Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: As goes U.Va, so goes America

^{Visual source: Newseum}

Jamelle Bouie on U.Va and the corporatization of America:

For as much as this has been described as 'remarkable' and 'unprecedented,' I can't help but see it as the microcosm of a dynamic playing out in our politics and across our public institutions. The constant denigration of government and public service, coupled with the often unjustified veneration of business, has led to a world where successful capitalists are privileged in all discussions. In an earlier time, we understood that the values and priorities of the market weren't universally applicable; of course you wouldn't run a university like a business. It has different goals, serves different constituencies, and more important, has a broad obligation to serve the public.

The same goes for government.

WaPo:

A top donor to the University of Virginia said she plans to withhold future contributions unless members of the school's governing board who are responsible for the ouster of President Teresa Sullivan are removed.

Another donor said she is worried about her family's investment ' more than $170'million over the years ' at the historic campus. More than a dozen smaller donors have withdrawn pledges totaling thousands of dollars, and university officials are bracing for more.

Mark Blumenthal writes about why Gallup is a little off:

Yet in the results of the seven USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January to March 2012 that I examined, the combined percentage of adults who were Hispanic or black alone was just 21.4, a difference of 4.1 percentage points.

I agree with [Jay] Cost that this difference, in and of itself, does not make Gallup dishonest or untrustworthy. I also agree with Nate Cohn of The New Republic that Gallup's commitment to transparency "enhances the credibility of their polling."

But the difference does make Gallup wrong. Yes, it results from a series of judgment calls about various methodologies and, yes, one can argue that each decision is "defensible," at least in isolation. Yet the net result in terms of their impact on racial composition is plainly in error.

WaPo:

Mitt Romney told reporters here Tuesday that his vice presidential search team is vetting Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), revealing that one of the Republican Party's biggest young stars is under consideration to be his running mate.

'Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process,' Romney said after gathering a press pool for an unannounced campaign stop in Michigan.

The above is what we call "damage control". First was the leak that Rubio wasn't being seriously vetted, then there was blowback from Rubio supporters, and now Romney looks like a jerk (familiar territory for Romney). What part of "boring white guy" did Rubio supporters not get?

Ian Reifowitz:

Although conservatives are adept at the language of national unity, many of them ignore inclusion, and even speak in an explicitly exclusionary way. The "we" the Tea Party speaks of, for instance, is carefully defined to exclude as much as include. White anxiety--the negative reaction to our increasing diversity--is one of the main drivers of support for Tea Party conservatism. It is thus a primary obstacle to increasing support for an inclusive national unity, as Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson argue in their recent groundbreaking book The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.

Reducing white anxiety must then become a priority, not only for progressives, but for anyone interested in this country's future.

Prof. Reifowitz is fresh from a panel at Netroots Nation and the author of Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity. He'll be around to answer comments.

Nate Silver:

So I don't agree with other analysts who have termed the decision risky or puzzling. Mr. Obama has learned this year that being the incumbent at a time when most voters think the country is on the wrong track is not necessarily an advantageous position. But an incumbent president can still help himself at the margin with his policy and agenda-setting powers.

I do agree with Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics about one key point, however. It is one reason why the caveat 'at the margin' very much applies to Mr. Obama's decision, and may somewhat diminish its electoral importance.

As Mr. Trende writes, 'Latinos are underrepresented in swing states'.

...

You do see Florida up near the top of the list, however, and Arizona and Colorado not far down, so I will need to be a bit more precise about my analysis to defend my claim.

Charlie Cook:

The bottom line is that the odds have gotten tougher for Obama. Only those going to their first rodeo, though, would believe that this thing is over. There was a point just after the Democratic convention in 2004 when John Kerry seemed to have an edge over Bush. John McCain even had a nice little bump just after the Republican convention, abruptly terminated by the fall of Lehman Brothers, and, some would say, by the focus on his running mate, Sarah Palin. Beware of the pendulum of conventional wisdom; it may be about to swing too far once again.

So we are where we have been... a very close election (see Charlie Cook), but Obama with a slight lead as per the different methodologies of pollster.com and fivethirtyeight.com. Every time you read "Republicans more and more confident Romney will win", know that it is utter bullshit, but consistent with GOP M.O., which is to project confidence as the Titanic is sinking.