Krugman Blog: Bad Narratives
Every time we have a presidential election, I (and many others) find ourselves marveling at the way much of the news media settles on a narrative, and holds to that narrative no matter how much evidence accumulates that it’s wrong. In this campaign so far, the settled narrative is (1) American public full of rage at established figures (2) Hillary in trouble. Initially, actually, this was “public fed up with Bush and Clinton dynasties”, but had to be modified once it turned out that younger, fresher GOP establishment faces were equally hapless.
But what if none of this is true?
If Americans in general are full of rage, why does President Obama have a better approval rating than Ronald Reagan at this stage? This is actually amazing given the “negative partisanship” that ensures that Republicans will never express approval for a Democratic president.
As for Clinton, if you read the papers or, worse yet, watch cable, you’ve seen her doomed at least three times — last fall, before the Benghazi hearings, after the NH primary, and during the Sanders string of caucus victories before the New York primary. Strange to say, however, she’s about to win the nomination — and if the demographics-based projections are right, which they have consistently been, she’ll end up with about four times the delegate lead Obama had in 2008 and with a 4 million popular vote lead (as compared with the 2008 tie).
So how about a “counterintuitive” take —
Continued at krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
= new reply since forum marked as read
