Sigh. Yesterday was a truly historic day in Mississippi as Barak Obama won the Democratic Presidential Primary over Hillary Clinton. However, Madame DeLadd of The Jackson Free Press lived up to her drama queen image with the following comments:
"The Clarion-Ledger is still saying turnout was "light to moderate" this morning! Are they just going to pretend to Mississippians that they didn't screw this up, or that Hosemann didn't!?! This is unbelievable. If the Ledger can't figure out that this was a remarkable turnout, how can we expect national media?
Oh my God, The Clarion-Ledger and reporter Natalie Chandler are embarrassing!?!
She writes:"Turnout was light to moderate in a state with 1.78 million voters."
Oh. My. God.Where are the turnout numbers? Where is the correction of what she wrote last night about Dems and Republicans putting out about the same number of voters? Where is the comparison with past primaries? Is the Ledger trying to hide what happened in Mississippi last night? Are they covering for Hosemann? Why???This may be worse than the Ledger hiding the fact that Melton was lying under oath in a case involving them during his campaign. Maybe not, but it is truly, truly awful reporting and framing of a national story. Do they think no one will notice?"
When she decides to calm down, maybe she will realize a few facts. A little over half a million Mississippians voted yesterday. There are approximately 1.78 million voters in the state. Only 28% of Mississippi voters went to the polls yesterday. At first glance, that is a pretty light turnout. However, it was still a huge increase from 2004 where 100,000 or so people voted (the turnout then was only 5% of eligible voters).
She then tries to accuse Mr. Hoseman of trying to suppress voter turnout by estimating that he expected it to be 150,000 voters, which is still a substantial increase from 2004. How many people do she think are going to be swayed by what some state officials says about voter turnout? Mr. Hoseman was merely estimating what he thought turnout would be based on past primaries. If you look at the historical numbers for Mississippi presidential primaries, they have always been extremely low. It is true that yesterday's turnout was a huge increase but 28% is still considered to be "light to moderate" by most standards although the "state" newspaper should have done a better job of covering the huge increase in turnout. However, it is ridiculous to accuse them of having some agenda to cover up for a Secretary of State and trying to hide racial progress in Mississippi.
True to form Ms. Ladd engages in some propaganda herself:
"People, the word of the name was *turnout*. Mississippi voters have always been racially polarized; that is not news. What is news is that a black candidate was able to get nearly a third of registered voters to turn out to vote for or against him, and that 30 percent of his voters in Mississippi were white." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=16498_0_27_0_C#109011 (disclaimer: clicking on link will increase traffic on the JFP website.)
Not so fast Ms. Ladd. 30 percent? 400,000 voted in the Democratic primary, give or take a few. 400,000 divided by 1,780,000 equals 22%. That means TWENTY-TWO PERCENT of Mississippi voters cast ballots in the Democratic Primary, NOT thirty percent. Nice try but you've been busted. (She writes in another thread about the primaries: "And bless these reporters' hearts, but can't they find some journalists who can do basic math?" irony)
So let me see, this week you have managed to accuse the CL of engaging in coverups, a Secretary of State trying to mislead voters, the national media of missing the real story here in Mississippi that only you "got", and tried to insinuate that proponents of the Tougaloo site for the Civil Rights Museum such as Beverly Hogan (who is one of the nicest and most ethical leaders in this area, black or white) are somehow unethical or shady (never mind Ms. Hogan, Reuben Anderson, and others WERE fighting for civil rights and blazing trails while you ran off to New York) while you take money from a downtown organization for a publication promoting downtown.
Lets not forget your little barbs last night thrown at Clarion-Ledger reporters for being ignorant or not knowing state politics to your satisfaction, never mind all the times you've used the fact you didn't move here until 2001 when challenged on issues involving Jackson's past as a defense for being ignorant on local politics. I will give you credit though. At least this time you didn't accuse them of practicing racism or sexism, writing in the passive voice, or plagiarizing. This time it was just gross incompetence, awful journalism, and covering up the facts, so we should be grateful for the improvement in our local newspaper. However, the week is only halfway over so perhaps you can manufacture some more drama or find more proof of the great Mississippi conspiracy.
Update: Marshall Ramsey has a cartoon in Friday's edition of the CL making fun of Hoseman's estimates (JFP accusation of plagerism in 10 seconds....) and the paper did write a feature story on the huge increase in turnout yesterday. Guess someone in Fondren doesn't realize that those reporters are covering multiple stories, returns are not finalized until nearly midnight, and they have to get their stories written VERY quickly as the paper has to come out by 3 or 4 in the morning. They can't just sit back and pick and choose what they will cover. Hmmm..... of course, the media expert who has never been a reporter at a major daily newspaper might now know that of course. It should be noted that they wrote further analysis the next day, when they had time. The pattern over the years has been to write the coverage for the day after election edition, and then write the analysis and more in depth coverage in the following issue. It was also funny to see Ms. Ladd criticizing Leah Rupp and saying the reporters could not do basic math when she couldn't even spell Ms. Rupps name right. Maybe Ms. Ladd should try a new experience and write for a daily newspaper and cover a few elections.
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION04
http://search.clarionledger.com/sp?eId=100&gcId=18121048&rNum=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clarionledger.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D2008803130374&siteIdType=2
http://search.clarionledger.com/sp?eId=100&gcId=18121048&rNum=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clarionledger.com%2Fapps%2Fpbcs.dll%2Farticle%3FAID%3D200880312029&siteIdType=2
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The histrionics continue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
She did not say that 30% of MS voters cast ballots in the Democratic Primary. She said 30% of those who voted for Obama were white.
bull. go back and read the sentencce before it.
