Walt Rubel Commentary: Two P’s of TV election coverage

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

I did vote Thursday morning, just before the lunch rush. And, as always, it was quick and easy, and the people managing the election were friendly and professional.

But, for the sake of my mental health, I’ve decided that I won’t be an interested spectator when it comes to the race for president.

There are a lot of interesting local races this year I will be focused on, both as a voter and as co-moderator of candidate forums broadcast on KTAL-LP 101.5 FM community radio. We had a substantive, hour-long discussion recently with district attorney candidates Fernando Macias, D, and Michael Cain, R, who are vying for the opportunity to revive a troubled office.

There are also several competitive races for the state Legislature, where 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 legislative races in the state.

But when it comes to the race for president, I’ve decided to try to wean myself off my cable news addiction, at least until election day. It won’t be easy. Thank goodness for the MLB playoffs.

National election coverage relies far too heavily on the two P’s, polls and pundits. Both are useless.

The news touts polls as if they were an actual scoreboard letting us know who is winning and by how much. Pollsters have broken all of us down into groups and subgroups based on our age, race, gender, location, education, occupation, marital status, sexual preference and favorite Beatle (Ringo, of course). That granularity of detail suggests a level of reliability, when, in fact, they get it wrong every time.

In past elections, polls at least made some sense. They went up and down based on recent events. This time, everything is “baked in.”

After the polls, it’s time to trot out the same old pundits who have been repeating the same old talking points since July. Pundits on the left bring up the latest outrage said or committed by Donald Trump, hoping in vain that this will be the one that breaks through. Pundits on the right then pivot to the economy and immigration. Scott Jennings should add the title of apologist to his professional resume.

I have reached something akin to the fifth stage of grief when it comes to this election. I have accepted that either candidate can win, and that nothing between now and election day is likely to change the outcome.

Whoever wins, there will be another election in 2028. All this talk about an “existential election” is only serving to increase the anxiety of a nation that seriously needs to calm down. We’ve had one existential election in our nation’s history. It was in 1864. We are a long way from that.

We should be prepared to respond to a potential victory by either candidate, and what that may mean for the next four years. But that’s a problem for after the election.

For now, I’m pulling for the Guardians in the American League and the Mets in the National League. Anybody but the Dodgers.


Walt Rubel can be reached at [email protected]

Listen to the audio version