It's a correlation, so you could also (4.00 / 2)

argue it the other way - that the news tends to cover candidates who have a sizable and enthusiastic backing.

Or, it could be a feedback loop where the news covers buzz, thus creating more buzz, and so on.

Or it could be a third variable, for example, something about the candidate him or herself, that creates both the enthusiastic supporters and the media coverage.

Personally, I would lean toward a combination of the latter two (feedback loop and/or something about the candidates) rather than a media conspiracy to force a two person Democratic race, but that's just me.

---

by: brklyngrl @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:34:23 AM CDT

Hard to imagine the other way around (0.00 / 0)

Establishment media coverage has been focused on Obama and Clinton for at least four months, according to Pew. In all likelihood, it has been taking place even longer than that.

Obama and Clinton--Obama in particular, did not start the campaign with overwhelming advantages in enthusiastic support. I know that I am divining poll results on that, but I have little doubt that if there were consistent tracking polls showing enthusiastic support and which candidate an individual has heard the most about in the news, you would see the former rising in accordance with the latter.

I don't have the complete data set to prove that statement, but candidate support has always been tied to media coverage levels (unless that coverage is negative). It seems extremely hard to imagine that this would be any different.

As for there being something about the candidate in and of him or herself that drives coverage, First Read recently made it clear that they have a pre-set definition of what constitutes media coverage. Does not seem all that internal to the candidates, given that.

But I don't think it is a "conspiracy." I just think they like two person campaigns, because they are easier to cover for a variety of reasons.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:42:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True, but not that hard to imagine... (4.00 / 1)

I think that the media definitely creates roles, narratives and niches for the politicans, but they can only go so far. Let's start with Obama. They did not pick him to be a media darling out of thin air. His 2004 DNC speech created an amazing amount of enthusiasm, and thus the media coverage followed. Yet even with the coverage, I don't think it was simply media coverage that propelled 20,000 people to see Obama in Austin, and I think if any other candidate drew that type of crowd, I think they would eventually get better media coverage. And the media is always going to cover a Clinton, and give no second doubts if that Clinton is a front runner. (The networks have to salivate at the thought of returning to the partisan wars of the 90's, narrative is already written)

I think both Edwards (leader in Iowa) and Richardson (most upward movement during campaign) have legitimate qualms about the coverage of their campaigns, but I think both will be better off flying under the radar as long as possible.

In the end, I agree that the MSM likes the 2 person campaign because they are easy to cover.

---

by: Ben Brandstrader @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:43:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Certainly when it comes to Clinton (0.00 / 0)

it is hard to deny the media presence and the long-term relationship with the base from the start. However, Obama was immediately positioned as the main opposition to Clinton as early as December. At the time, that was really strange, since Edwards held a substantial Iowa lead and was only a few points back in New Hampshire, thus actually making Edwards the frontrunner in December. And yet it was framed as Clinton vs. Obama.

Flying under the media radar is not going to help Edwards and Richardson. They are lagging in polls, donations and general buzz that comes with more media coverage. It might somehow come back to help them if they can maintain their standing in Iowa and New Hampshire, or improve upon it, but that will be more difficult if they are flying under the radar.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:58:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think both linear explanations are a little unlikely. (0.00 / 0)

One seems to basically be that the media primarily shapes public opinion rather than reports on it, with its opposite being that the media primarily reports public opinion rather than shapes it.

I think there's a symbiotic relationship there, where one feeds the other and vice versa. People sell papers by writing about what paper-buyers are interested in, thus creating more interest and so on. Obviously, if we had the data we could see what percentage of change in enthusiasm is explained by media coverage, and what percentage of change in media coverage is explained by change in voter enthusiasm.

I think a partial explanation for that may be that both the media and voters find certain candidates more or less compelling based on something inherent. For example, I wonder if all the positive media coverage in the world could make Mike Gravel's message resonate with voters. Maybe there's just something about him that voters and the media both find uninspiring. I don't that is necessarily in conflict with your point that the media is clearly chomping at the bit for a Clinton-Obama catfight.

Also, I can imagine hypothesizing that enthusiasm is at least partly driven by an assessment of how likely your candidate is to win, and that that assessment might be driven in part by media coverage.

Under my theory, if Richardson continues to trend up in the polls and in fundraising, we'll start seeing more media coverage, and then he will have more enthusiastic supporters, and so on. I think we both agree on that. But I would see that as ultimately driven by Richardson himself and by his campaign's success in appealing to voters rather than being ultimately driven by the media.

Maybe our difference is really about semantics?

---

by: brklyngrl @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:50:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I note that you only posted the results (4.00 / 1)

of the Pew thing for the Democratic candidates, but I find it interesting [and encouraging] that, after the top two Dems, no candidates or even noncandidates from any party seem to have any significant name recognition.

June 1-4, April 27-30, March 16-19,
2007 2007 2007
42 Hillary Clinton 32 41 37
22 Barack Obama 20 23 24
3 George W. Bush 1 1 2
2 John Edwards 2 3 1
2 John McCain 2 4 3
2 Rudy Giuliani 4 3 3
2 Fred Thompson 4 * 0
2 Mitt Romney 3 1 1
1 Bill Richardson -- -- --
1 Other 2 1 4
21 Donâ??t know/Refused 30 23 25
100 100 100 100

If there were a strong tendency in the newspeople to create two-way races, I think there would be more framing of the Repugnants' race in this way, but I don't see it, just an indistinguishable throng of white male faces wearing the same suit.

---

by: MissMannered @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:03:47 AM CDT

Good post (4.00 / 1)

It's amazing how well Edwards is doing, considering. It also speaks to the impact that an Iowa victory would have. The national reaction would not be--as some in sphere claim--oh yeah,well,  he was supposed to win, right? It would be, What??!!! Who???? Oh, yeah, him? Hair, right? VP? Lawyer. Okay. Hmm. Really Progressive? More progressive than Obama or Clinton, that's clear. I really liked the speech he gave the night he won Iowa. Really? He does better than Clinton against GOP contenders? Saw Elizabeth on Oprah, loved her. Universal health care! Tax cuts for the middle class, for me. Oh, now I rememer: poverty. That's cool. He certainly sounds like a Democrat. Labor likes him, that's promising, the Service Workers. Sounds good.

He's got my vote.

---

by: david mizner @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:42:35 AM CDT