Press Rogue — May 23, 2019, 2:59 pm

One Horse Town

“Twitter isn’t real life.” So declared New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg last week, writing on the budding Democratic presidential primary. In fact, as a source of information on the state of the party, the platform is “actively misleading,” she said, noting that Bernie Sanders has twice as many followers as Joe Biden, yet it’s Biden who’s leading in the polls. “Left-wing Twitter isn’t a microcosm of the Democratic Party,” she went on, “it’s just a small, noisy fraction of it.”

A month earlier, Goldberg’s colleague Lisa Lerer had primed the pump by complaining that Twitter was “totally unrepresentative of America.” She cited an analysis in the Times which found that Democrats on Twitter tend to be more white, more educated, and more liberal than the party’s voters as a whole. And in the wake of Goldberg’s column, Bret Stephens took up the cause as well: “The sensible center of America—that is, the people who choose presidents in this country—wants to see Donald Trump lose next year, but not if it means empowering the junior totalitarians of the left. Now is Biden’s chance to make it clear he’s just the man to fulfill that hope.”

It’s one thing to say Twitter isn’t representative; it’s another to say Democrats want a centrist candidate, or that they’re dead set on Biden. Yet for these writers, the logical gap between these assertions might as well not exist. They point to polling as justification, but neglect to mention that at this stage in the 2016 cycle Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker were all jockeying for frontrunner status.

Any attempt to articulate the primary’s outcome at this early stage amounts to little more than guesswork, but refuting Twitter as a potential source of information about the Democratic electorate is revealing. By attempting to wrest the narrative away from a bunch of A.O.C. super-fans, the Times’ editorialists are making clear their preference for simplistic horse race coverage over more holistic analysis. Factoring in Twitter, especially when it contradicts the polls, requires a more nuanced view of the race, one that grapples with policy debates about health care and climate change. What these writers seem reluctant to acknowledge is that the more nuanced view would probably be more accurate, too.

Biden’s numbers undoubtedly look commanding compared to what Jeb et al managed in May 2015. Still, it would be foolish to ignore other measures of public opinion. As Goldberg observed, Trump’s following on Twitter in 2015 “far outstripped his rivals. His tweets drove news cycles, and channeled the resentments of a furious base.” She mentions a Times report from October of that year which laid out how the businessman had “managed to fulfill a vision… sketched out a decade ago by a handful of digital campaign strategists: a White House candidacy that forgoes costly, conventional methods of political communication and relies instead on the free, urgent and visceral platforms of social media.”

By the time that article ran, Trump was leading in the polls with numbers that were widely ignored by commentators, including The Atlantic’s David Greenberg, who argued that the story these surveys were telling about “an angry populism” on the rise could be an “illusion.” In that case, it seems, the polls weren’t worth listening to unless they told you something you already believed. Observers aren’t likely to make that mistake again, yet there’s still a temptation to treat Trump’s use of Twitter as a one-off road to electoral success. That analysts took so long to come around to the idea of Trump as the tribune of the GOP is all the more reason to do the opposite of what the Times is suggesting. Twitter, in 2015, was something of a leading indicator, meaning it presaged where the polls were headed. There’s no guarantee that such a phenomenon will repeat itself over the next eight months—but then, there’s no guarantee that it won’t, either.

Instead, the media appears to have embraced a simplistic narrative about the Democratic primary—one that myopically treats the polls as an excuse to hoist Biden up on a pedestal. On Friday, CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote that the primary was Biden’s “race to lose,” and in the days since, Smilin’ Joe has been called a “frontrunner” by everyone from Reuters to Fox News. Treating Biden’s current lead as predictive promises to be self-reinforcing. As the press narrows in on him as a leading candidate, it will become harder and harder for other contenders to get their messages out, meaning Biden will have little incentive to engage with their positions and proposals in a way that might force him to meaningfully reexamine his own.

On Tuesday, CNN’s lead poll-minder Harry Enten demonstrated why it’s vital to avoid narrowing in on one presidential aspirant at this early stage. He wrote that though Biden’s numbers were consistent with what other candidates who had gone on to win the nomination were garnering at this point in the primary, Biden nevertheless still looked like a “frontrunner who wins somewhere between 40% and 50% of the time, which leaves the door open to challengers.” There are more than twenty Democrats vying for the anti-Biden title. It would be a mistake to shoo them out of the spotlight before they’ve had their say.

Horse-race coverage makes sense to some degree—we all want to know who’s going to win, and a policy position only matters if one is in a position to execute it—but with so much time before any votes are cast, why are observers in such a rush? What’s preventing them from directing their attention to the debates happening among leftists on Twitter about the Green New Deal or the student loan crisis? A primary’s raison d’être is determining the nominee, but the process serves a double purpose: it allows the party to take stock of what it stands for and what needs to change ahead of the next election. Even if Twitter doesn’t end up being much of a leading indicator for the Democrats this time around, the political conversations happening on the platform nonetheless need to be heard.

The Times’ analysis makes clear that activists’ opinions on social media don’t represent the party as a whole. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Observers like Goldberg and Stephens will be proven wrong again and again in the next eighteen months; as they whittle away the time before average voters start paying attention, these writers would do well to demonstrate a bit of humility about their own powers of prognostication. There’s a dissonance between the voices online and the voices at a Biden rally, sure. But that dissonance tells us something about what the electorate wants for the nation. Try listening. The small, noisy fraction might have something useful to say—if their ideas seem to stretch beyond what the opinionator class considers real life, well, maybe the editorialists need to take off their blinders.

