In defense of horse race journalism

And why we don't actually have a horse race in 2024.

(An actual horse race)

Media critics have suggested that the best (only?) way to look at the likely 2024 presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is to focus on the stakes, not the odds.

Jay Rosen, a professor at New York University, is perhaps the most high profile advocate of this approach. Here’s how he explained it on Twitter X:

The idea animating this line of thinking is that political journalism has for too long focused on the who’s up and who’s down, horse race part of campaigns rather than spending its time on what the candidates believe and what those beliefs would mean for the country.

While people like Rosen have long beaten this odds-vs-stakes drum, there’s no question it’s taken on more urgency since the rise of Trump — and his blatant disregard for norms, rules and, yes, even laws.

The thinking is that what Trump did in office — and what his advisers have said he plans to do if elected again — represents a turn toward authoritarianism and, as such, a turn away from democracy.

Regular readers of this newsletter know that I agree that Trump represents an active threat to American democracy. And yet, I don’t find myself entirely in Rosen’s camp on the problems with horse race journalism.

(Sidebar: Jay has been a long — and thoughtful — critic of me and how I cover politics. So, there’s that.)

I couldn’t really articulate why I disagreed until I read Ben Smith’s terrific piece in Semafor today. (I am a BIG fan of what Semafor does, FYI.) Headlined “Cover the Republican Primary!” Smith writes:

A decade of journalistic handwringing over the social costs of policy-free, entertainment-oriented, low-stakes political reporting persuaded much of the the press — and the public — to focus on bigger questions about American democracy this presidential cycle.

And as a result, the media is largely ignoring signs that the 2024 Republican primary could be more competitive than Donald Trump’s campaign would like you to think. And the public is going along…

…The missing piece of this story is the American media, which has been persuaded by well-meaning critics to look away from the democratic drama of horse race politics — and to buy into Donald Trump’s campaign strategy of pretending there’s no primary.

I actually disagree with Ben’s analysis of the primary — more on that in a minute! — but I totally agree with his push for reporters to cover the race, well, like a race.

Like any race, the goal of this one is to win. Every candidate — yes even Vivek Ramaswamy! — gets up every day thinking of new ways to make winning more likely.

People like Rosen would have you believe that the only thing that should contribute to who wins is where each candidate stands on policy. And that by not doing enough policy coverage — and doing too much horse race coverage — the media is doing a disservice to the voters.

But, having sat in a lot of focus groups over my time in political journalism, I can tell you that’s simply not the case. Yes, some people make their minds up based solely on the policies (or a single policy) of the candidates. There are abortion voters. Or immigration voters. Or trade voters.

My experience, however, is that how average voters — especially swing voters — make their minds up on a candidate is far more of a vibes thing than it is a policy thing. They feel like a candidate “gets” them. Or they like his or her spouse. Or a friend forwarded an email to them praising a candidate. Or they saw a TV ad they liked (or hated).

The reality is that politics — and especially presidential races — wind up being as much personality contests as they do policy ones.

Rosen and his crowd would agree (I think). But they would insist that is the problem — and lay the blame for our personality-focused politics on the media.

Under their theory, Donald Trump’s rise in the Republican primary in 2016 was a media creation. Had CNN and other cable outlets not given him wall-to-wall coverage to say, well, whatever, he never would have sniffed the Republican nomination, much less the presidency.

While it’s hard to disprove that — because I don’t have a time machine — I disagree. Do I think cable networks help fuel Trump’s rise somewhat? Sure. But I also think his angry national populism was going to hit a nerve with a fed-up Republican base anyway.

What Ben argues in the piece — and what I think is true — is that reporters have been shamed into not actually covering the purely political aspects of political races. While I think it’s fair to criticize the media for being horse race centric in December 2022, I don’t think it's bad to cover the ups and downs of the candidates and the campaigns in December 2023. The Iowa caucuses are less than a month away! Someone will win! Others will lose! At this point, it is a horse race!

Or, well, could be. Which gets me to where Ben and I part ways. Here’s what he writes about the current state of the Republican race:

By the hacky old rules of horse race politics, Trump’s plan isn’t working. Scott dropped out in November, Ron DeSantis is dead in the water, and Nikki Haley seems to be consolidating support in at least one key state even as Trump’s national lead hits new heights (and we know how quickly those numbers can swing once voting begins). Trump has made the tactical mistake of promising to dominate Iowa, giving momentum to a strong second or even third place. New Hampshire is getting close and Haley still has some obvious room to grow her vote share.

That I do not see.

To my mind, Donald Trump is — and has been for a long time — running away with this thing.

Barring some unforeseen cataclysm (or a total failure of political polling), Trump is going to win the Iowa caucuses by a record margin next month. (His current average lead in the state is more than 30 points.)

Which brings us to the New Hampshire primary. There’s no doubt that Nikki Haley is gaining ground in the state; the last two polls have shown her at 29% and 30%.

The problem for Haley is that her improved showing still puts her double-digits behind Trump in a state that, not for nothing, he won by 20 points in 2016.

For Haley to win New Hampshire, she probably needs Chris Christie, who has focused exclusively on the state with a hard core anti-Trump message, to drop out before the primary vote. Which he appears to be, at least at this moment, unwilling to do.

“I’m not going anywhere, so let’s be really clear about that,” he told reporters earlier this month in New Hampshire.

Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume Haley does win New Hampshire. The race then moves to South Carolina which is a) Haley’s home state and b) a state where Trump is currently winning the primary by 30 points over her.

Ben’s case is that primaries are momentum driven affairs. And that if Haley wins New Hampshire, it could fundamentally alter the calculus of the race — kind of like when Rocky made Drago bleed. (“THE BIG RUSSIAN IS CUT!!!”)

Which could happen. And, to Ben’s point, political reporters should absolutely be alert to the possibility of a major momentum shift. And not be ashamed to cover it if it happens!

But, here’s why I don’t think it will happen.

1. Trump’s supporters are more committed to him than any other candidate’s supporters are to them.

2. As the field thins, Trump is better positioned to pick up votes than Haley. People who are currently for Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy are MUCH more natural fits in Trump’s camp than in Haley’s.

3. Trump will NEVER admit defeat, making it difficult for Haley (or anyone else) to build momentum even if they do pull off an early-state upset.

Obviously politics is a changeable game. It’s what makes covering it so interesting! But I am hard pressed to cast the fight for the 2024 Republican nomination as a horse race. Unless this is the horse race we are talking about:

(Yes, Trump is Secretariat in this metaphor. Which, unfortunate.)

So, in summary:

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with horse race journalism.

2. The 2024 race is not a real horse race.

Thanks for attending my TED talk.