Too much obsession with the polls - not enough with the issues

[Zomby Woof]

Kucinich was right about this when he excoriated Ted Koppel in that debate last month. The coverage of the candidates is oriented towards polling data, tracking numbers, who gets the most money, what does winning Iowa mean, what does coming in 2nd in NH mean, etc, ad nauseum, et al, infinity...

But the media, and some of the campaigns - have not gotten the memo. Issues ARE being discussed by the candidates, as they meet with Iowans, and elsewhere for the ones not running there. Platforms can be accessed through the candidate's website, or doing a search right here on DU, or other political news and debate forums.

Still, it seems the measure of a candidate's worth is based on quantity rather than quality. I have to laugh when I read that such-and-such will beat Bush because of the amount of money being raised. Oh yeah? By that logic, Bush will still win, because he has still raised the most money, by far, over all of the others. But I don't buy that logic, and neither should you.

So we Democrats, no matter which candidate we support, are like the smaller market baseball teams going up against the well-bankrolled Yankees year after year. We all know from recent years that even their money can't buy a championship.

It can be conceded that money helps with the odds, and that the best-financed Democrat has as good a shot as anyone else, but don't fool yourself that it is a substitute for a credible campaign, which MUST reach an electorate not as in love with your candidate as you are.

Therein lies the nagging factor I have noticed the past few weeks.

It seems when a campaign comes under fire, and all of the excuses about "they are just desperate to slam us", or "his remarks were taken out of context", it just covers up the issues even more. So what do the defenders do? "Well, he has the BEST grassroots campaign, with an average amount per contributor exceeding the GDP of Swaziland!" "The base is ENERGIZED! He WILL beat Bush! Because the blog says so!". Not a thing about the issues, not a thing about how balancing a budget in your home state translates into doing it on the federal level, which has a budget far more complex, byzantine, and gargantuan, with a tax code to match. Nothing. Just dodges and weaves and hiding behind the mantle granted by the media. The same media obsessed with polls and horseraces and fundraising.

All the talk, all the threads, all the coverage about polls, money, and odds are just a masturbatory smokescreen to cover for the lack of debate and substance. Attempts to talk about positions and platforms are met with derision, with comments like "Read his webpage! We have more important things to do here! Like bash!", or non sequitir attacks on an unrelated candidate. All dodges and obsfucations.

If there were any times in our history we need substance over show, it is NOW. No need to elaborate, since DUers are all too aware of the dismal record of Bush.

So do yourself, and your candidate, a favor, and drop the addiction to polls and money. Get into some MEAT, and don't be afraid to combat with facts rather than smokescreens and dodges. Surely our imaginations haven't been so stunted from an MTV childhood to do this?

Ted Koppel was rightfully told where the media drives campaigns. Please don't be his accomplice.

Edit: typos.

[MuseRider]

1. How true.

It is sad that we seem to have bought into the most money, most media thing. It often makes it difficult to have a good discussion. The polls? Well, if they are not including all of the candidates then they mean absolutely nothing. I guess we will see how much difference it makes. Something tells me that the more money and the more ads for a candidate without much substance will just annoy people. This will be very interesting.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. No. Too much obsession with personality over the issues

The personality factor tends to sway the debate. In his endorsement Harkin said Dean represents a new breed of plain talking Harry Truman- which is of course quite a stretch.

[ShimokitaJer]

3. Not too much of a stretch for Harkin, apparently

And since you offered nothing more than a denial of it with an "of course" attached, I see no reason not to give Harkin more credence on Iowa voters than any New Yorker from Mass, much less one who has attacked Dean in the past.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Apparently Harkin looked the other way on some Dean doings:

Iowans defend Kerry's farm record from Dean distortions in letter

[XanaDUer]

4. Bless you, ZW!

You have hit the nail on the head once again.

[anti-bush]

5. So true

The media can't get people to watch an hour of issues, though. But watching an hour of arguing is "newsworthy". I think the people will actually speak, and the candidate with the best policies, ideas, and focus on issues will win the nomination.

[mouse7]

7. Gee... with the potential you had for ZogbyWolf polling, too

What a shame. You had a real future there.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Amen, Zomby, amen!

Keep telling the Zomby Troof.

And OMG I think you're right -- lots of people need to get over their MTV childhoods!
(Having had a Howdy-Doody childhood, I don't have that problem. :7 )

[Zomby Woof]

9. I have my own obsession with historical memory

When I see McGovern trashed for being a weak human being because he didn't beat Nixon, or Truman being maligned by being compared to a mealy-mouthed opportunist, I get my ire up. Equating "win/lose" with virtue and strength of character. Much too much an American trait, and it needs its ass kicked.

[Maddy McCall]

15. Great that you know who McGovern is...

and I would venture that you also know who Mondale and Dukakis are.

That would make you an authority on Dem candidates, unlike some here who know nothing about party history.

:toast:

[Zomby Woof]

17. Missed voting for Mondale by one year

Did get in the Dukakis vote in '88, and I still cringe at the mention of Lee Atwater's name. (Who? Asks the MTV mavens)

Hell, I even get impatient having to explain why Mo Udall would have been my choice for the Democrats in 1976, instead of Carter. :-)

[ThirdWheelLegend]

10. Zomby, a great post!

Issues are pushed aside for polls and money. It only took DU one day fter Kucinich gave the smackdown to Koppel before the front page was once again covered in polls and money.