Share
Single Page

More from Kyle Paoletta:

Press Rogue May 16, 2019, 4:00 pm

Playing With Fire

Press Rogue May 9, 2019, 4:00 pm

Boys on the Bus

Press Rogue May 2, 2019, 3:41 pm

Correct the Record

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2019

Make Way for Tomorrow

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Red Dot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Gimme Shelter

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Body Language

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Trash, Rock, Destroy

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Gimme Shelter·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I.

That year, the year of the Ghost Ship fire, I lived in a shack. I’d found the place just as September’s Indian summer was giving way to a wet October. There was no plumbing or running water to wash my hands or brush my teeth before sleep. Electricity came from an extension cord that snaked through a yard of coyote mint and monkey flower and up into a hole I’d drilled in my floorboards. The structure was smaller than a cell at San Quentin—a tiny house or a huge coffin, depending on how you looked at it—four by eight and ten feet tall, so cramped it fit little but a mattress, my suit jackets and ties, a space heater, some novels, and the mason jar I peed in.

The exterior of my hermitage was washed the color of runny egg yolk. Two redwood French doors with plexiglass windows hung cockeyed from creaky hinges at the entrance, and a combination lock provided meager security against intruders. White beadboard capped the roof, its brim shading a front porch set on cinder blocks.

After living on the East Coast for eight years, I’d recently left New York City to take a job at an investigative reporting magazine in San Francisco. If it seems odd that I was a fully employed editor who lived in a thirty-two-square-foot shack, that’s precisely the point: my situation was evidence of how distorted the Bay Area housing market had become, the brutality inflicted upon the poor now trickling up to everyone but the super-rich. The problem was nationwide, although, as Californians tend to do, they’d taken this trend to an extreme. Across the state, a quarter of all apartment dwellers spent half of their incomes on rent. Nearly half of the country’s unsheltered homeless population lived in California, even while the state had the highest concentration of billionaires in the nation. In the Bay Area, including West Oakland, where my shack was located, the crisis was most acute. Tent cities had sprung up along the sidewalks, swarming with capitalism’s refugees. Telegraph, Mission, Market, Grant: every bridge and overpass had become someone’s roof.

Article
Body Language·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I am eight years old, sitting in my childhood kitchen, ready to watch one of the home videos my father has made. The videotape still exists somewhere, so somewhere she still is, that girl on the screen: hair that tangles, freckles across her nose that in time will spread across one side of her forehead. A body that can throw a baseball the way her father has shown her. A body in which bones and hormones lie in wait, ready to bloom into the wide hips her mother has given her. A body that has scars: the scars over her lungs and heart from the scalpel that saved her when she was a baby, the invisible scars left by a man who touched her when she was young. A body is a record or a body is freedom or a body is a battleground. Already, at eight, she knows it to be all three.

But somebody has slipped. The school is putting on the musical South Pacific, and there are not enough roles for the girls, and she is as tall as or taller than the boys, and so they have done what is unthinkable in this striving 1980s town, in this place where the men do the driving and the women make their mouths into perfect Os to apply lipstick in the rearview. For the musical, they have made her a boy.

No, she thinks. They have allowed her to be a boy.

Article
Trash, Rock, Destroy·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The writer and filmmaker Virginie Despentes lives in a nondescript modern building in the Belleville neighborhood of Paris. I know it well: it has a Bricorama—like a French Home Depot—on the ground floor, where we sometimes had cause to shop back when we lived in the neighborhood. The people who work there seemed to hate their jobs more than most; they were often absent from the sales floor. In the elevator to Despentes’s apartment, I marvel that while I was trying to get someone to help me find bathroom grout she was right upstairs, with her partner, Tania, a Spanish tattoo artist who goes by the name La Rata, like someone out of one of Despentes’s novels.

In an email before our meeting, Despentes asked that we not do a photo shoot. “There are so many images available already,” she explained. Much had been written about her, too. A Google search yielded page after page: profiles, interviews, reviews, bits and bobs—she read from Pasolini at a concert with Béatrice Dalle; someone accused her of plagiarizing a translation; a teacher in Switzerland was fired for teaching her work. The week I met her, she appeared in the culture magazine Les Inrockuptibles in conversation with the rapper-turned-actor JoeyStarr. The woman is simply always in the news.

Article
Burning Down the House·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Discussed in this essay:

Plagued by Fire: The Dreams and Furies of Frank Lloyd Wright, by Paul Hendrickson. Knopf. 624 pages. $35.

Frank Lloyd Wright isn’t just the greatest of all American architects. He has so eclipsed the competition that he can sometimes seem the only one. Who are his potential rivals? Henry Hobson Richardson, that Gilded Age starchitect in monumental stone? Louis Sullivan, lyric poet of the office building and Wright’s own Chicago mentor, best known for his dictum that form follows function? “Yes,” Wright corrected him with typical one-upmanship, “but more important now, form and function are one.” For architects with the misfortune to follow him, Wright is seen as having created the standards by which they are judged. If we know the name Frank Gehry, it’s probably because he designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. And Gehry’s deconstructed ship of titanium and glass would be unimaginable if Wright hadn’t built his own astonishing Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue some forty years earlier.

Article
The Red Dot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

That night at the window, looking out at the street full of snow, big flakes falling through the streetlight, I listened to what Anna was saying. She was speaking of a man named Karl. We both knew him as a casual acquaintance—thin and lanky like Ichabod Crane, with long hair—operating a restaurant down in the village whimsically called the Gist Mill, with wood paneling, a large painting of an old gristmill on a river on one wall, tin ceilings, and a row of teller cages from its previous life as a bank. Karl used to run along the river, starting at his apartment in town and turning back about two miles down the path. He had been going through the divorce—this was a couple of years ago, of course, Anna said—and was trying to run through his pain.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

Shortly after the Regional Council of Veneto, in Italy, voted against climate-change legislation, its chambers were flooded.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today