Posted on 08/28/2007 3:20:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Reporters have been breathlessly and endlessly covering every event and comment in the 2008 race for the White House. In what may be the longest election coverage in history, a look at the Republican nomination process raises questions as to whether the reporters are paying attention to the things that really matter.
The most recent example of this is the straw poll held in Ames, Iowa a couple of weeks ago. Despite the fact that leading prospects such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain did not participate, the press coverage hailed the event as being terribly significant. The big winner, of course, was Mitt Romney. Second place went to Mike Huckabee who hoped the strong showing would vault him into the top tier of candidates.
Both Romney and Huckabee received a minor bounce in the polls for a few days. But, two weeks later, the national polls show that the Iowa event had virtually no impact. Romney remains mired in third place barely ahead of John McCain. Huckabee's support continues to be measured in the mid-single digits.
It's not really that the press got the coverage wrong. Romney did what he had to do in Iowa and did it well. Huckabee did exceed expectations, apparently on the strength of a well-received speech. What the reporters got wrong was a sense of context and scale. Despite the enormous coverage, less than half the nation's voters even knew that Romney was the winner. It is fair to assume that a much smaller number attached any particular significance to it.
The same lack of context has been seen in coverage of the many campaign "debates" this season. Reporters comment on the words, the style, the comebacks and everything else about the debates except the lack of public interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Actually, the bottom line of the article seemed to me to be that the press is starting the coverage of the campaigns way too soon and placing way too much emphasis on events that no one cares about this early in the process.
I mean it is the day of the computer and even the rednecks in fly over land know that a straw poll is mostly bunk. Hiring buses providing dinners and etc. is vote buying and proves nothing.
Freepers ought to wake up to this stat. I hope Fred can make a better showing than he has so far, but to keep thinking Republicans will desert Rudy because he is "liberal," well, that's just silly---and wrong, as Rasmussen shows.
Fred needs to show a lot more energy, optimism and "Reagan-esque" view of America, and STILL retain his common sense and sober discussion of what is wrong. I don't think he can win without offering big-time hope and optimism. We can get negativity from any Dem.
There’s a big difference between gloomy negativity and sober realism, don’t you agree?
I, for one, absolutely refuse to vote for a RINO. That's means I will note vote for Giuliani and I will not vote for Romney. Not ever. Period.
Fred doesn't need the "Republicans" who support Rudy, they are just as likely to support Hillary anyway. Rudy can keep his 22%, Fred will take the conservatives and most of the other 78%. That's enough.
But most (way more than half) of the blame has to go towards candidates announcing two years before the election.
Only flaw in your analysis is that Romney is not a RINO. He’s been more fiscally conservative, more conservative on immigration, and a better social conservative than many other Republicans who wear the ‘conservative’ label. He’s not right-winger, but neither is he a liberal like Rudy.
See for example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/
I'm not thinking the GOP voters will desert Rudy, I just think there's no way we're going to win by running a pro-abortion pro-amnesty gun grabber extremist from New York against a pro-abortion pro-amnesty gun grabber extremist from New York.
Your point is well taken. I’ve never known of a time when people from the South, or the Midwest, or the Western states were all that fond of any politician from the Northeast. Most especially New York.
That said, I have argued that either Algore or Edwards would be a better national candidate than Hillary in the general election---but only because of her high negatives. Rudy (unless you poll FR) doesn't have those high negatives, even (yes) when people know his positions. But in the case of Fred/Rudy, I need some evidence that Fred can actually do better against Hillary. Right now, the sad thing is that NO ONE seems to be winning any states against her.
And I keep warning people: you don't have a clue as to what Republicans support Rudy. I have spoken to dozens of solid conservatives here in OH who---if Rudy was the nominee---would enthusiastically support him against Hillary. And, yes, I'm talking pro-life people. (Please don't start with the "no pro-life person I know," blah, blah). I'm giving you the facts. With Hillary as the option, these people know that it can be much, much worse.
Fred is campaigning like his character in Law and Order. Laid back, discuss things rationally and quietly, don't get emotional. But this ain't TV, and if you are going to INSPIRE people---especially to the level we are going to need to overcome Hillary---you're going to have to have a little more fire. Can he do it? I don't know. But it is very disconcerting to see him wait so long to display it, if that's the case.
I agree - I'm not willing to vote for one liberal to avoid another.
You base your argument on "I have spoken to dozens of solid conservatives here in OH" and then disparage other peoples arguments based on "don't start with the 'no pro-life person I know,' blah, blah)." So, you're saying that you know the "facts" because of what someone told you and other people don't know the "facts" based on what people told them. Please, this is not only not persuasive it is not even a logical argument.
It's easy to see just from the posts on FR that there are a lot of conservatives who will not vote for Rudy, period. You can doubt this because of what "dozens of conservatives in Ohio" have told you, if you want, but it doesn't change the real "facts". I think it's academic anyways as I don't think Rudy will ever be the Republican candidate. That's my opinion, the "facts" will be known after the Republican convention.
Just as I don’t generalize that “many will NOT support Rudy” (which is certainly true), I caution the “true-blues” here not to overestimate the number who WILL. I work in the Montgomergy County GOP, which handles all of Dayton, and has close connections to Greene Co. and Warren Co., two big GOP bases. And while people may not see Rudy as their dream candidate, you would be stunned at the “hard-liners” who are willing to support him, given the alternative.
I don’t trust Romney with my guns any more than I trust Bill Clinton with my daughter. Gun grabbing is not a Republican value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
