DENVER — The dirty secret of campaign journalism for the next 11 days is that there is no way for conscientious reporters to give readers what they crave most of all—advance knowledge of who is going to win the election. We have reached the point in the campaign when the polls are too close and the dictates of spin too intense for anyone but a fool (or a TV pundit) to offer anything more than tentative guesses about who is going to be inaugurated on January 20.
When I was younger—and cockier about divining the future—I was convinced that if you had the right sources within a campaign, you could figure out the gist of their internal polling by their off-the-record mood and body language. So I was privy to the buoyant mood at the upper levels of the John Kerry campaign during the final heady week of the 2004 campaign. Sometimes in politics, though, the most potent spin comes from the lies that campaign strategists tell themselves as they interpret ambiguous information.
That is why I remain skeptical about the widespread claims that the Mitt Romney insiders believe that they are winning—and that the Republican nominee, in effect, won the third debate by not losing it. (Brendan Nyhan has also written on this topic today for CJR).
Maybe the king-of-the-world (or more accurately, CEO-of-the-world) mood in the Romney camp is for real. Maybe the hyper-rational business strategist from Bain Capital has assembled a campaign brain trust filled with cock-eyed optimists. Or, most likely, most of this is disinformation to cloud the minds of the press, bandwagon voters, and the Barack Obama campaign.
In Politico’s “Playbook” Friday morning, Mike Allen ran a lengthy section of dueling state-by-state analyses from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina and Rich Beeson, Romney’s political director. While a few of the comments were intriguing, most of the on-the-record commentary was obvious he-would-say-that-wouldn’t-he hype, such as Beeson claiming, “Virginia is a lot like Florida: It’s starting to head in the right direction.”
The rise of absentee and early voting has opened another front in the campaign spin war, one where journalists may be at a particular disadvantage. I suspect it is hard for many reporters (especially those from the East Coast, where Election Day still matters) to mentally adjust to the way that early voting has changed the rhythms of politics in the rest of the country.
Enough with the coy generalizations: I know it is the case with me. Here in Colorado, according to a new NBC News/WSJ/Marist Poll, 78 percent of all voters plan to vote before Election Day. As a result, I am tempted to spend a chilly afternoon conducting an impromptu exit poll in front of a mailbox.
Still, we have to try. And for all the glib talk of Mitt having the Big Mo, some of the best reporters on the campaign trail have filed pieces this week emphasizing the Obama campaign’s seeming edge in on-the-ground organization and vote-harvesting techniques. Two examples that are worth reading: Ryan Lizza (behind a paywall) in The New Yorker and Molly Ball in The Atlantic online. Their stories mesh with my own reporting from Ohio and Iowa.
Even here, a cautionary note is in order. It is possible to be gulled by the beehive of activity in an Obama office and to be overly impressed by the sheer number of storefronts (67 in Iowa alone) rented by the president’s campaign. This highly visible Obama presence may prove to be decisive in a close election. But I also recognize a certain instinctive reporter bias in favor of emphasizing anything that you can see, experience, and interview.
With organization, as with so much else during these final 11 days, we in the press are gambling that our theories about what creates a winning campaign are correct. Post-election, I hope we all spend a few weeks assessing which elements of campaign coverage were over-hyped (my tentative nominee: TV ads by super PACs), which were under-reported (maybe: the role of religion, from Romney’s Mormonism to the activities of megachurches) and which were (Goldilocks alert) just right.

In considering possibly bemoaning the situation where a candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electoral college, we should remember that the voters and political organizers know what the rules are going in. Voters in non-swing states often don't bother to, well, vote. If the presidency was determined by popular vote, we would have very different campaign practices and voter behavior. As for predtctions, I predict Obama will be re-elected by carrying the following "close" states: Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Oregon, giving him 273 electoral votes.
#1 Posted by Marty Hirschman, CJR on Fri 26 Oct 2012 at 03:41 PM
The reason the popular vote doesn't matter is because the candidates are not campaigning to win the popular vote. If they were, Romney would be spending time in Texas rather than Iowa and Obama would be in California and not New Hampshire. Pretending that it is somehow unfair that either could win electoral college but lose popular vote would be like complaining that a tennis player won 30 games to an opponent's 21 games but lost the match: 6-0;6-0;5-7;5-7;5-7. Those were the rules going in and those were the rules played by.
#2 Posted by Brent, CJR on Sat 27 Oct 2012 at 09:53 AM
What I find amazing is how one candidate could get skewered by a scream (hey there Howard Dean) and yet the press can talk about this candidate being wothin the grasp of winning popular vote after insulting 47% of it on camera.
Unless you guys know something we don't, Romney and his privatise social security, voucherize medicare, tax cuts for the rich and let the peons eat cake vice presidential party should lose badly.
Care to explain why they aren't? Because I, like Elizabeth Warren, am saying:
"Wait a minute, this guy, four years after the greatest crash since the Great Depression, this guy is running for office? On embracing the rule that lead to the biggest financial crash since the Great Depression! Hello?...
[T]hat's a way of saying that the Republican plan is to let the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful and somehow — that that will be America's future and that's their vision for America's future. I just... I don't know how we do anything other than get up and fight."
Where's the press in this fight, hmmn?
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 27 Oct 2012 at 05:07 PM
Here in Australia,President Obama is more popular than our own Prime Minister,and we all seem to think he has restored Americas standing and respect in the world.
I dont claim to understand American politics or voting system,but some times out siders looking in can see things that the locals cant,and im convinced a large part of the world cannot understand why the majority of US voters would not vote for Obama as we can see how articulate and intelligent he is and how he has restored respect for America across the globe.
#4 Posted by John O'Callaghan, CJR on Sun 28 Oct 2012 at 02:18 AM