Some politics is local

[barondave]

What the conservative news media hasn't mentioned, through two races, is that the locals won. In Iowa, the Senator from next door and the former governor from one state away were the winners. In NH, the former governor from next door came in second and the Senator from one state away are the winners.

The only one in the race with a national constituency is McCain, and he's too close to Bush to win in the general election.

The news media absolutely refuses to cover the news. They only want to talk about the immediacy of the horserace. The news is that Bush is staggeringly unpopular and all the Republican and conservative policies have failed. The GOP base is small and splintered. The Democrats have done a terrible job building a base, but they're competent, moral and honest (comparatively speaking) and are reaping the benefit of the anger at three stolen elections in a row and 12 years of the sleaze and corruption during the Gingrich/Bush reign.

This isn't about "segments" of people, this is about how democracy works. And it ain't pretty.

As I've been saying for a while, I'm not looking at the results of the too-early races, but the turnout. And it looks good for the adults.

Comments

yes, the turnout!

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

I think that's actually happy-making, the very best part. Votes matter (IMHO), and people are feeling less apathetic than they have in the last few elections. If we can only manage to make this into a trend and not a one-shot reaction, because the price has been pretty %&#@ heavy.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

The fact that Bush is staggeringly unpopular is news? Ain't nothin' new about it, Bub! :)

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and the media barely mentions how unpopular Bush and Cheney are, or why. (Bill) Clinton was constantly castigated in the press for acting politically, and he was more popular with real people than Reagan. One of the elephants in the room in 2008 is how badly the press has covered politics.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"Yeah, and the media barely mentions how unpopular Bush and Cheney are, or why."

I disagree. I have never been so aware of EXACTLY what a president's approval rating is, because the number has been reported constantly. At least since it started to slip, a few months after the 2004 election. Ever since the midterm elections, the press has been treating Bush as a lame duck president. Which he should be if he were rational, but he himself doesn't believe he's unpopular and he continues to gaily veto bills that his own party wants passed, and champion positions that his own party really doesn't want to talk about. *heh*

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

"What the conservative news media hasn't mentioned, through two races, is that the locals won."

Well, sort of. If proximity were the key factor, Romney should have trounced the senator from Arizona, which clearly didn't happen. It's no surprise that the New England governor did better in New England than he did in the Midwest, but it still wasn't enough to pull out a win for a candidate that people just generally don't seem to trust.

It's also no surprise that Huckabee, running on a narrow right-wing Christian platform, did better in a state with a ton of right-wing Christians than he did in New Hampshire, which is full of flinty libertarians. This is exactly the result that was predicted by the media. Not to mention by common sense. Obviously, a candidate that is blatantly running on the Bible is going to fare best in the Bible Belt. No big geographical secret there.

If you're looking for evidence of a vast right-wing conspiracy in the news sources, I don't think you're finding much evidence in the primary coverage.

I'm excited about the turnout too. And I've enjoyed the coverage of the NH primary, which has done a good job of highlighting the peculiar character of the New Hampshire electorate.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Not "a vast right-wing conspiracy" so much as incompetence fueled by a right-wing agenda. (See all the kerfuffle when Joe Klein got caught lying, and the NYTimes refusal to correct the story... one among many recent examples).

I'd point to CNN and their top anchor at night, Lou Dobbs, who goes on and on and on and on about "illegal immigration" (the GOP's #1 topic) and demanding -- DEMANDING! -- that ALL candidates make this their top priority and talk about little else.

Sad, really, the state of journalism today: There isn't much.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Reported by whom? There were a few stories about the numbers, but very little about why and what Bush is doing because of it. As you say, Bush doesn't live in the Real World (tm) and the press still just prints handouts from the White House.

I've seen more stories and heard more comments on how the Democratic controlled Congress is more unpopular, "sometimes more unpopular than the president" far more than any commentary on the president and VP. And I don't even watch Pravda Fox.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Of course one problem I have in discussions like this is figuring out what people mean by "media." I never watch TV news (except occasionally in a hotel on a rare business trip, which just reinforces my belief that I am missing nothing of importance). I do occasionally watch one of the PBS public affairs programs (e.g., Washington Week), but that's not quite the same thing as network news, which seems to be essentially worthless.

I listen to public radio and to several podcasts that cover politics and national news. Occasionally I check the headlines or a breaking story on cnn.com, which seems to do a pretty good job of reporting up-to-the-minute facts (like the voting returns last night). Mostly I read the paper (usually the Strib, but in the case of the Iowa caucuses I had occasion to read the NY Times and the major Phoenix newspaper as well).

I have found really intelligent, thoughtful coverage of the political process in all of these media sources. There may be areas that they don't cover prominently enough, but in what they do cover I think they are pretty even-handed. And there is a lot of detailed background information in the inside pages of the daily newspaper. I think many people who never read past the headlines aren't even aware of this.

Sadly, as daily newspapers disintegrate, there will probably be less of this. The recent debacle at the Strib makes me very sad. A lot of their veteran background reporters, like the estimable Eric Black, have been let go or have migrated to Internet-based platforms that I haven't bothered to locate. I probably should do that, but I'm just not used to the idea of reading the paper online.