the stage, but it was fairly unobtrusive.
Just saw them for the 3rd time, and there was not a whisper, not a hint of any politicizing. The band played music and sang. Fun was had by all.
If you’ve lost the New York, hippster, indy-rock band segment of the electorate….
Indeed. Of course, JTS writes in to take exception with the Czar’s observation about Chicago:
Shame on you, Czar! That AP poll was for Illinois, not Chicago specifically! And don’t make me ask, a la, Jonathan Last, if you know any black folk.
In other words, rest assured that President Obama remains very popular in Chicago with black voters. I suspect white voters, not so much.
That said, I couldn’t agree more that “the badly faulted Kirk is a vastly better pick over the venomously corrupt Alexi Giannoulias” although I’d go one step further and say that since Illinois already has one Senator that votes for every crazy liberal big government scheme the Democratic Congress/President Obama concocts, we don’t need another one. Cheers!
JTS is correct: the plunge to 51% happened in Illinois as a (w)hole, not Chicago. The Czar regrets the error. But the story, interestingly suggests that Chicago is joining the fatigue. But is it?
The problem with the AP is that they might be pounding a square peg into their round hole editing. No less than Harry Shearer named this The Template Theory: the news media disregards information that does not fit whatever point an editor feels like making. If the facts do not fit his template, he changes the facts until they do.
Seems like the Czar fell for this. AP wanted to write a surprise piece on Obama’s sagging numbers. So they took the little they had for Illinois, and sprinkled it with quotes about disappointment from the City. Bingo.
Now, mind you, the Czar still believes he is correct in saying that Obama is not nearly as popular in Chicago as the media thinks. But JTS is right that the linked article is insufficient proof either way.
But what the heck. Does the media really edit stories to prove a point? JS writes in:
Dear Czarest of Tsars,
What is the deal with the media? I was reading your post on “Obama losing support in Chicago…”, and my memory was jogged. One time I was home for Mother’s Day, so I went to the local Mother’s Day celebration at my church. A newspaper photographer happened along and took our picture (my mom and I’s picture), and we told him our story—I happened to be home from school for an important event and came to the church to help celebrate the day.
Next day, what was the description under the photo? “Son comes home for Mother’s Day…”. If they cannot get simple things correct (and it’s manifest from other sources that they cannot), how are we supposed to trust the media at all? They routinely mess up large stories (where the editing should be even more precise), and they also get minor things wrong all the time (Shaun of the Dead, anyone?). I’m thinking that, even outside of their obvious bias, no one should listen to the media. They’re that bad at what they do.
Ok, I am finished ranting. Punish me as you see fit.
No punishment here. Here is what happened: editor tells beat reporter “Go get me a photo and a caption about a son coming home for Mother’s Day.” Reporter bumps into JS, and says “This is a better story!” and takes the picture. He hands the editor a brief write up: Son comes home to attend mass with family for important Mother’s Day event. The editor says “Great,” and edits it: Son comes home
to attend mass with family for important Mother’s Day event. There. Perfect. What the editor wanted in the first place.