The mainstream media has already picked the Democratic front runners for the next presidential election. Six months before the first caucus and 18 months before the election, we get a daily dose of their preferences: Obama and Hillary.
The chosen candidates receive untold millions of dollars in free advertising as part of the press coverage surrounding the media stampede. Remember the breathless speculation before Hillary announced? The unrelenting media speculation before Obama announced? Anybody remember similar coverage for John Edwards? Joe Biden? Dennis Kucinich?
Poll results are fundamentally created by media hype and the media then dutifully report them in a self-fulfilling cycle that ends with the election between the two candidates that, too often, the media promoted best.
But history shows that that neither big poll numbers nor big money can guarantee a victory.
First, the money.
According to OpenSecrets.org (www.opensecrets.org/] the candidate who spends the most wins about 85% of the time giving big money a solid grade of 'B' for deciding elections. Better than average but not a sure thing.
That leaves a stunned 15% of big spenders who lose to rivals who spend less. In recent elections that has included Senator George Allen (R, Va) who outspent his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, by 2 to 1; John Ashcroft (R, Mo) who was unceremoniously booted from his senate seat before taking office as Bush 43's attorney general; House minority leader Tom Daschle (D, ND); and the highly regarded triple amputee Senator Max Cleland (D, Ga). Painfully, the list includes Ned Lamont who outspent Joe Lieberman in the race for the Connecticut senate seat.
The donor base tells the true story of a candidate's appeal and is rarely mentioned by the press.
Senator Clinton's contributors come mainly from New York and, secondarily, from the Washington, D.C area. Her largest contributing zip code outside of the east coast is in toney Beverly Hills, California.
In contrast, one of John Edwards major donor zip codes is in Montgomery, Alabama.
Compared to either Obama or Edwards, Clinton's private donors are heavily skewed towards the big money side. Nearly three-quarters of her funding comes from donors contributing more than $2300. Almost 50% comes from contributions of $4600, roughly twice the percent of high donors as Edwards and Obama combined, and far more than any of her Republican challengers. A measly 9% of her funding comes from contributions of less than $200, compared to 22% for Obama.
Based on campaign contributions alone, Hillary's support is geographically relatively limited. That support, however, comes from deep pockets. Obama and Edwards have wider support from people of more limited means. John Edwards' campaign is especially notable. He gets 100% of his funding from individual contributors, not PACs and not corporations.
And then there are the polls.
Remember Howard Dean in 2004, predicted by polls as the sure winner in the Iowa caucuses? The media did its usual post mortem search for an esoteric, creative justification for his sudden fall, but the one that resonated was given by several caucus participants interviewed after his loss: They didn't think he could win a general election.
If the perceived ability to win a national election is a major criterion for primary voters, Hillary may be in trouble. Poll after poll has shown that her negatives among all voters swamp her positive support. How does someone win an election with nearly 50% of the voting population adamant about supporting anyone but her?
Plus, there is that problem with her base. Almost 30% of Democrats don't believe she is electable, even if you don't count the additional 32% who have similar doubts about her viability as a candidate.
Edwards is good, Gore is even better, if he would run...
Notice how the media “chose” the two money-raising frontrunners. All that money trickles down through the ad departments of news organizations when the political ads start flying.
A note to all liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, anarchists (did I cover everyone?)… if this story bothers you, do something about it. Work every day until the election to get better people to run for president. Volunteer for their campaigns. If you hate Democrats as much as Republicans, then do something about it. Get a Green Party or Socialist on the ticket. If you can get 4 candidates running this time around, instead of 2, there is a chance one of the “Perot” candidates will at least have a chance.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 611 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 11:13:16 AM
"Who business is betting on... In a wide-open race, candidates are scrambling to get CEO endorsements. Our exclusive Fortune survey goes behind the scenes from Wall Street to Silicon Valley to find surprising alliances and discover how they were forged."
No room for doubt about whose interests she would be looking after. How about the others... not much difference. Hey, who said corporations cannot vote! LoL! That joke is on us, the American people. We don't elect (our) leaders, we elect employees of big business and wealthy special interests, in other words we elect (our) shepherds.
"Republican/Democrat, Blood/Crip, same thing."
by
Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 11:59:48 AM
It will be an interesting ride as the Iowa and the early primaries approach--the media swirl around Obama and Clinton will grow until they either take each other out, or folks become so completely tuned out and turned off from the repitition of it all. There's still the wild card Gore, and any number of things that will likely go wrong. John Edwards is positioned perfectly, and don't forgot he already won once in 2006!
by
laurabonham (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 12:27:24 PM
Things are changing for the mainstream media. Its tough to lie and distort when citizen journalists are around with video cameras and first-hand accounts. Sites just like this one are going to keep things honest. This presidential election is a big opportunity for the blogosphere to show the MSM that liars are going to be exposed from here on out.
I admire John Edwards very much. It hurts to watch what he does to create opportunity for the working poor and make progress on key issues.... then see the media misrepresent what he does and says. I smile when I see the truth come out on the internet. The MSM cannot be permitted to assign us a president.
