A big part of Sarah Palin’s appeal has always been that she had the right enemies. Palin’s resentment of sneering East Coast elites, one of the subtexts of her bizarre resignation speech last Friday, has been one of her defining characteristics since she burst onto the national stage last fall—and, by all appearances, one of the big draws for her supporters.
Ross Douthat, in his column in today’s New York Times, seizes on that dynamic and argues, plausibly, that in contrast to our overachieving president, Palin’s popularity comes from the fact that she “represents the democratic ideal – that anyone can grow up to be a success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.” But when Douthat tries to extend his argument—claiming that Palin’s appeal “extends well outside the Republican Party’s shrinking base,” and that “her popularity has as much to do with class as it does with ideology”—the column becomes an object lesson in how to manipulate polling data.
Douthat’s argument hinges on one data point from a recent poll by the Pew Research Center: 48 percent of respondents without a college education view Palin favorably. But his analysis obscures as much as it illuminates. First, as with all stories based on polls, it’s best to broaden your sample to minimize the effect of outliers. (This is one of the lessons of FiveThirtyEight and similar Web sites, which use an aggregate view of polling data to predict election results with impressive accuracy.) But more to the point, Douthat’s position isn’t substantiated by the Pew poll—as Pew’s own interpretation of the data makes clear!
Where to start? For one thing, Palin’s favorable/unfavorable split among the general public is 45 percent to 44 percent. That makes her pretty much the definition of “polarizing”—but it also means that her support among the general population (45 percent) is pretty much identical to that among those with less than a college degree (48 percent). When you account for the likely imprecision of the latter number, which is based on a subset of the 1,502 respondents in the entire poll, there’s not much evidence for above-average Palin support among working-class voters. In fact, the last time Pew asked this question, in mid-October, it found exactly the same level of support for Palin among those with a college degree or more and those with a high school diploma or less: 41 percent.
So who provides Palin’s base of support? As Pew notes right in the headline of its write-up of the poll, the “Republican base.” Eighty percent of conservative Republicans, and 84 percent of white evangelicals, view her favorably. Among Republicans, she trumps Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele and even the rebounding Mitt Romney with a 73-17 favorability split. If that’s not an ideological base of support, what is?
As Pew notes, there’s nothing new in these findings. A Gallup poll conducted just after the election found a sharp partisan divide on views about Alaska’s governor, with less than half of the general public wanting to see her become a major national political figure. There is also evidence suggesting that unlike most vice-presidential nominees, who are electoral non-entities, Palin may have had a real—and detrimental—effect on the Republican ticket.
Douthat may be motivated to overlook this information because of his ongoing program to rebrand the Republican Party and make it more appealing, and responsive, to working-class families. There are good things to be said about that effort—but in Sarah Palin, he’s picked the wrong symbol.
I see CJR is continuing its tradition of extremely close reading and criticism of The Times' token conservative(s) among their columnists, while chastely averting its eyes from the stats used by Krugman (criticized by The Times' own ombudsman in his valedictory) or Herbert. Dowd gets criticized a lot in CJR, but mostly on style points. It's sad that a consumer has to go to right-wing sites such as the Media Resource Center or Newsbusters to find vigorous criticism of the dominant liberal-left tendency in the political and cultural press; CJR and Editor & Publisher are sadly in the tank for that tendency. New York, I guess.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 12:51 PM
Fact-free right-wing rhetorical spin is a hoary Times tradition. The Times need only have a moderately presentable placeholder for their 'conservative' column. Although the arguments of Douthat, Brooks, and the notoriously absurd baby Kristol are and have been regularly smashed to bits in the letters column, the right-wing column just has to show up for the Times to keep the flame of Wm. Safire burning in their pages.
