Month: September 2012

Ambers reads the post-convention polls:

Until the last three weeks before the election, you can safely skip the top-line numbers for every poll you read. That's why I'm less impressed by the president's post-convention "bounce," a term that implies that whatever is up shall come down. Generally, what's more striking is that the president's enthusiasm deficit among self-described independents who tend to vote Democratic has been erased. Those voters are moving (back) into his corner, and they're providing his buoyancy.

Along the same lines, Nate Cohn notices more enthusiasm among non-white voters, who heavily favor Obama.

In short:

[T]he racially tinged ads now running in Ohio, Colorado and other battleground states may succeed in influencing racially resentful white voters, but if so, the people they influence are more likely to be educated than not. Consequently, this is less likely to translate into more Republican votes, for two reasons. First, on average, educated whites are more racially tolerant than non-college-educated whites. Since racial tolerance diminishes support for candidates who appear to make racial appeals, politicizing the racial attitudes of these voters is unlikely to be an effective strategy. Second, educated voters hold stronger partisan attachments than less educated voters. By the time they see campaign advertisements, they are more likely to have made up their minds about which candidate to support, and they will not be easily budged.

Elizabeth Blair profiles the man who wrote the famous song about lynching:

It's been recorded dozens of times. Herbie Hancock and Marcus Miller did an instrumental version, with Miller evoking the poem on his mournful bass clarinet. Miller says he was surprised to learn the song was written by a white Jewish guy from the Bronx. "Strange Fruit," he says, took extraordinary courage both for [composer Abel] Meeropol to write and for [Billie] Holiday to sing. "The '60s hadn't happened yet," he says. "Things like that weren't talked about. They certainly weren't sung about."

How Meeropol's story intertwines with McCarthyism and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (the Meeropols adopted their two sons) is equally fascinating.

Derek Thompson examines the industry:

Look at your smart phone or your tablet. Some of the best apps out there are free programs that bring down walls, connecting you to businesses and information that generally makes you life easier or more enjoyable, whether it's finding transportation, ordering dinner, or naming a song. Many of these companies either have no business model, or have a business model so thin as to be practically imperceptible to its users. In some corners, this is a mockable fact, but rather than mock it, you should stop and appreciate how amazing this is: Some of the smartest and most creative entrepreneurs and developers of our generation are dedicated to making awesome stuff for you, and, bankrolled by deep-pocketed venture capitalists, their determining business metric was not "How will you make money from credit cards and marketing departments?" but rather: How many millions of people are you delighting with your exceptionally cheap product? It is hard to imagine an industry built on a more satisfying premise for customers.

Facebook's stock price troubles could threaten the state of affairs:

The first few years of the social media revolution have been a golden age of tech utilitarianism, where maximizing users' delight was considered, quite literally, the only currency that mattered. In Part II of the revolution, the desired currency is poised to change from attention to profit. That's a shame. It doesn't mean that the programs you love are anywhere close to coming to an end. It just means that things are about to get a little less awesome.

Today on the Dish, after summing up the situation in Libya and Egypt, Andrew laid out his case for why Romney is unfit to govern, as Romney continued to lie unflinchingly. Larison then weighed in on Romney's recklessness, Nicholas Burns spoke out and the NYT mused on the possibility that the Libya attack was planned. Then as Fallows called Romney's statement the "3 a.m. test," Buzzfeed rounded up bipartisan reactions and Obama's numbers continued to climb. Kristol, meanwhile, doubled down, Jon Kyl offered up a rape analogy and Reince Priebus earned a Hewitt nomination.

Rosie Gray wondered if the "anti-Muslim movie" was real, while Goldblog defended Obama, found a Sam Bacile wingnut associate and, along with others, tried to nail Bacile down. Daniel McCarthy contextualized free speech, Mohamed El Dashan dreamed of a more reasonable response and Shadi Hamid reminded us of Libya's progress. While Christian Caryl noted the similarities between Libya and Egypt, signs looked bad for a Morsi apology and David Remnick responded to Netanyahu's grotesque meddling. Romney QOTD here, FOTD here and, for keeping track of all this, the handy Libya/Egypt thread here.