Remember to kick in a donation to help opednews pay the bills and keep on fighting! Sites like this one make a tremendous difference!
by
bettync (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 1:08:57 PM
I can't stand the blatant violations of the law and the ignoring of the constitutions bill of rights by the Republicans, but with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards as the primary choices I think I need to prepare myself for another 8 years of Republican rulers.
I'm just wandering where it is safe to hide on this earth for the next 10 years.
by
Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 608 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 2:17:48 PM
It is not for the first time ( third, actually) we see Dems planning to lose. In the Y2000 the most powerful President did not support the party candidate and the VP candidate Lieberman was the 'GOP man inside'. In the Y2004 the Clintonians did everything to discard any chance of winning and they got Kerry, the Catholic to lose quite nicely. In the Y2008... they bet un unelectability- the Wicked Witch of the South is not electable, even she knows that and Obama maybe is electable but cannot be elected, sorry. Edwards is tracing them and although he is an electable candidate, they do everything to push him aside. They only need to get Lieberman back as a VP candidate to repeat the Y2000.
Now, money can be a deadly force if someone deliberately finances the loser. Ever heard of such things? They people who fincne Hillary use her to push away good candidates like Gravel or Kucinich. That's what she does for them. She is their golden losing girl.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3463 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 2:34:17 PM
Agreed, corporate money is backing Hillary. The republican party has lost its credibility, so she'll probably be supported all the way to the presidency.
by
cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 3:17:32 PM
Pick up this little gem off an information clearinghouse link... Yeah -- it's the Washngton Time, but Obama is quoted, and I don't see it as out of character at all. This guy is scary as hell!
Article published Aug 1, 2007 Obama would send troops into Pakistan August 1, 2007
ASSOCIATED PRESS - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy outlook as "naive."
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Mr. Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." [...]
Mr. Obama said that as commander in chief, he would remove troops from Iraq and put them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion. [...]
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 5:41:16 PM
the Hillary/Obama babble is a diversion..don't buy in.
Anything the "main stream media" is pushing...run like hell in the opposite direction. They have an agenda and we don't need it no matter what it is.
Kucinich gets my vote whether he is on the ballot or not. That is if we even see an election...We may just see Martial Law instead unless the repugs are confident enough that they have successfly corrupted the vote counting and threw enough democrats off the rolls to bring them their usual illegal victory. Hillary is corporate (more of the same) and Obama is the wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing so he can spout the right B.S. for effect.. Both perfect tools for our secret Corporate government.
Hound your House reps and Congress Members to get their heads out of their butts and see if they can find some integrity and Impeach Cheney and Bush ASAP. That is so much more important right now than allowing ourselves to be sucked into the Hillary & Obama diversionary tactics that are being used on us. Diversion and brainwashing..Those repug butt sniffers are soooo good at that. We need to practice ignoring it.
As Mike Malloy says..."Have I mentioned lately how much I hate these people?"
by
Rae (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 218 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 11:13:42 PM
I really hope he gets the nomination. As long as he stays at around the 10% mark and doesnt get much lower, he has a good shot. I think that as we get to a week before the nomination, people will desert Hillary and Obama for Edwards in droves. He already has the best organization in Iowa. Once he wins the Iowa caucus, everything changes. I dont know why more of the candidates and their teams dont pay more attention to this. It doesnt matter who leads in the national polls. It is a state by state race and victory in the first state makes a huge difference.
If any of you like Edwards as I do, the best thing to help aside from money, perhaps even including money is to work to help him win the Iowa caucuses.
by
Steven Leser (213 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1399 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 7:59:37 PM
If you support Edwards then you support destruction of America.
the CFR openly calls for an end to America and the implementation of the North American Union, which will obliterate the Bill Of Rights and American sovereignty.
Edwards is a CFR member - AN ANEMY OF AMERICA!
by
J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 66 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 11:39:35 PM
money+ exposure+ number of voters = Pres doesn't it?
Motives asside logic dictates that if Hillary can get more money and spend it wisely then she gets more exposure more people recognize her which equalls more likely votes ergo she is a front runner.
Obama if he get more money from smaller donors then logic dictates he has more committed supporters (voters). If we assume wise spending then you have a real choice. I would be more interested to see the zip codes of the small donors for this candidate. Remember people vote businesses don't.
The negative in there are Mr Clinton in some states he's been a naughty boy and she is often seen as either an overly ambitious individual or someone is chalenging the status quo. Do not underestimate the resistance she will face from ultra conservatives particularly women.
Obama isn't black he's green. His "cut through" attitude has rendered him a wild card as far as the vested interests of business and established structures are concerned. He will be popular among the urban voters but will suffer badly at the hands of the conservatives.
As far as committed voters are concerned Obama must be leading if those zip codes for small donors are spread out. Big localized donors will never beat committed locals. After all, "all politics are local" ( I,me, my, mine)
Yes it is more complex than just whose going to raise the most money.
Just imagine what could be done within the USA let alone internationally for poor, ill, homeless, hungry and helpless with the wasted dollars of unsuccessful candidates. You need a better system.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 1:24:44 AM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
