Debate Miscellany***

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


DEBATE MISCELLANY….Some miscellaneous notes:

  • On CNN, John King just said “19 days is a long time.” Really? Does anyone else think 19 days is really all that long a time?

  • Conventional pundit wisdom seems to accept that a vigorous attack shows strength. But that’s not true. Think of all the genuinely strong people you’ve known in your life. What sets them apart is that they stay calm when other people are attacking. McCain doesn’t seem to get this, and neither do the conservatives who were insisting that McCain needed to haul out the heavy artillery tonight. Obama does.

  • From Ezra Klein: “The angry energy showed on McCain’s face as clearly as in his answers. CNN, at least, had the split screen, and McCain was grimacing, twitching, blinking, sighing, smirking, eye-rolling. Scores of YouTubers are, as we speak, constructing videos that will be nothing but a three minute collection of McCain’s angry tics.”

  • Here’s a remarkable thought: John McCain was almost certainly the Republican Party’s strongest candidate this year. Any of the others would be doing even worse right now. If Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani had won the nomination we’d be heading toward the biggest landslide in half a century.

  • Todd Gitlin asks: “If almost all the postgame pundits thought McCain had a good night; but the snap polls show that overwhelming percentages thought Obama “won”…what does the discrepancy tell you? Either (a) the pundits had some extraordinary insight denied to ordinary benighted Americans, or (b) the pundits’ snap judgments are worthless — in fact, a negative indicator.”

    Guess #1: Pundits really like fireworks, and they think sharp attacks show strength and vitality. But the public, outside of the hardcore base on both sides, mostly views them as petty and mean. Guess #2: The pundits gave McCain way too much credit for the quality of his attacks. Sure, he delivered them with a sort of crotchety energy, but most of them were actually pretty lame. Guess #3: They all felt sorry for him and were just trying to think of something good to say about him before they declared the race irrevocably over.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest