Just listened to Hartmann's straw poll....

...the overwhelming majority of callers chose Edwards as who they would vote for today. So my question is, corporate media aside, why isn't he crushing the other front runners? (Kucinich was a strong second, which leads me to believe that Hartmann's program draws a disproportionate number of progressives and not a true slice of the general population).

It's a self selected, invalid sample - just like DU polls. It speaks well of Edwards because it means he has strong support from interested and driven partisans. Unfortuinately that doesn't translate to the masses.

While Edwards actually has good support throughout the political spectrum (check out the OK poll where he leads amongst self-identified conservatives who are likely Dem primary voters) he does not have the money or publicity that the big two do. I don;t even think it's a media conspiracy as a)the media are not that organized or cohesive and b)the horse race is the story, and money drives the horse race. If Edwards had 30% support he'd get more press. If he had more money he'd have 30% of the support. It all boils down to that. The idea that reporters are deliberately involved in some Macchiavellian global conspiracy to fight against Edwards is just tin foil hattery. He's a media afterthought because he isn't in serious contention in poll numbers. He isn't in serious contention in poll numbers because he doesn't have the huge war chest for media buys. It's economics, not the Illuminati.

a recent thread on media coverage shows it not to be conspiracy, or at least a very poor one. Giuliani is behind even Edwards in media coverage, and I don't think we can imagine the NYT is quivering in fear of Rudy's anti-corporate firebrand image.

Don;t mistake my intent - I don;t like this scenario and I wish Edwards would get a lot more press - but it's all about how far behind he is - and THAT's all about message penetration and THAT's all about $$$.

I'd say his poll is more accurate than some right winger like Assmussen who never says who he's calling or what he's asking them when he calls.

This is a simple question: "If the election were held today, who would you vote for". And for some odd reason :eyes: the media-anointed candidates don't win.

They are accurate for that segment of the electorate perhaps - assuming that the audience is representative of even the progressive segment. But that would only be predictive if only progressives got to vote. We have had some real live votes to consider too - and the "media-anointed" candidates won them. It's not like there is a disconnect to reality in polls that show Obama and Clinton leading him by a bit, and all three leading Kucinish and Gravel by a lot.