Kerry and the media

[Esteban Manuel]

Is interesting to think about it:

a. Why the term "electability" didn't appear before Kerry's victories, when Dean was the frontrunner ?

b. Why the national polls (in wich by now Kerry leads) didn't seems important for media before Kerry's victories ?

c. What's the importance of a leading of 5 points in national polls (fondation of "Kerry's elactability") when the presidential race is based in EV (race by state) ?

[Ben.]

The media was important not because (as some Dean supporters have suggested in Dem forums) the media was looking to destroy Dean…but the fact was that the story after Iowa was Kerry and Edwards coming back from the dead so to speak while Dean proceeded to lose it on national TV (ok the media did over do that speech but it’s the effect that counts)… With Kerry as the new front runner and the “frontloaded” primary system Kerry with his momentum has been able to smash his opponents and it has become a self-fulfilling prophesy with the Media reporting that Kerry has had an upset win in Iowa sending his poll numbers up in NH… he then wins NH and so his poll numbers are boosted nationwide yet again and he continues winning and the cycle repeats its self again and again… at the same time Dean became more of a joke and a marginalized character who’s own failings when compared with Kerry made Kerry even more attractive and this also contributed to Kerry’s winning streek…

So Yes the media was important… but the two factors that got Kerry the nomination was his decision late last year to stage his comeback in Iowa and the frontloaded primary system which was well designed to help the winner of the early contests at the same time the frontloaded system also meant that with Dean’s implosion candidates had to retool their message to face Kerry not Dean and this hurt Clark in particular as he has largely market himself as an electable version of Dean… so there you go…              

[Ben.]

Sorry ignored you questions there… well here is my response…

1.) Electability was an issue when Dean was the frontrunner in fact all the mainstream candidates hammered Dean as unelectable… while many in the media suggested that he would face a very difficult task in taking on President Bush… the electability issue was raised many times prior to Kerry doing his Lazerus Act.

2.) The national polls did receive a lot of press attention in early fall… there was a lot of press about polls which showed that both Clark and Kerry either beat or tied with Bush in a hypothetical match up but then it was Clark who was the candidate the press gave most attention to…while a little latter not long before Sadam’s capture polls where also released showing Kerry and Clark competitive against Bush…

3.) The importance of leading in national polls is that it is meant to demonstrate that that candidate has a breadth of support nation wide… but I take your point however a poll in every state would be complex and from the few that have trickled through over recent days Kerry has very healthy leads in Maryland and Washington two Democratic leaning states… but the importance is that it shows that the race will be close as “bellwether” states usually reflect national polls in terms of how divided voters are between the candidates… and historically candidates who win the popular vote generally win the electoral vote… Bush being an obvious exception… added to this its quite a story to see Bush’s poll number near there lowest since he came to power…but they will fluctuate right through to November IMHO…

Hope that helps…                      

[Gustaf]

Sorry ignored you questions there… well here is my response…

1.) Electability was an issue when Dean was the frontrunner in fact all the mainstream candidates hammered Dean as unelectable… while many in the media suggested that he would face a very difficult task in taking on President Bush… the electability issue was raised many times prior to Kerry doing his Lazerus Act.

2.) The national polls did receive a lot of press attention in early fall… there was a lot of press about polls which showed that both Clark and Kerry either beat or tied with Bush in a hypothetical match up but then it was Clark who was the candidate the press gave most attention to…while a little latter not long before Sadam’s capture polls where also released showing Kerry and Clark competitive against Bush…

3.) The importance of leading in national polls is that it is meant to demonstrate that that candidate has a breadth of support nation wide… but I take your point however a poll in every state would be complex and from the few that have trickled through over recent days Kerry has very healthy leads in Maryland and Washington two Democratic leaning states… but the importance is that it shows that the race will be close as “bellwether” states usually reflect national polls in terms of how divided voters are between the candidates… and historically candidates who win the popular vote generally win the electoral vote… Bush being an obvious exception… added to this its quite a story to see Bush’s poll number near there lowest since he came to power…but they will fluctuate right through to November IMHO…

Hope that helps…                      

That a candidate loses the PV and wins the EV has happened 3 times that I know of:

1876, Tilden (D)-Hayes (R), PV 51-48 to Tilden, EV 185-184 to Hayes (!). That was cheating though, so maybe it shouldn't count...

