Larry Sabato Responds, Promises Full Disclosure With Punditry
On Friday, I argued that pundit Larry Sabato had repeatedly predicted victory for former GOP Rep. Virgil Goode’s failed campaign in 2008, without disclosing that Goode had for years been securing lucrative federal funding for Sabato’s institution.
Sabato’s predictions matter — they influence insider chatter and fundraising — and the revelation sparked some online criticism and a deluge of angry emails directed his way.
Now Sabato has gotten in touch to point out that he did repeatedly disclose the earmark in local interviews in Goode’s Congressional district. He seems to be right about that.
But when I pointed out that the earmark should have been disclosed in the context of his punditry on the race, informing consumers of that punditry, Sabato conceded he should have erred on the side of full disclosure. He promised to do so in the future in an email:
Our earmarks were disclosed on multiple occasions in print and on radio and TV, and they were certainly not a secret to people in the Charlottesville congressional district. But in the interests of full disclosure, anytime we project election results in future years, we will put an asterisk and explanation next to the name of any member of Congress who assists us with federal funding.
In fairness, my initial item should have been worded more precisely to say he hadn’t disclosed the earmark specifically in the context of his punditry. But that aside, Sabato is conceding that the criticism on the core disclosure issue — whether to disclose relevant federal funding along with his punditry — has merit, and to his credit, he’s responding.
******************************************
Update: Ben Smith, who first reported the Sabato funding story, has some analysis and important context regarding Sabato’s disclosure promise.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Isn’t the real story here that Sabato relied on Goode for federal funding, and in turn acted as a marketing agent for Goode? While I can understand you (Greg) not wanting to suggest a quid pro quo relationship, this was a campaign issue, and apparently, voters did find it inappropriate.
Amen Danp. But it is SOP that when something is revealed the best to deal with it is to “lance the boil”. Funny, he never thought of this while engaging in punditry during which he criticised politicians for not being open.
I agree with you Danp. But the problem is that it is evident that this is how business is done. I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find even a single prognosticator like Sabato who DOESN’T have some kind of financial arrangement with the very politicians whom they are making predictions about. And thats why most of the Villagers won’t even blink an eye at a story like this one. And its also why no matter what Sabato will still be treated as a fair player by them even if there is some evidence he isn’t one.
if Sabato acted as a marketing agent for Goode, then so did every other pundit in the country. He was not going out on a limb for his friend to say that he was going to win- in fact, everyone was proven wrong that night by Perriello. These stories have become an unforunate attack on a great program promoting civics education- a program that has been shown to work.
I give credit to Sabato for this- who in the political world these days says “my bad” anymore?
fln
.
Try to answer this question though, of the other pundits who picked Goode to win, how many of them took their cues from Sabato? See the problem about the story to me is this. Its not that he picked Goode to win, but from the reporting it seemed that he was saying it wouldn’t be close. Thats where I have a problem. If he said it looked close but Goode would squeak in then that would probably have been appropriate, but I have a hard time believing that serious pollling showed it being a solid victory for Goode only to have it be a nail biter that went the other way for Periello. And so for me its like Jim Cramer and what he has done in the past to certain stocks to move them not on facts but on hyperbole to benefit him. If Sabato was saying it was a solid win for Goode then he had to know others would follow his lead and Periello supporters might not end up coming out to vote thus making it a self fulfilling prophecy.
.
Like conservatives are so fond of saying, if he has nothing to hide there should be nothing for him to be afraid of.
there is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks. Prof. Sabato
should have disclosed his ties to Rep. Goode, but that is one
part of the inquiry.
Earmarks serve very valuable purposes. Genetic research is one
example. The Study of Bees while seemingly ripe for attack make
a lot of sense given the importance of bees to agriculture.
Case in point- Grape genetic research for New York was mocked by Maureen
Dowd, McCain and others. Well the wine industry is a significant
portion of the upstate New York economy as well as the grape
and fruit juice industries.
Doubtless the earmarks Mr. Sabato received provided significant
educational opportunities and knowledge to his students.
And if there is an earmark to create a park where kids can play
safely, what is wrong with that?
a good point, sgwhiteinfla, but take a look at this from Sabato’s own website on October 28 of last year, mere days before the election:
Democrats are hoping this will be the year they finally unseat six-term incumbent Rep. Virgil Goode with Tom Perriello. Polls may get their hopes up –the last one Sept. 30 showed Goode’s staggering 34 point advantage in August slashed to just 13 percent (55 to 42 percent). While the margin is still considerable, the dip is still significant for an incumbent who has always won his previous races by a minimum 19-point landslide…
The race is tightening in its last lap…While Perriello still has to close a wide gap within the next few weeks, he is certainly pulling off the toughest fight for Goode’s seat yet, raising more money than his previous opponents and buying up television time to get his name out. But whether or not the Democrats paint this district blue remains to be seen.
This was the last report he had on the race. Sabato did end up picking Goode as a “Republican Hold,” but none of this sounds to me like he was “saying it wouldn’t be close.”
I feel as though the good professor made it a point to say that all Republicans were doomed last year, Goode included. I cannot agree that he was particularly easy on him compared to anyone else. Here’s what Dr. Sabato said, from last year’s Charlottesville Daily Progress:
“The ‘R’ has become a scarlet letter in 2008, just as it was in 2006,” Sabato said…“Everyone said that this would probably be Goode’s toughest race since he was elected” Sabato said.
October 8, 2008
What seems most notable about this story is that there was no process in Goode’s office to evaluate requests for earmarks as to whether they were the highest and best use of federal funds.
Goode’s former district includes localities that have swapped the distinction of having the highest unemployment rate in Virginia for more than a decade. One of those localities currently has an unemployment rate exceeding 20%. Rather than actively indentifying effective initiatives that might have, with federal assistance, improved the economic situation in these troubled areas, Goode flowed earmarks of up to $1.4 million per year to a national mock election project headed by a friend of more than 30 years.
What also annoys me about this story is Sabato basically ran his shop on earmarks, then whenever people demagogued earmarks, he kept his trap shut and hoped his gravy train coming, instead of educating.
That puts him in the same league as Sarah Palin.
I think that characterization of the situation is incorrect, flounder. Today’s Charlottesville Daily Progress article says it best I think
“Sabato has never hesitated to criticize public officials for their missteps, including those committed by politicians — including former U.S. Sen. George Allen — who had sponsored earmarks on behalf of the Center for Politics.”
He didn’t “keep his trap shut” and hope for a gravy train. He has always been one of the best educators around. To say he is in the same league as Sarah Palin is just plain wrong.
In five previous elections, Goode had won VA-05 with no less than 59% of the vote and, as has already been mentioned, no poll or major pundit was pointing toward a Periello victory. I really doubt that analysts like Charlie Cook “take their cues” from Sabato. The Periello win was an upset that no one outside of Periello’s campaign saw coming — period. Anyone suggesting impropriety in this particular instance is practicing extreme revisionism.