Media to Voters: It's Over

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0108-07.htm

Media to Voters: It's Over
Pundits Rushing To End Primaries and Preempt Voter Choices

WASHINGTON, DC - January 8 - As the results of the Republican and Democratic primaries in New Hampshire are reported tonight, it's a good bet that many prominent pundits and journalists will declare the race for the White House all but over--long before 98 percent of voters have had any say in the matter.

The Washington Post's David Broder wrote on January 4 that "New Hampshire is poised to close down the race for the Democratic presidential nomination." Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (1/3/08) likewise declared Obama to be the new inevitable after he won the Iowa caucus:

With his victory tonight, Barack Obama is now the strong favorite to be the Democratic nominee for president. The only one who can stop Obama from making history is Obama.... Unless he makes a terrible mistake in this weekend's WMUR debate in New Hampshire, Obama will be the strong favorite to win in the Granite State.... Should the Illinois senator win New Hampshire and South Carolina, it will be next to impossible to prevent him from becoming the nominee on February 5, Super Tuesday.


Actually, it's easy to imagine at least three Democratic candidates still having substantial support on February 5, meaning that Super Tuesday could produce no clear winner. The Republican race has much the same dynamic; though it hasn't happened in decades, one or both of the major parties could go into their conventions not knowing who their nominee is.

By any reasonable standard, then, the race for either major party's presidential nomination is far from settled. But Broder nonetheless argued that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's campaign was virtually finished: "A second Romney loss would effectively end the former Massachusetts governor's candidacy."

NBC anchor Tim Russert sounded a similar alarm (1/4/08): "Bottom line, Brian, only McCain or Romney can come out of New Hampshire to fight for another day in South Carolina, only one. One stays behind. It is make or break for McCain or Romney in New Hampshire."

Why are the media rushing to end the primary season just as it's begun? It's sometimes difficult to follow the logic. Consider a USA Today report from January 7:


The Democratic contest is a two-person race, dominated by Clinton and Obama. That leaves Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who is a close third, and Richardson, New Mexico's governor who is a distant fourth, waiting for a stumble or a political earthquake to create an opening for them.


How are four candidates participating in a "two-person race"--especially given that one of the lesser candidates--John Edwards--finished ahead of Hillary Clinton? Similarly, the New York Times' Adam Nagourney (1/5/08) argued that "the results in Iowa...suggested that the Democratic and Republican contests were to a considerable extent two-way races: Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democrats, and Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney for the Republicans." How Mike Huckabee coming in first in his race and Edwards coming in second "suggested" that their candidacies should be dismissed, Nagourney didn't explain.

The press has been more harshly critical of Edwards' campaign, so it could be the case that many in the media would be happy to see him out of the picture. (See Action Alert, 12/21/07.) Indeed, much of the conventional wisdom after Edwards' second-place finish in Iowa suggested that his campaign for the White House was all but over. As New York Times columnist David Brooks (New York Times, 1/4/08) boldly pronounced, "Edwards's political career is probably over." David Gergen agreed (CNN, 1/3/08): "John Edwards I think has nowhere to go now...even with a second-place win, because he has no money."

In an interview with Edwards, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (1/4/08) expressed bewilderment:


I didn't understand the conventional wisdom last night.... If you finish second in Iowa with more support from the previous national front-runner, who dropped from first to third, many of the pundits, many of the so-called experts, are describing you as being in trouble, rather than Senator Clinton. Do you know why that is?


It'd be nice if more in the media asked such questions about what passes for conventional wisdom in their election coverage. Indeed, some articles have noted that winning early primaries isn't necessary to winning the nomination; in 1992, Bill Clinton lost the first five contests, but somehow managed to win the White House nonetheless. This very recent history would suggest that, at a very minimum, campaign reporters refrain from handicapping the outcome of the nominating process in early January. After all, it's voters, not the news media, who are supposed to elect the next president.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0108-07.htm

republican chance at the presidency. And of course it is better news to have a black person running for president. After all Hillary is just woman and even in 2008 a woman doesn't matter in the good old USA> Other countries have the distinction of equal rights, but with the good old boy system, a man has preference over her.

...by telling folks all but directly: "it's over". Voters can then easily figure: "Why vote if Obama's already won?", and just stay home.

NOTICE that when voters turn out to vote in large numbers, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTERS ARE DEMOCRATS - as we've seen in Iowa and NH.

Thew lamestream media - which prefers "business-friendly" Republicans in the White House would like to see FEWER voters at the polls (and thus fewer Democrats).

So they try EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK (and THIS is one they try every election cycle) to keep voters away - to give them the feeling of "inevitability" - by suggesting to voters that they don't need to even vote because it's all over anyway and one candidate has already won. Give up. Stay home. It's done.

THEY DO THIS EVERY 4 YEARS, PEOPLE!! I've been watching elections ALL MY LIFE and when this country is starving for CHANGE and when they turn out at the polls to make sure they GET the change they so desperately want in their government - and ESPECIALLY then - the LAMESTREAM MEDIA pulls this little trick out of their hats. BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT DEMOCRATS AT THE POLLS - because then they end up with a President that's less "business-friendly".

AND - I might add - THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SO BLATANTLY IGNORING JOHN EDWARDS!!

NO WAAY does the corprat-owned media want HIM in the White House - so they make SURE he gets no support or recognition as a viable candidate by IGNORING and blacking out coverage of him in the race.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THUS with the media.

And the FEWER corporations that own all of it the worse it's gotten.

MARK MY WORDS - this is what they're doing and this is WHY they're doing it.

n/t

leads me to believe that it's

VOTERS TO MEDIA: "Thanks! We wanted to get this over with as quickly and painlessly as possible because it's NO FUN.

God, I hope I am wrong and you are right. But we have fallen so far, so fast, as a people, that it is hard to hope anymore.

"No fun, my babe, no fun.
No fun, my babe, no fun.
No fun to hang around,
Feeling that same old way.
No fun to hang around,
Freaked out for another day."

- iggy pop

i am starting to empathize, as far as DU is concerned. at least obama's bringing new voters into politics, whatever, i'll take even him, whatever. Still haven't seen a single policy reason by his fans to even be able to defend him to repugnicans who want to talk shit. All they want to say is "ooh, edwards took housing money, ooh, clinton cried, sore loser". they are making their candidate no fun, even though apparently the kids seem to be having fun with the obama surge. whatever, i'll support him in the general without having a single particular reason for "why" other than "fuck bush and the elephant he rode in on".

i just want John Edwards to continue screaming for change as long as possible, whether voters care or not, because I find his relentless attack on what I hold as evil as the best thing that's come out of this election so far. screw the voters if they don't want to back the correct candidate, i'll leave the country if i have to, and i see why the electorate might be just like "shut up" if the best obamabots can do is declare "sour grapes on all of you ! and poody-poody-poo on YOUR hypocrite because OUR hypocrite is 'kewl' !"

karl rove is cackling off in the distance.

at any rate, my cynicism is alleviated by my own call to duty. i have to redouble my efforts to teach these obama kids how exactly to take that enthusiasm and actually fight the power, not just give money to a cipher like their candidate. still, screw the 'pugs, go obama, "whatever".

-s

-s

are becoming much more aware of our corrupted media manipulation, thanks to the internet.The general public is fed up with the Bfee and most of the representatives. Everyone I know is mad as hell at the Pugs and some of the Dems.

I have been watching the show for a long time, and you can smell the desperation this year.