The ‘momentum’ narrative is in full-force these days, despite evidence to the contrary. To wit: another post from John Dickerson at Slate (who I actually really like as a reporter – despite taking him to task twice in one week) with an article about Romney ‘peaking at just the right moment.’
The evidence for this momentum? Big crowds cheering, which is…not much to go on to say the least. Also, Meatloaf has endorsed Romney. Hmmm.
The framing device here is that “everyone is flying blind about Ohio” and “both campaigns believe the polls are essentially tied.”
But we’re NOT flying blind about Ohio. There are a massive number of polls there, which confirm an enduring and meaningful Obama margin. If both campaigns are calling it tied, in spite of the clear statistical evidence to the contrary, it seems like the real story is WHY they are each framing it that way.
The funny thing is, this article was pre-debunked by Nate Silver who earlier in the same day provided a pretty comprehensive takedown of the ‘momentum’ narrative. And then, to pile on, Sam Wang (who remains my go-to for electoral predictions) provides a direct response to Dickerson here. Based on the actual data, if you want to tell a story about momentum, then Romney has it only to the extent that he appears to be holding onto some of his gains and preventing slippage back toward the world of a 330-340 Electoral Vote blowout.
It’s not surprising that political reporters would like the narrative of momentum. They’re trying to tell stories, not analyze data. But this is precisely the sort of area that informed analysis could seriously improve reporting. There are still plenty of stories to tell without relying on the crutch of momentum.
And, really, narratives like momentum actually kill the ability to tell good campaign stories. The problem is that the reporting class is overwhelmingly inclined to think about politics from the perspective of marketing. The race is defined by the image of the candidates. From that perspective, gains in popularity really should snowball. As something grows more popular, more people use it because they want to be in on the trend.
Of course there is some truth to that. There are political bubbles just like there are bubbles for Tickle-Me Elmo or PBR or iPads or whatever consumer product is super trendy right now that I’m clueless about. And there are certainly campaigns that looked close for a long time, where a small swing just kept growing and turned into a blowout. But those are a lot more rare, and particularly for the sort of high-profile campaigns that happen for president over the last couple decades.
But it’s a big problem to reduce campaigns to only that ephemera. Political issues are much more durable, much more important, and much more tightly held than opinions about random consumer goods.
As far as I can tell, there are two main ways that momentum can matter a lot. The first is in circumstances where you want to convince people that your idea/candidate/policy is reasonable. So evidence that people are signing on is important. The second is when you’re trying to gain the ‘inevitability’ crown. The idea there is more to discourage the opposition with seeming evidence that you’re not only winning, but the trend-lines make resistance pointless.
This helps explain why momentum matters a lot more in primaries or early in campaigns. When people are still sorting out their general feelings about a campaign, or are picking from one of many options, the bandwagon effect is far more likely to matter.
Wow. You really don’t like trends. Which, ironically, is very hipster of you.
The business analogy is great. Marketing has a lot to say about fads vs. strong brands and quality products. It tells us why sometimes great products don’t sell. It tells us about market dominance, customer base, product innovation and brand strategy. And, it requires empirically rigorous analysis and real world testing to back up its claims! So where’s the beef?
You assume marketing only cares about making “random” products like Tickle-Me Elmo “super trendy.” You also say it fixates on snowballs and ignores long-term margins. But . . . huh? Sure, that’s a marketing strategy. Not a good one. Nor the one adopted by basically every blue chip company ever. Also, Microsoft. And Apple. (iPad = Tickle-Me-Elmo? Really?). Marketing hasn’t studied “durable” and “tightly held” opinions? Pepsi Challenge. Marketing can’t tell us about long-term margins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(economics).
Maybe you’re right that the media and parties are reporting the polls wrong. That’s a great reason to criticize their math. But your rant against marketing and trendiness comes out of left field…
Hmmm, I thought I was saying that it makes a LOT of sense to talk about this stuff seriously in terms of marketing products. But that presidential campaigns are different from those, particularly in their late stages.
Such that narratives which DO work for marketing fall apart here. That there is a big marketing element in elections, but political reporting tends to see ONLY the marketing angle and ignore the rest of it – which is why momentum narratives are so appealing to them.
Isn’t that in line with what you’re saying?
I think what I’m saying is that a marketing perspective includes your perspective. Only one type of marketing focuses on short-term fads or trends. Most marketing doesn’t.