1888, Cleveland (D)-Harrison (R), PV 49-48 to Cleveland, EV 233-168 to Harrison.

And 2000, of course...

[Esteban Manuel]

I'm not a Dean Supporter and i don't know if the press treat him bad, but i know that they do things just in the right moment to help Kerry. And for me it's evident that he have a more interesting profile to the press.

The thing isn't the information released by the press but when and how.  The importance of electability and the atention paid to national poll match between Bush and the dem front runner grow after the primaries (and caucases) in IA and NH, wich reinforces the natural working of the the primaries (as you said, help to the front runner -whoever he is-).

The fact is there're still 36 primaries and the only reason for a candidate to give-up is that he's convinced that nobody will support him, and the reasons for that are both: the working of primaries itself and the media.

[Ben.]

  Not knocking Dean here... supported the guy for a while... so not a dean basher here but he has been infuriating me recently with his transformation into little more than a vanity candidate...

Gustaf while there have been three occasions when the PV and EV have produced different victors generally they both produce the same candidate as the winner... and it was that they are generally a good guide as to who has the edge amongst the general electorate... that was what I was driving at...

[Gustaf]

  Not knocking Dean here... supported the guy for a while... so not a dean basher here but he has been infuriating me recently with his transformation into little more than a vanity candidate...

Gustaf while there have been three occasions when the PV and EV have produced different victors generally they both produce the same candidate as the winner... and it was that they are generally a good guide as to who has the edge amongst the general electorate... that was what I was driving at...

I know, and i agree. In fact, I was gonna write that, but I had to go off right then, so I jsut finished off my little historical walkthrough and posted...

I was gonna get to the point that if the election is close the risk of PV and EV not matching is pretty good, but usually it doesn't happen.

There are a number of elections that I can think of straight away where the PV was very, very close and the winner there still won the EV:

1880, 1884, 1892, 1916, 1960, 1968, 1976 (not THAT close, but very close EV). This indicates that the PV winner usually wins, even if the election is really close. Oddly enough...

[© tweed]

VERY important...Kerry won one state by 6% and the media labeled him the fromrunner, and then he won a second state and he was named the nominee.

[zachman]

In all fair honesty from what I have seen, it appears Kerry's appeal here in NH was greatest among the lesser educated (particularly the least politically active), I think the elderly, and the television voters who look to vote for the winner of the primary. It amazes me how many people here in NH voted without ever seeing a candidate.

[agcatter]

Miami put his finger on it.  The whole process is insane.

[© tweed]

Miami put his finger on it.  The whole process is insane.

How come you keep saying I'm making valid points?

[agcatter]

You mean it wasn't valid?

[© tweed]

Of course it was valid

[jravnsbo]

Vietnam has become an unexpected battleground in the race for the presidency, but the war records of the likely opponents have been dealt with quite differently.
    Members of the Fourth Estate scrutinized, speculated about and misreported the service record of President Bush after Democratic operatives accused him of being "AWOL." However, the radical activism of Sen. John Kerry after he returned home has received far less attention than it deserves.
    On April 23, 1971, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry accused U.S. soldiers of war crimes. He recounted that his brothers in arms "raped ... randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan ... and generally ravaged the countryside."
    The press has not pressed Mr. Kerry to explain those charges. A case in point was his interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff last Thursday. Near the end of the conversation, she raised the issue, asking: "It's been reported that, well you're aware of this, Vietnam veterans upset with the fact that when you came back from the war ... you were accusing American troops of war crimes."
    Mr. Kerry responded with a falsehood followed by a quick shift, "I was accusing American leaders of abandoning the troops. And if you read what I said, it is very clearly an indictment of leadership ... I've always fought for the soldiers."
    Even if Mrs. Woodruff had not read Mr. Kerry's testimony — and it is widely available — surely she or her producer had seen the day's work of the most widely-read political columnist in Washington, her CNN co-worker Robert Novak. In his Thursday column, "Kerry and Hanoi Jane," Mr. Novak repeated Mr. Kerry's statements to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also pointed out that Mr. Kerry was the New England representative to an executive committee meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, at which plans were made to sponsor "war crimes testimony" at the United Nations. A follow-up question beckoned.
    Instead, Mrs. Woodruff gave Mr. Kerry a pass. She did not challenge his statement. She failed to ask a single follow-up question about his atrocious accusations. Instead, she teed up a series of softballs for him regarding his primary opponent, Sen. John Edwards. Mrs. Woodruff allowed Mr. Kerry to rewrite history, unrebutted.
    Mr. Kerry must answer for his statements to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His accusations against his fellow Americans are the most serious charges one can make. If he no longer believes that his brothers in arms committed atrocities, he should explain why he changed his mind and issue a statement exonerating them.
    When Mr. Kerry is next on CNN, they should complete the truncated questioning. We will be tuning in to CNN. But we won't be holding our breath.

