One way to evaluate the claim that gaffes affect election outcomes is by considering recent history. Indeed, Cillizza cites two examples as evidence in his most recent piece (the second was also cited by Tumulty): John Kerry’s March 2004 statement that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan] before I voted against it,” and John McCain’s statement, in the early stages of the financial crisis in September 2008, that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” However, it’s not at all clear that the statements in question were the reason that the campaigns turned out as they did, rather than the winning candidates’ underlying advantages in the campaign fundamentals. Both George W. Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 performed approximately as well as election forecasting models expected, which suggests that these campaign events had limited influence.
Moreover, the effect of gaffes is not always clear even when they take place in high-profile presidential debates. As UNC political scientist James Stimson points out in his book Tides of Consent, Gerald Ford actually gained ground on Jimmy Carter after a widely-criticized gaffe in which he falsely said Eastern Europe was not dominated by the Soviet Union during a 1976 debate.
The underlying problem—and the biggest reason that gaffes are perpetually hyped by the media in the absence of evidence that they matter to voters—is that, despite all the cutbacks in journalism, too many reporters are chasing too few stories at this point in the presidential campaign. The incentives for perverse coverage are especially strong when little other news is being made. Editors should consider alternative approaches. Why not devote more resources to investigations, enterprise stories, and down-ballot races, and reduce the number of reporters covering the minutiae of the presidential campaign? We, the readers, will be just fine without them.
"Gaffes"? It reveals more about his mindset. That was no gaffe. I always wonder why you feel it necessary to defend Obama and shill for him than to ask tough questions. You wouldn't be giving -- and I don;t think you have in the past -- cut Romney or any other Republican the same slack if he committed such a "gaffe." Please be professional.
#1 Posted by Dan b, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 03:18 PM
Here's an alternative approach:
Why not devote more coverage to THIRD PARTIES?!
That's the height of a mix of laziness, "kingmaking" and other aspects of the worst of the Beltway Fourth Estate.
#2 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 04:19 PM
Dan's a bit right.
They're not gaffes:
http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/06/12/define-gaffe/
"First was the President’s. In theory, his statement that “the private sector is doing fine” was some sort of blunder. But it wasn’t. It was fact. Private sector hiring is up, private sector profits are up. But folks equate private sector to individuals...The real problem with the statement isn’t the statement itself, but the reaction from the left. They want to try to walk it back or change it.
Wrong move.
Just point out the facts – more hiring, more profits. And then point out that the private sector is not the whole economy. And that those profits aren’t being used to hire. That has nothing to do with the President and everything to do with businesses not getting those profits back into the economy in the form of wages. You want to fix this economy? Increase demand. How do you increase demand? Get more wages into the hands of consumers. It’s a pretty simple equation. And it’s why Republicans fail to improve the economy. As long as the folks at the top get their ever-increasing cut, screw wages for everyone else."
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 04:23 PM
Actually, the Romney spokesman's Etch a Sketch comment has been cited in many subsequent news stories and columns and continues to be mentioned. While Brendan Nyhan thinks it was overhyped, it obviously connected with media folks' assessment of Mitt Romney and his campaign and it hasn't died away -- and it won't because Romney has a long and well-documented history of extreme "flexibility." Nyhan overlooks that a "gaffe's" importance depends on whether it ties in with a pattern of statements and acts by a candidate. No serious observer believes that President Obama believes the economy is doing just fine, and he's made many efforts to goose the economy. So comparing Etch a Sketch and Obama's remark is another case of false equivalence by Nyhan.
#4 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 07:05 PM
Bravo. Nice to see a reality check on gaffe-gate.
#5 Posted by mary winter, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 07:46 PM
CJR carries Obama's water once again.
Well, somebody has to do a little journalism around here, I suppose"
Obama's Approval Ratings Dip to Lowest Level Since January
"The telephone poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday, mostly followed a rough week for Obama's campaign capped by his remarks on Friday that the private sector of the economy was "doing fine.""
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 10:51 PM
Two gaffes that had an effect: George Romney's remark that he was "brainwashed" and Michael Dukakis's answer, in a presidential debate, to a question about how he would react if his wife were murdered.
Another one that may have changed an election: Al Gore walking away from his lectern in a presidential debate to violate George Bush's space.
#7 Posted by Dan Kleinman, CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 01:36 AM
Gatekeepers lecture journalists on how to cover the president's trivial actions. Meanwhile, said gatekeepers completely ignore the president's foreign and domestic wars (especially the use of drones and other police-state tyranny against Americans).
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 14 Jun 2012 at 10:33 AM