So I got my new copy of The Alantic today. Has anyone posted yet on Caitlin Flanagan's article that's subtitled "Abortion and the bloodiness of being female"? As few (if any) writers are more likely to make me see red I'm reluctant to read it (the understatement of the week). But I guess I have a certain morbid curiousity about just how awful it is (given what she usually writes, and given the topic, I'd have to think pretty damn awful).
The most questionable thing I have read in this issue so far is in the Primary Sources section. There's a little piece that argues that early polling is a strong indicator of who the Republicans will nominate for president (going back to 1960 only once - in 1964 - has the nominee not been someone who was leading in early polls), but such polls aren't a great indicator of who'll win the Democratic presidential nomination. As evidence they show polling data from 8 election cycles and note that the nominees in 1992, 1988, 1976 and 1972 weren't men who led in early polls. That's all well and good - but it's (more than) worth mentioning that those polls before the '88 and '92 races were led by men who didn't actually run for president. If you consider who actually did run, the nominations of Dukakis and Clinton weren't surprising. And the piece then weirdly notes that the process is more unpredictable then ever now, what with the front-loading of primaries, early fundraising and the like - an observation that's simply bizarre given that you'd logially think those things benefit frontrunners. It's an odd little piece.
Posted by armand at April 4, 2007 07:00 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | Politics