How to Read a Campaign Horse-race Story
By Andrew R. Cline, Ph.D.

21 November 2003

In about eight weeks, the nomination will be won by the candidate who manages to take the lead in the last national Gallup poll before the Iowa caucuses. So says the Mayer predictive model of primary campaigns. This remarkably accurate model has predicted all but one contest (Hart in 1988 for obvious reasons) since 1980.

As I said in my essay on the press-politics of primary campaigns, the press portrays this stable political process as unstable, as a horse-race with an uncertain outcome.

Below I have reproduced a typical horse-race story from the Associated Press and analyzed its structure, rhetoric, and political utility:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- His staff shaken but voters not stirred, Democrat John Kerry has adopted a sharp shift in rhetoric and tactics, including 24-hour campaign sprints and a full-court press in Iowa.

The lede of this article shows what happens when reporters/editors try too hard to create drama and interest. First, the reporter uses antithesis with a pop-culture allusion to the way the fictional character James Bond takes his martinis. Next, the reporter editorializes in an attempt to heighten drama by characterizing Kerry's current rhetoric and tactics  as a "sharp shift." Rhetoric and tactics are nearly always used pejoratively in journalistic discourse because they are thought to indicate deception. Finally, the reporter ends his lede my mixing a metaphor--moving from martinis to hoops in one sentence.

The New Englander trails so badly in New Hampshire that he needs a seismic showing to salvage his campaign. Kerry is airing new ads and hiring campaign-tested strategists in hopes of regaining his political footing after firing his campaign manager and the subsequent departure of two senior advisers.

Here the reporter has become an expert in campaign politics. Without attribution to expert sources, we learn that, metaphorically, Kerry's campaign is in trouble unless the earth shakes and therefore, mixed-metaphorically, needs to be salvaged. How does he know this? We finish this paragraph with a standard political hiking metaphor (that followed a race metaphor). We're still short on facts and long on style and opinion.

His new stump speech accuses President Bush of giving Americans a "raw deal" and promises a "real deal" -- detailed solutions to the nation's problems. Kerry also suggests that front-running rival Howard Dean has offered voters anger, not policy fixes.

The reporter tells us about two instances of Kerry's use of antithesis--a standard political scheme. How do these constitute a "sharp shift" in rhetoric and tactics? And, even if they did, why should we care? What political utility does this information have?

Also notice that we now have names for the story's antagonists. Without these antagonists, nothing the reporter mentions makes sense. And it is one important purpose of journalism to make sense of events--but in a certain way. Humans have always attempted to make sense of the world through storytelling. It is a natural communicative function of our species. Myths tell us about who we are as a people. Myths may be based on fact or fancy, but their purpose is always to explain, and come to terms with, ourselves and circumstances. Journalism has been called the first rough draft of history. It may be more instructive to think of it as our first rough draft of cultural-political myth. As I have said before: Journalists apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a causal sense of events.

On Friday, he takes the next step by offering a blueprint for the first 100 days of a Kerry presidency.

When a reporter/editor puts the "news" of an article below the lede it's called "burying the lede." This sentence seems to be the news. It is nearly certain that, if specific, Kerry's blueprint will at least offer some politically useful information about his candidacy. It is nearly certain that this reporter will not be specific in his horse-race coverage of it. Any policy specifics are likely to be portrayed as campaign tactics rather than serious proposals to help solve real problems.

"I want to tell you about who I am, what I'm fighting for, and what -- together -- we can do for this country. I'm looking forward to this fight. And I intend to win this fight. Because I believe there are some things worth fighting for," the Massachusetts senator says in an excerpt of his address to New Hampshire school children.

So this article is a preview of the upcoming blueprint speech? A little clarification would be nice.

In journalism school, students are taught to choose only the most powerful quotes (the indoctrination into narrative ways of thinking begins early.) This reporter violates journalistic rhetoric by choosing a boring quote. It gives us only a sense of Kerry's willingness to use the verb "fight" to make non-specific political promises--a standard trope of political campaigning.

Kerry is expected to outline legislation, executive orders and other actions he would take to curb special interests, help the middle class and make U.S. foreign policy more open to allies. A mix of old and new initiatives are designed to reintroduce Kerry in New Hampshire, where he trails Dean by double digits in state polls, and strengthen his relatively solid standing in Iowa.

The reporters language--"A mix of old and new initiatives are designed"--indicates that he has read the speech and knows the specifics. Why not tell us what the news is? Perhaps there's an embargo on specifics. If so, tell us.

The narrative bias encourages reporters to assume that everything in politics is a tactic. A skimpy preview of Kerry's Friday address assumes it to be more about the tactics than a desire to find solutions to our nation's problems. Such reporting promotes the idea that politicians are mere opportunists at best and crooks at worst. They are rarely portrayed as hard-working, public-spirited men and women who wish to serve their country. Does that last statement sound naive to you? Blame ubiquitous horse-race coverage for the interpretive damage its done to our ability to engage in constructive and critical civic discourse.

His latest ad accuses Bush of siding with pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

So what else is new?

"I will work hard every single day to fight back and to win. I will never stop trying to change this country. Because this is not just about me," Kerry says in Friday's speech. "The fight I'm in isn't half as hard as the fight of the people being left behind in the Bush economy, the soldiers being deserted in the Bush foreign policy, the Americans who can't afford health care because George Bush has put lobbyists ahead of our families."

So now its clear we're talking about the upcoming speech. But still all we get from this reporter is the rhetoric of the speech rather than any specifics of policy.