"What is news is that a black candidate was able to get nearly a third of registered voters to turn out to vote for or against him"
Bull? Well, about 30% of registered voters turned out to vote yesterday...right? If you ask me, 30% is pretty close to a third. Either they voted for Obama or they voted against him (Hillary or McCain).
I can see why you say that but I'm takin gher comments to mean just the Democratic primary, not both. Judging from a couple of comments over there, I'm not the only one.
Hmmm...what she said seemed pretty clear to me. :)
The Kiddie Chronicle isn't always known for clarity.....usually just vulgarity.
I usually try to be clear and I apologize for the vulgarity.
My numbers:
In the 2004 Democratic primary for president, John Kerry won at 78.4%, gaining 59,815 of the 76,298 votes cast. Better candidates, better ideas, and competition in 2008 combined to create a 447% increase in Democratic presidential primary voters over 2004.
Let’s go back to 2000. Al Gore got 89.62%, with only 79,408 votes of the total 114,979 cast. The 2008 primary turnout is a 263% increase over 2000.
Total votes cast last night in both presidential primaries: 559,242
Total votes cast in 2000 in both presidential primaries: 203, 581
A 175% increase.
The SoS had no clue. Neither did the C-L. Neither--frankly--did anyone else that it would be like this.
And, it's "Barack."
Exactly. I think its a story worth exploring further and in the rush to cover elections, the CL and others may have missed it or not covered it properly but there is a strong case to be made for their writing a story on it.
No one could've predicted this despite all the hype and there was no need for trashing the reporters, the SOS, NPR, etc.
You can't just compare now and then primary numbers. General elections, yes, by all means, but not primaries.
This year you have to also consider the fact that the POTUS nomination for Democrats is not settled and that there are 2 Congressional seats open with competitive primaries on both sides (3 of 4 which went to runoffs). Those facts when analyzing turnout are very large considerations.
Hoseman was way wide of the mark but I doubt it was anything more than a terribly missed projection and an odd, for him, lack of understanding as to what was happening nationally and transpiring in Mississippi. A political tin ear, if you will. But he certainly wasn't trying to suppress turnout and had nothing to gain from his big goof except to appear out-of-touch with reality.
Obama brought more people out, no doubt. Gobs of people. He's an energizer for sure and that is goodness for our system regardless of your political stripe. But to make these huge numerical leaps to make it sound like he, alone, was responsible for unheard of increases in turnout based on incomplete historical comparisons is spin.
Ladd herself plays fast and loose with stats. So much so that the examples are too numerous and our time to document every instance too precious to bother. More voter participation in the process is a very good thing for Mississippi. Hyping the numbers beyond their elasticity to pummel/attack people and businesses you've beat repeatedly before does nothing to auger Ladd's arguments or credibility.
But leave it to Ladd to take a positive, whip it into one of her patented nutjob conspiracy theories, add a dash of outrage over journalistic incompetence from the local forces of the paid daily and then use it to remind everyone, for the 4295th time, about what and whom she personally hates. Good job Ladd!
Frankly I am enjoying this race for a different reason. The current method is NOT Democratic. by the third or fourth primary, the race is always over, regardless of party. For the first time, people actually have a say so in this process from the start.
If we are going to use the system of having everything done within 2 primaries or so, I'd rather scrap them and go back to the old way. At least we'd have more of a say through our delegates instead of no say at all which is usually the case.
I second Gorjus. Nobody saw this coming, and nobody should be trashed for not seeing this coming. If Hosemann and C-L folks had estimated high turnout and turnout was low, then they would have been accused of playing the expectations game against Obama. (I say this, by the way, as an enthusiastic Obama supporter who attended the rally Monday night.)
I'm afraid the reason she's specifically going after Natalie Chandler, instead of other media folks who reported the same numbers, is because she saw Natalie and me exchange pleasant words at the rally. I hope I'm wrong, but the timing bothers me.
I seriously doubt you had anything to do with it. She trashed Leah too although not by name. She is merely following her little template of the ledge is bad, has a segregationist past, got Melton elected, covered up for him, and is engaging in the same behavior. And Hoseman is a Republican and is naturally out to get minorities so everyting he does is viewed in that light. I could almost write her posts for her they are so predictable.
Look, there is no story line if Hoseman hadn't made such a way off prediction. Turnout has been strong, even record breaking, in many states this year. Had Hoseman said nothing then the story would be another state where the primary for the Democrats motivated folks, whatever their rationale, to get off their duffs and out to the polls
But there is much more compositionally ~~ considering all that was going on statewide ~~ than simply comparing raw primary numbers from 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The numbers of being baldly juked to fit this hypothesis. The idea that "Democrats found 300,000 new people" in Mississippi is a huge stretch. If Obama wins the nomination and gets 60% in Mississippi come November then we'll have our sea change. The enthusiasm is fantastic but to make such an assertion on apples-to-oranges comparisons from primaries is statistical hyperventiliation.
Hoseman did estimate 50% higher turnout out than last time. I hardly call that lying.
'Fish, you may be right. I consider both Natalie and Leah friends, and they're both great journalists who had an obscene amount of work to do in a very short period of time. Neither Donna nor I would have done any better, and probably would not have done nearly as well given the deadline constraints.
Would also add that the tone, and methodology, is nasty.
The decent way to do things would have been to send an email to Natalie (her addy is on the web site) and recommend a correction. Blogging about how this proves she's "stupid," no good at math, etc. etc. etc. plays into misogynistic stereotypes and happens to be false as well. Natalie's plenty smart. She just has a lot of ground to cover. I'm sure it must seem nice to have such a relaxed schedule as a journalist that spending two days sniping at somebody on a blog qualifies as work, but Natalie doesn't have that luxury. She has actual work to do.
i guess not being able to do math does not include calculating paying your taxes.
Who needs to do that when you've got downtown jackson partners?
Post a Comment