Two P’s of TV election reporting

Comment:

In last week’s column, I wrote that I would vote early and then spend the rest of the election season as an interested spectator. Turns out that wasn’t true.

I voted on Thursday morning, just before the lunch rush. And as always, it was quick and easy, and the people running the election were friendly and professional.

But for the sake of my sanity, I have decided that I will not be an interested spectator when it comes to the presidential race.

There are many interesting local races this year that I will be focusing on, both as a voter and as co-host of candidate forums broadcast on community radio KTAL-LP 101.5 FM. We recently had an extensive, hour-long discussion with district attorney candidates Fernando Macias (D) and Michael Cain (R), who are vying for the opportunity to revitalize a troubled office.

There are also several competitions for the state parliaments, in which all seats are up for election this year. The House District 38 race between incumbent Tara Jaramillo, D, and Rebecca Dow, R, is expected to be one of the most hotly contested general elections in the state.

But when it comes to the race for president, I’ve decided to try to kick my cable news addiction at least until Election Day. It won’t be easy. Thank God for the MLB playoffs.

National election reporting relies far too heavily on the two Ps, polls and pundits. Both are useless.

Polls are advertised in the news as if they were an actual scoreboard telling us who is winning and by how much. Pollsters have divided us all into groups and subgroups based on our age, race, gender, location, education, occupation, marital status, sexual preferences, and our favorite Beatle (Ringo, of course). This level of detail suggests a certain level of reliability, when in fact they get it wrong every time.

In past elections, polls made at least some sense. They fluctuated due to recent events. This time everything is “baked in”.

After the polls, it’s time to call out the same old pundits who have been repeating the same old arguments since July. Pundits on the left bring up the latest atrocity spoken or committed by Donald Trump and hope in vain that this will be the case that will blow through. Experts on the right then turn to the economy and immigration. Scott Jennings should add the title of apologist to his professional resume.

I’ve reached something like the fifth stage of grief in this election. I have accepted that any candidate can win and that the outcome is unlikely to change between now and election day.

Whoever wins, there will be another election in 2028. All this talk of an “existential choice” only serves to heighten the anxiety of a nation in desperate need of calm. We had an existential choice in our country’s history. It was 1864. We’re still a long way from that.

We should be prepared to respond to a possible victory for either candidate and what that could mean for the next four years. But that is a problem for the period after the election.

Right now I’m dressing for the Guardians in the American League and the Mets in the National League. Anyone but the Dodgers.

Walt Rubel’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of KRWG Public Media or NMSU. Walt Rubel can be reached at [email protected].