Patrick Ruffini has noticed that the Democrat primary candidates are getting a lot more attention than the GOP candidates and expects that to continue to be the case.
Watching MTP this morning, it seems fairly apparent to me that the Democratic nomination fight will eat up two thirds or more of the media's 2008 coverage over the next year. This despite the fact that the outcome of the Republican nomination seems to be more in doubt than the Democratic one, and the GOP has no shortage of accomplished national figures running.Read it all.
This is a way for the media to show its bias without being ideological. They will simply deign Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards to be more newsworthy, and go from there. This is because the media approaches Democratic primaries more as participants than as spectators. Coaxing Hillary to renounce her pro-war vote, as happened on the roundtable this morning, is the perfect example of this phenomenon in action.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (3)
Maybe it is due to the medi... (Below threshold)1. Posted by superdestroyer | February 12, 2007 8:12 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe it is due to the media seeing the Republicans are complete failures who have little to no chance of winning in 2008. The Republicans have begun a long slide into becoming irrelevent to governing in the United States. Just look at how the Republicans are currently irrelevent in New England and image how it will be when the rest of the United States functions the same way.
Why would anyone believe that the republicans are relevent when manhatten votes 80% Democratic, the District of Columbia votes 90% Democratic, and the suburbs where the rich, white liberal Democrats live like Winchester County, NY or Montgomery County, MD vote over 70% Democratic.
1. Posted by superdestroyer | February 12, 2007 8:12 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 12, 2007 08:12
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 12, 2007 3:41 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
It's not necessarily bias in the coverage at all.
Democratic primaries do tend to be more interesting than Republican ones. Republicans may get testy with each other (Reagan-GHWB '80, GHWB-Dole '88, GWB-McCain '00) but it rarely lasts more than a couple of weeks, then they make up (at least for public consumption). Democrats tend to have longer and harsher public disputes ('84, '88, '92) UNLESS the winner becomes apparent very early ('76, '00, '04).
Note that Obama is already slamming Hillary, and Edwards is slamming both of them, while McCain, Guiliani, and Romney have only nice and respectful things to say about each other (so far).
So, I think I would give more coverage to the Democrats at this point, too. Besides, you never know when Sharpton will jump in with those great one-liners, or Kucinich will break into "Sixteen Tons" . . .
;-)
"superdestroyer" seems lacking in analytical skill. Democrats commanded huge majorities in "manhatten" [sic] and DC even as Republicans won nine of the last 14 Presidential contests.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 12, 2007 3:41 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 12, 2007 15:41
3. Posted by DBrooks | February 13, 2007 2:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm trying to imagine how I'm going to juggle my responsibilities when Charlize Theron and Melissa Theuriau move in with me. I figure if superdestroyer can indulge in flights of wishful thinking, I can do the same. Although, I do worry that when Wyoming voters(for example)discover that their cultural brothers in New England and DC vote in such high numbers for Democrats, they will obviously follow suit. At that point, Conservatism as a political movement will be dead. Of course, I will have Charlize and Melissa to comfort me.
3. Posted by DBrooks | February 13, 2007 2:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 14:17