[Esteban Manuel]

When i start this issue i was thinking in the way the press treats the democratic primaries. But it's a good exercise think it in the way u propose.

I suggest u to don't worry about this, because the press choose their protègé between the democrats and that don't mean that their make a choose between Kerry/Bush. I'm quite sure that if that new appears in September the press would focuss on it. U know that to beat something it's necesary to have something to beat.

The way i think the press work is:

1. To choose between democrats
2. Then add emotion to primaries beating front-runner with something (Edwards)
3. And only when the democrat nominations is absolutely irrevocable ... beat him

So, u have to wait a couple of month to see the press beating Kerry, but i'm afraid that u'll see that.

Passing from form issues to contents issues (and that's part of another thread) if u think critically this debate about Irak....

Against Bush they said that being "the president of war" he was affraid to go to war and use his privileges to avoid it.

Against Kerry they could say that being a soldier who win several aknowledgments he become aware of the cruelty of that war and fought against that...

Wich of that is a worst accusation?

[TomC]

While we certainly elect based on EVs, the nation pays attention to the national polls and some battleground states will break for the leader in National polls.

Dean became the frontrunner in a 10-way contest because he was polling at or slightly above 20%. Clearly with 20% support a candidate has hardly won anything.

The media that supposedly destroyed Dean gave him a free ride for AT LEAST 6 months. Without the media calling him front runner, Dean would still be polling near Kucinich's numbers. Dean's claims that the media destroyed his campaign and that the other candidates ganged up on him are petty whining. Dean railed against all of them in blanket statements about DC insiders. Did he really expect they wouldn't all respond and fight back?
"Help me Terry, they're being soooo mean!!!"

The media went overboard discussing his "scream," but they also went overboard calling Dean front runner when he polled at 20%. Further evidence that Dean's downfall is Dean's to own. The phrase "not ready for prime time" comes to mind. This became clear in the weeks before the Iowa caucus, hence, electability became important.

[TomC]

Kerry's emergence in Iowa is a testament that rank and file voters don't want the media picking a candidate for them. Kerry won despite the media showing us Dean's numbers and face for 6 months. The media didn't create Kerry's lead, Kerry's lead happened in spite of (or to spite) the media. They had pronounced him a has been.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I can still remember when Dean was polling 3% nationally...
TCash is right, the media made Dean and he broke himself.

[© tweed]

Welcome back, Tcash....you never post anymore, you used to be one of our main contributors at the old board

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Those were the days...

[© tweed]

Those were the days...

We used to only have a handful of posters...Tcash, Brandon, you, me, Nym, Jmfcst, and Agcat came along around the summertime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You forgot Democrat/Republican...

[© tweed]

You forgot Democrat/Republican...

We both registered after he disappeared.

I don't understand why Leip let him stay.

[TomC]

Welcome back, Tcash....you never post anymore, you used to be one of our main contributors at the old board

Well, I've been doing campaign volunteering (Kerry) and GOTV stuff, so I guess I got a lot of my political chit chat in that way. Haven't had tons of spare time.

[Beet]

I can still remember when Dean was polling 3% nationally...
TCash is right, the media made Dean and he broke himself.

Well, I generally agree with the spirit of the comments being made but feel obliged to point out that media coverage of Dean wasn't all that great until he raised the most of any Democrat in the second quarter. He made himself, and the media took that and arguably made it much more than it actually was, and the Iowa voters reacted to that. But then the media took the results of Iowa and projected it across the country, which is just as distorting.