In other political news, Political Math kept Obama honest on jobs, the blogosphere speculated on the Fed's action and Obama released new ads. And while readers prevailed upon Andrew to change the Von Hoffman award name and Japan nanny-stated the obese, Orhan Pamuk imagined life after the Bosphorus and the Iranian rial declined. Meanwhile, Andrew was at peace with his bald pate, ASL-fluent readers offered perspective on a recent MHB and John Hodgman discussed the Apocalypse. And as McArdle defended her argument on college degrees, Kafka praised patience. MHB here, VFYW here, and Ask Reihan anything!

– G.G.

(Photo by David Calvert/Getty)

David Remnick responds to Netanyahu's latest grotesque meddling in US politics:

Netanyahu seems determined, more than ever, to alienate the President of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney’s campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election—one no less pivotal than the most super Super PAC. “Who are you trying to replace?” the opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, asked of Netanyahu in the Knesset on Wednesday. “The Administration in Washington or that in Tehran?”

Washington, of course. Remnick offers some insight into what motivates the leader:

On a trip I took to Israel a few weeks ago for The New Yorker, the political philosopher Avishai Margalit told me that Netanyahu was a kind of “mythomaniac,” a politician utterly absorbed and guided by his sense of heroic mission, and dismissive of the opinions and analyses of even his closest advisers. This goes for his innate distrust of any and all Palestinians, as well as for the vast range of military and intelligence experts, both inside and outside the Israeli government, who are constantly telling him that a unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will end in political, diplomatic, and military disaster. Netanyahu’s opponents include the current leaders of the Israeli military and the major intelligence branches and their most recent predecessors, to say nothing of a decisive majority of the Israeli population. They fear consequences as dire as regional war and an Iranian regime unified and strengthened by a sense of common purpose.

It's worth wondering if Netanyahu is just completely delusional:

In Netanyahu’s view, Obama, despite instituting crippling economic sanctions, despite carrying out a series of covert operations, despite diplomatic pressure, despite vows that an Iranian bomb is impermissible—despite all that—is weak and deluded. The Israeli Prime Minister has made no secret of his distrust, even though Israeli politicians acknowledge that intelligence and defense coöperation has never been stronger. His trusted American allies are not the elected President but, rather, his friends on the American right, the politicians, business people, and lobbyists, who are never willing to disagree with Israel at all. It has reached the point where even Netanyahu’s principal ally in sabre-rattling, the Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has shown signs that he, too, believes the Prime Minister has gone too far.

But the GOP is right behind him – and whatever he wants.

The Obama campaign is out with a few new ads today. Up in four states, this one hits Romney for his evasiveness on both his and voters' taxes:

And here they work in the AARP Voter Guide for an ad targeting seniors (ad buy size/scope unknown):

The Obama people also announced an $8 million buy in Wisconsin, and they've released a new TV ad thumping Romney/Ryan again on women's issues. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is extending last week's avalanche with another $8.1 million, as well as translating its Medi-scare attacks on Obama (ad buy size/scope unknown):

Stepping back, an independent study suggests that Obama's post-convention bounce may be at least partially the result of his team's ad strategy:

According to the Wesleyan Media Project's analysis of Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group data between Aug. 26 and Sept. 8, Obama and his allies aired 40,000 ads. During the same time, Romney and his allies aired 18,000 ads on broadcast and national cable. That added up to $21.1 million spent by the pro-Obama camp, versus $12.9 million spent by the Romney side. "This advantage may help to explain why Obama's convention bounce was larger than Romney's," concluded Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Elsewhere, the RNC is pushing grassroots campaigning in a new web video. And in outside spending news, Rove's American Crossroads Super PAC has produced its own version of the RNC's "Heard It All Before" videos, which NRO says "is apparently a test run for a national campaign in the closing weeks":

The pro-Romney Super (non-profit "issues") PAC American Future Fund released a bizarre ad saying that Obama is the preferred candidate of Wall Street (ad buy size/scope unknown):

Lastly, from the other side in outside spending, the pro-Democrat House Majority PAC is dropping $2.2 million on six new ads attacking House Republicans.

Ad War archive here.