#2 Posted by brooklyn, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 02:51 PM
A very nice summary of what we know intuitively. Palin is often talks about herself and is portrayed by her spinners as the representative of "real Americans." Who are the unreal Americans one wonders. Then there's the small town thing. I live in an archetypal Republican small town, albeit it in a blue state. Just about every person I've ever discussed Palin with, whether they be Republican or Democrat, regards her as clueless. The Republican base are in total denial about her as is well illustrated by Mark Richard's letter who ignores the solid data in this piece and chooses instead to shoot the messenger for apparently not being rigorous enough in fact checking errors by Krugman et al but he doesn't say what those errors are. Instead he prefers to get his info from the group reinforcing Newsbusters which is well known for it's objectivity. Personally I think Palin is quitting politics in order to cash in on her celebrity but I'd be happy to see her make the dreams of Mark come true and become the Republican candidate in 2012. It's the only way in which movement conservative mythmaking can be extirpated although I'm willing to bet even if the inevitable happened Mark Richard and his compadres would still be blaming it on media bias.
#3 Posted by john, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 02:58 PM
Uh, John, sorry I didn't write the piece that you wanted me to write, you know, edgy stuff putting down Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP answer to 1984's Geraldine Ferraro, but without the Mafia ties. Criticism of Palin is so hard to come by in our journalistic and entertainment culture. From some of the comments directed toward her, however, you would think she had gotten drunk, driven off a bridge, let her car-mate and prospective illicit boyfriend drown, and not notified the police for eight or nine hours while she called her lawyers and political advisors, then used her family's political influence to escape punishment. Or something like that.
Anyway, if you read carefully, or will have someone interpret the comment for you, I was writing about CJR, not Palin. The criticism of Douthat may be valid for all I know; look closely, and you will see I didn't challenge it. The point was that similar skepticism is seldom brought to bear on left-wing Times columnists, for the weariest and most predictable reason in the world, i.e., they agree with them, and appear to suspend their skepticism of the actual content of liberal stats and assertions. Krugman, for instance, called for a 'housing bubble' in a 2002 column, but your have to go outside the humdrum MSM to find out about this particular embarrassment for the oracle of W. 43th Street. CJR hasn't mentioned it - though it did recently run a story on what The Wall Street Journal was editorializing about way back in 1930.
I'm amused to discover that you just know I'm dreaming of Palin in the White House in 2012. ("Are my eyes really blue?" as Bogart/Rick said after reading his Nazi dossier in 'Casablanca'). I'm sure Republicans would be similarly amused to find out that The New York Times is their ideological friend, per Brooklyn - I guess if you are far enough out there politically, yes, The Times might seem 'right-wing' or, by the same token, The Wall Street Journal too 'left wing'. Here on planet Earth, I'll leave the usual vigorous, but not, in my opinion, first-rate rants against Sarah Palin or other predictable Republican targets to folks like yourself. I'm more interested in the journalism than the politics, as such, when I'm writing to a journalism review.
#4 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 04:27 PM
No need to be so defensive Mark, even Ferraro gets in on the act. I'm clear that you were shooting the messenger and said so. The reasons for the homicide were woefully transparent alas despite the attempts to divert/entertain(?) us with some rather tired casuistry.
#5 Posted by John, CJR on Tue 7 Jul 2009 at 05:23 PM
John, You're probably a good guy, at least you don't indulge in anonymous personal abuse, but . . . Since you keep wanting to talk about Sarah Palin, and I don't share this particular obsession of the urban chattering classes, but rather am interested in the reasons for the higher standards to which conservative writers are held by CJR than are the liberal ones, I'll stick to observing that you still apparently don't have the fist in your glove to address my original point - way back when - that CJR goes easier on Herbert and Krugman than it does on Douthat or it did on Kristol, for the obvious reason of simple political orientation. Which is why you keep changing the subject, I guess. You could offer up examples of tough analyses of Krugman and Herbert and their statistical citations and predictions, done by CJR, but you don't, instead, trying to shift the subject to Sarah Palin. There's a messenger being shot, all right - a case of what pop-psychology calls 'projection' on your part - for calling out CJR's laziness in this regard.
I guess I can point out that I don't mind criticism of Douthat until I'm blue in the face, but would like to see similar analysis of Krugman and Herbert, and you will still want to steer the conversation wearily back to How People Should Have Contempt for Sarah Palin. As I said, wearily, I'll leave that to you.
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 8 Jul 2009 at 09:38 AM