Why did the reporter choose this quote? It's standard political fare and really tells us very little about Kerry, his leadership ability, or any policies that might actually affect our lives. Here's one answer: The quote offers contention and, therefore, is dramatic.

The new stump speech has echoes of Al Gore's pledge to "Stay and fight" -- a mantra the sitting vice president used in Iowa as he rebounded against surging rival Bill Bradley during the 2000 primaries. Rep. Dick Gephardt won the 1988 Iowa caucuses with a motto of "It's your fight, too."

So Iowans like "fight" rhetoric? While I find it interesting the reporter has noticed, and fairly accurately described, a rhetorical commonality among these Democrats, this paragraph simply isn't very useful politically. Further, it perpetuates the myth that the primaries are a progressive contest by referring to Bill Bradley as "surging." The data clearly demonstrate that Gore had the nomination won before the Iowa caucuses.

The reporter bolsters his own ethos by demonstrating he knows something of political history and can track rhetorical tactics across many years. This bolstering is itself a bit of journalistic rhetoric to convince readers that the reporter is a knowledgeable insider we can trust. Horse-race coverage relies on such bolstering because such articles are usually thin on sources. For example, this article quotes from n upcoming speech. He mentions some internal poll data. And he quotes two members of the Kerry campaign. It's a stretch to call this even a 4-source story. One could ask: What happened to the fairness bias? The reporter, however, uses authoritative language to allow himself to be accepted as a stealth source--a campaign insider by virtue of journalistic coverage.

When the campaign began, Kerry was the presumptive front-runner and New Hampshire was expected to be an easy victory. But Dean's Internet-driven, anti-establishment campaign caught Kerry by surprise, and the former Vermont governor now leads in New Hampshire polls.

Demonstrably false. Polls going back to January 2003 show that Joe Lieberman was the front-runner as defined by the polls' margins or error and the Mayer predictive model. In most of the races since 1980, the nominee had led in the polls the entire year before the caucuses. Dean's campaign did catch many Democrats by surprise, but he can only be thought of as a front-runner if we ignore the margins of error of every major poll. The reporter also engages in more editorializing here: Exactly how is the Dean campaign "anti-establishment"? Because he made effective use of a new medium? Did that make Richard Nixon anti-establishment when he gave the "Checkers" speech? --the first politician to use the new medium of television to deliver an apologia.

In Iowa, Gephardt and Dean are tied, but Kerry is close behind in most opinion surveys. Advisers believe the Midwest state, where Democrats caucus Jan. 19, gives the senator a chance to exceed expectations -- perhaps even slipping into second place -- for badly needed momentum.

You can almost hear the nasal voice of a track announcer speaking this paragraph. Plus, the Mayer predictive model of primary campaigns demonstrates why this is nonsense. Primaries are stable political events, but reporters must portray them as unstable because the narrative bias will not allow them to consider the alternative.

Internal polls show Kerry a second-choice of many voters in New Hampshire, giving advisers some hope for recovery should Dean falter before the Jan. 27 primary.

Ditto.

By opting out of the public finance system and preparing to spend at least $5 million of his own money, Kerry avoids spending caps in both states.

And what does this mean to me--Joe Voter?

"Dean has been out here for months. Gephardt won this place in 1988. If you look at those two facts, I'd rather be in our shoes," said John Norris, who heads Kerry's Iowa campaign.

Neener, neener, neeeee-ner!

He said 30 to 40 new staff members are being sent to Iowa. Michael Whouley, who ran Gore's ground operation, is spending most of January in the caucus state. Also joining the Iowa team is direct mail expert Larry Grisolano, credited with coining Gore's "Stay and fight" slogan.

The second sentence is interesting to rhetoric scholars, but otherwise I can find nothing in this paragraph that helps anyone make a political choice. This is an information dump. Information (statements about facts in the world) by itself is politically useless. What we need is knowledge (organized information embedded in a context) and wisdom (the capacity to know what body of knowledge is relevant to the solution of significant problems). Print journalism could give us knowledge and wisdom if it could stop competing with television.

The fighting image is a not-too-subtle reminder of Kerry's service in Vietnam as well as his bruising political victories for statewide office in 1984 and 1996. "John Kerry is always at his very best when the going gets tough," said adviser Bob Shrum.

Reporting as stenography. I'll bet Shrum is tickled with this paraphrase and quote. What the rest of us are supposed to do with it I haven't a clue.

Michael Meehan, vice president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and a veteran of Capitol Hill, will soon join the campaign as adviser for communications.

I'm sure someone somewhere is interested in this.

Kerry begins the next phase of his campaign with some well-worn tactics used by politicians to show they're outworking their rivals, including 24-hour campaign swings and travel often by bus.

In the lede of this article the reporter told us Kerry's rhetoric and tactics represented a "sharp shift," which clearly implies at least some modest bit of punch. Come to find out he's sharply shifted to the "well-worn"? And the purpose of his rhetoric and tactics: merely to outwork his rivals.

I do not believe that news organizations should avoid such horse-race coverage. Certainly, we should know what's happening within the campaigns. The problems, however, are these: 1) Such articles represent most campaign coverage; this is how we see the candidates most; 2) Such articles have low political utility; 3) Such articles create a false sense of instability in the primary process, thus blinding citizens to how the process really works; and 4) Such articles treat politicians as mere schemers and opportunists. I believe journalists, those working in print, should let television handle the pathos and the headlines. Journalists should balance their coverage with reporting on policy and, to a lesser extent, issues of character.

The Rhetorica Network