Issues posts on here drop like rocks.


TWL

[Zomby Woof]

11. a kick for poll junkies

:think:

[goodhue]

12. well put n/t

[no name no slogan]

13. Glad you posted this ZW...

because if you had not, I probably would have done so! ;-)

I agree with you 100% on this. It seems that nobody gives a damn about the issues, but are obsessed with what the press is saying, how much money a certain campaign has, etc. It seems like the Dems have bought into the media interpretation of this race hook, line and sinker.

We have Democrats supporting candidates because they feel that Candidate X is "electable", even though they disagree with the candidate on several very important issues!

Let's not forget one of the lessons of 2000. Al Gore BEAT THE SHRUB, and spent $60+ million LESS than BushCo, to boot! Democrats win because they're right on the issues, and they stand up for them against the Repubs. They don't win by co-opting Repub positions and outspending the opposition.

WE DON'T NEED THE MONEY. It seems as if that's all the campaigns care about, so much so that it overrides any sort of concerns about candidates' positions and/or credibility. Somebody brings up a controversial statement you may have made? Don't address it-- just put up another cute graphic on the website asking for more money!

It's this kind of campaigning that has cost us dearly in the last decade. We can still change it. But I fear we're running out of time.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

14. Agreed, we are running out of time..Kick for issues and not media

GO Dennis!

TWL

[Maddy McCall]

16. Excellent post

Great message, and worthy of this :kick:

[isbister]

18. The majority of Americans don't care about the issues

I will support any candidate against bush but, I have to be honest and say that I have thought once or twice about how this candidate or that candidate will look when standing on a stage against bush.... and what the American public's reaction will be.

A couple of the candidates are not as tall as he is. I believe such a candidate would lose votes just because of this. I am ashamed to to ask; how many of the American voting public will take away points for that fact alone... before a word is even said? How many will think (s)he has this stance or that stance against bush and look at him/her (s)he's small. It could be a lot.

I watched the debates in 2000 and thought Gore smoked bush. After one of the debates I remember the talking heads saying something like: "Gore attacked bush and he just seemed mean, I don't think the American public will like that"

This is exactly what a lot of the people "polled" thought. It didn't matter that Gore was knowledgeable and laid out his case, he was a meany to bush. How many votes did Gore lose because a talking head said Gore was mean (or wooden)? Enough to turn that election, wasn't it? Facts do not matter for many Americans.

I watch the debates now and there are three candidates that the others look at attentively pretty much every time they speak.

One is Sharpton (loved the "treating the doctors and nurses and leaving the patients sick" thing last night).

The other two know what they are talking about and the other candidates watch. These two may throw a phrase in here or there to liven up what they're saying but, for the most part, they speak with great knowledge about the issues. The others just touch upon, speak around, or talk in slogans.

A great deal of the public doesn't appear to care. They want to feel good, they don't want to hear too much about it, its too much work for many folks in America to take the time to try to understand.

Proof, do I have proof? bush is the proof, a fellow like that should never have even gotten a sniff of the White House, McCain was the better candidate (and I don't like Keating Five McCain one bit) and so was Gore.

[Desertrose]

19. thank you! late nite kick for a great post

So true...its all about the issues stupid ( not you of course ) :eyes:

well it should be about the issues.....and Dennis rocks on the issues!!


Peace
DR

[RafterMan]

20. Yes it's annoying

But how will "the issues" ever be addressed by a president?

The president has to *move* people to his or her position, so the ability to swing polls is a valid piece of the puzzle, imo.

[LWolf]

21. Good point.

You know, after being bombarded, all polls/$$ all the time, it's easy for some to get caught up in the idea that polls and $$$ elect people. That polls and $$$ are more important than the issues.

If we don't bring up the issues now, in the primary...if the issues are not the priority...when will they be?

Not in the general election. By then, it will be beat * at all cost. If your candidate isn't addressing issues today, don't hold your breath for the general election. Don't hold your breath for action in office.

If we never bring up the issues, if we never vote based on the issues, we surely can't complain if the issues are never addressed.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

22. Issues, those pesky things that distinguish candidates.

Not the polls, not the money, not the media coverage. The issues, and Kucinich is hands down the best.

TWL

[LWolf]

23. That he is.

If we really want to move; to get the work done, to make significant changes, Dennis Kucinich is the man to get the job done. He's got the issues.

[Clark4VotingRights]

24. Correct. So feel free to start an issue thread.

Oh, and when I do (like the recent one on affirmative action),
it sinks like a rock.

[Zomby Woof]

26. I've been here a while

I have started more than my share of substantive issue threads with the lifespans of gnats on speed.

But I gave them a rest until the primaries are over and Dean goes home to Vermont, or NYC, or wherever the hell he is from...

Until then, I just want to be a gnat, but of a more laconic variety.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

28. gnats on speed...

good visual

kick!

TWL

[tinanator]

30. wall street, aint it?

we need a leader with roots like that. Wait, maybe he should head the CIA instead?

[Terwilliger]

25. sure

so goes the sheeple, so goes politics

[Zomby Woof]

27. well, someone...

Had to post a thread NOT about the Dean/Sharpton fracas last night. A mini-lecture was due in the midst of the sameness.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

29. mini lecture

Here is my mini-lecture, this thread is already off the front page!

NO I WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT!

Kick.

TWL