The WikiLeaks dump this weekend of DNC emails was major news. It brought down the DNC Chairman, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, and has people calling out "RIGGED!" I think the leaks were damaging, but not as damaging (or for the same reason) as most people believe. So let's pull out the Analysis-O-Tron.
Why isn't this as bad as we think?
Many of the emails journalists have pointed to as the "worst" ones were after the nomination was largely wrapped up. I went to both liberal and conservative sites to find their lists of the worst emails. Pay attention to timing: I wrote on May 5 on this site that the Democratic nomination was effectively wrapped up. Most data-driven commentators had essentially called the race by then. Even though about nine states had yet to vote, it would have taken a miracle for Sanders to overcome the lead already generated.
On May 5, the "most damning" email from most sites was written: several DNC members talking about if someone could ask Sanders about his religion. It's one thing to talk about doing it, but I don't know if anyone ever did. If they did, I never heard about it, and I pay attention to politics more than most. Just because you talk about doing something stupid doesn't mean the angels of your better virtue didn't stop yourself.
Several other "most damning" emails came after the troubling Nevada convention, which... didn't go well. Wasserman Schultz called Sanders' campaign manager a "damn liar." But why? It was in response to him publicly accusing her/the party of rigging the system. She also had another semi-negative statement about Sanders — but the context is important: It was in an email chain about an interview SANDERS had given to Politico in which he accused the party of being unfair. If Person A says Person B rigged the system, and Person B privately calls them a liar, I don't think that Person B is being outrageous. You'd have to have evidence from before Person A's accusations, and I haven't seen any from this email dump (though more are rumored to be coming).
I'd also say that many of the things that supposedly show conspiracy probably is just the way the proverbial sausage is made. In one, the DNC communications director starts throwing out ideas about how to summarize how Sanders lost, that his campaign never had its act together. But another staffer shoots that down. Not every idea makes it to the final product, and this is one example. Further, it was May 21, and although California/New Jersey had yet to vote, the race was over, sans a miracle. There's no smoking gun here.
Largely, most of the "damning" emails were either a) reactions to accusations by the Sanders camp b) how the sausage of politics is made — throwing out plans and ideas, many of which never come to fruition or c) the type of behind-the-scenes talk no one ever wants to be made public.
Is that surprising?
Sanders had never called himself a Democrat until the presidential race, then spent most of the race being accusatory toward the party itself. It's no surprise that there would be some emails showing frustration/negative attitudes toward Sanders. I'm waiting to see a leaked email from before late April, when the race was not "over," but had already been decided.
Timing/context does matter. At that point, the GOP race had wrapped up despite being closer than the Democratic race. The emails most are calling damning are from that period in which Sanders was holding out hope and being accusatory toward the party.
What about the attempts to influence journalists?
This may surprise you, but I have no problem with this. It's the DNC's job to promote the party. If they (and the RNC, to be honest), weren't trying these sort of things, they'd be doing a bad job. It's the journalists' job to remain objective. From all but one email, it appears to be the type of damage control/attempt to influence that you'd expect. There's no collusion, simply the "Cover us better" type of requests on this issue or another that are common. I received those from politicians on both sides when I was a reporter. It's their job to seek better coverage and the reporter's job to tactfully say "Take a hike."
One email requires a deeper look, in which Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel sends a copy of his story to a DNC contact before it goes to his editor. At first glance, this breaks journalism rules. There's a very black-and-white ethical issue of sending your stories to sources before publishing. However, when it comes to major scoops or sensitive information, I've seen journalists this done before. It is a quid pro quo: You give me access; I give you first glance. Personally, I'd rather have been scooped than be too cozy with my sources. But others would rather break a few eggs to make a better batter. It's a trade-off they're willing to make, but I'm not. In short, it's an ethical quandary, and I think he's wrong, but I'm willing to admit that others are willing to go farther than me. But: It's a question of journalistic ethics, not DNC ethics.
Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz need to go/What are the lasting effects?
I would say yes, and the writing should have been on the wall even before the emails came out. The Sanders campaign had created an us-versus-them strategy that galvanized people against the party. I've not seen enough evidence to convince me that they were 100 percent right yet. However, there was too much defensiveness coming from the DNC, and I would say that their decisions re: debate schedule weren't beneficial to Sanders or the public. Wasserman Schultz had become the identifiable face of the party-as-the-problem. Her term was to end in January anyway, but I think she'd have been booed at the DNC if these emails came out or not. She had become a problem, and it needed to be excised.
As for lasting effects, I'm not sure there are many. The superdelegate rules have been rewritten per Sanders' camp's request so that 2/3 of them are bound to state primaries/caucuses. The DNC platform includes several Sanders issues. Sanders is speaking tonight. The best thing the DNC can do is to have no more drama. The last thing they want to appear is divided.
Did the DNC's actions (as revealed by this email) affect the race?
I see no evidence. Sanders lost by millions of votes and never was able to congeal the minority vote behind him. Ultimately, that's what cost him: He couldn't win black and Hispanic votes. In order to connect A (Sanders losing) to C (DNC collusion), I need evidence of B (the DNC influencing the minority vote).
Compare and Contrast
I'm interested to see not just who speaks, but what they say. Bernie Sanders (top rival) is up on Monday, and if he gives an enthusiastic endorsement of Hillary, that's a clear sign Democrats are united. Most major Democrats are "With Her" with enthusiasm: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Barack Obama. Compare to the tepid endorsements by McConnell, Paul Ryan and the non-endorsement/major rebuke by Ted Cruz. In short: Democrats are united, the GOP is begrudgingly accepting.
Trump's Big Speech
I wrote on Facebook that I was struck by the Nixonian ("Law and Order candidate") and Lindberghian language (Historical aside: Aviator Charles Lindbergh was a major touter of the "America First" line, anti-WWII intervention and also anti-Semite — in the 1930s/40s. History doesn't like to talk about his politics career for that reason). I told Alyson early on that if he says "law and order," it's a political reference to Nixon. He said it in his fourth sentence. And the Washington Post indicated that this was intentional: "The Trump team indicated in advance that the speech would be based in part on Richard Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech."
But let's look more analytically at his speech.
Crime and violence in the abstract isn't actually actually up — it's down. FBI crime rates show that after a peak of crime/violence in the early 1990s, there's been a steady decline since then. Yes, there's been more officer shootings (this rules out traffic deaths, etc.) in the first six months of this year compared to last year, but the broader trend is down from 2005. Illegal immigration from Mexico is actually pretty stagnant this year and has been since roughly 2009. The trade deficit is pretty stable and has been better under the Obama administration than the Bush administration. While the national debt is up, the amount being added to it each year has dropped every year of the Obama presidency. He said that Iran caught our soldiers before the Iran nuclear deal, but it occurred afterward. He accused James Comey, FBI director and Bush appointee, of downplaying Clinton's email scandal. While claiming Hillary's tax plan is "massive," he ignores that his own would "explode the nation's debt," per a nonpartisan group. America is not one of the most highly taxed nations — it ranks 27th out of 30 when compared to economic peers. Yes, the size of the military has shrunk, but that's because of Congress's terrible sequestration issue, not Obama's decision. He was right and wrong about black unemployment and black youth unemployment, respectively. He usually accurately quoted or summarized Clinton's positions.
Five times, Trump says to "Believe Me." Three times he says he's going to "do X fast." Multiple times he talks about how bad current things are without noting that it costs money to fix it. He talks about a plan for law and order, and reforms for the economy, but never mentions specifics about how. He says we'll replace Obamacare, but doesn't say how. He says he'll fix the TSA, but makes no mention of how. The two most specific plans I've found reading the transcript are a) build a wall and b) eliminate regulations on energy companies to generate $2 trillion (roughly 9 percent of the GDP!). Alyson noted that he keeps saying to believe him, but she doesn't believe him. The speech was largely about tearing down Obama/Clinton and establishing fear. I encourage you to read the transcript and see if you agree. It's one thing to tear down an opponent; it's another to give a reason to vote for you.
Summary Judgments
A former colleague of mine from my OU days, Tres Savage, wrote a good editorial on why WikiLeaks should not be confused for journalism. I was angered, too, by people conflating the two. WikiLeaks should not be praised for results obtained by unethical behavior. • • • Evie learned Mommy's name is Alyson this weekend. Alyson! Alyson! It's hilarious to me, largely because she hasn't started calling me Andrew yet. • • • Look for more coverage on Thursday or Friday from News Judgments about the DNC convention. I'll probably do an analysis of Clinton's speech, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment