This is "Democracy"...2 States down and the "Media" crowns Kerry???

[cthrumatrix]

This no different than the media "announcing a winner" before people go to the polls in all the states on an election day.

How can you say this doesn't make an impact in people's minds?

How can two states (which do not speak for ALL Americans) do this?

How can Dean's scream (which ABC/Sawyer) showed wasn't really a scream bury a candidate.... ?


It's simple....our Media doesn't want to give to give America "choice". They have an establishment candidate and they are happy.

No need to tell each state (especially coming up this week) who the candidates are and/or differences on the issues.

This is NOT democracy....there is not one person - one vote. We talk about this on DU (the corrupt media) all day and now we see it happening in front of our eyes.

The "powers that be" really don't want to have three more months of sharing that the "emperor has no clothes"....they have their guy Kerry...whose risen from the ashes to claim victory ...after two states and 300,000 votes counted.

Iowa does not vote like Michigan, California, New York. The demographics are much different. Iowa / NH does not vote like other states where there is a "diverse population".

I thought we had hope for change in this country. And change starts with "Democracy". The corporations have spoken (with their $$$) and through the media. They wish for "the sheeple" to follow their barrage of "how to think" ...looks like business as usual.

[Lexingtonian]

1. Well, look

The idea is that Iowa and New Hampshire have gotten to see all the candidates up close, personal, ad nauseum, for literally months if not years. Then, having gotten over any and every infatuation and silly revulsion and delusion and talking point, the people there vote for who they think best.

I mean, every single person I saw interviewed on the street in those two places had a somewhat sympathetic take on every candidate and a sheer pragmatism about what these fellows were saying. Their trouble was not in pegging the candidates for what they are and what they pretend to be at all, it was the question of What Is Important in the present that preoccupied them until election day in deciding who to give their vote.

It isn't a friggin' accident that they get things pretty darn right most of the time. If your boy can't end up in the top three with them, There Are Problems With Him/Her. We have to live with our nominees for four years after the general election; we let these folks report to us in advance what the long haul with them looks and feels like.

You can come up with any and all rationalizations you like. You are grieving Dean and the Kuebler-Ross stages of the process are evident in your post (denial, anger, bargaining, depression). It just po's me to see yet another conspiracy allegation put up, as if that weren't an insult to the rest of us and those voters. It reminds me that part of the Dean campaign was/is a Manichaean approach to the world, and that is a diseased approach to the world.

[krkaufman]

12. Though erudite, your analysis ignores reality

I agree with some of what you said, but the analysis ignores the fact that the news media has freaking already called this race -- with less than 2% of the delegates allocated.

For example, I was just watching CNN's "Lou Dobb's Tonight" from Wednesday (repeat showing on Thursday A.M.), and they just put up a poll:

Do you think the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination is over?

I'm sorry, but cthrumatrix has a valid point relative to the media's effect on voting -- especially this year where the nebulous "electability" factor is being bandied about without any real analysis as to what components/characteristics in what amount lend to a given candidate's perceived electability.

[Lexingtonian]

17. you tell me-

What reality or what perception about particular candidates is going to change?

'The media' are doing this kind of leap-of-logic stuff because they've asked their political consultants what is most likely to happen. And they've been told that Iowa and New Hampshire have dramatic power in culling the field as born out by a half century and more of previous campaigns. Not that this stuff is an absolute predictor, but their analysts are saying that they don't see any reason on the horizon yet why things won't follow the pattern this year.

You seem to think that the 2% of delegates things is what matters. No, it's the lengthy showdowns that the two things represent, which are a measure of strength utterly disproportionate to the number of delegates. I'd peg these two states' value at 30% of the whole primary campaign. Of course Iowa and New Hampshire voters are only giving their best guesses at who is the most suitable person, but every candidate who does badly there does so for a discoverable reason, a reason their opponents tend to exploit or they manage to fix. People in other states rely on Iowa and New Hampshire to do a lot of the work of discrimination, to force the candidates' hands and reject the worst.

I'm not sure what the great mystery about 'electibility' is. It's a little like 'centripetal force' in physics, a thing not itself of literal existence but a shorthand for the aggregation of more invisible but real things harder to get the mind around. It could be phrased as the question "Can you see the people you really know voting for this fellow?" because it invokes who the candidate is/does and s/he represents in the present situation (state of the electorate, national problems, local problems, zeitgeist, mutual ability to cope, state and content of the politician-citizen dialogue). It's a situational (here/now/these people) quality, not generally reduceable to an abstraction (though we do use an oral shorthand). "He frightens my Aunt Minnie and Uncle Earl" is an example of the kind of shorthand.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. Also look at history of Iowa AND NH double winners

it's almost a lock now. And I agree totally about the intensity of candidate exposure in these 2 early contests. It is hard to imagine different results down the road.

[mb7588a]

2. The two small early state system

is very flawed, for reasons already detailed in great length here on DU...

It's not just the media, though I agree, they suck about this kind of thing.

There's also money, momentum, message, and McAulliffe. :) The 4 M's - they all contribute in some way to Kerry's success.

But I think you've overlooked Kerry's accomplishments (at least according to exit polls) in both states a tad. He did better on labor than Gephardt. He did better among poor and working class people than Edwards in both states. He did better among new and youth voters in Iowa than Dean, and virtually tied in NH with Dean. Clark made a mistake not going to Iowa, he entered at the top, but couldn't keep it going... I just wanted to point out those little things, for fairness sake. Those who have already called it do have their reasons. I, along with most of the talking heads, view Kerry and Edwards as the battle for the nomination. That will be an exciting good-hearted battle too.

[joshcryer]

3. I personally think that primaries should happen in all states.

All at once.

[faithfulcitizen]

9. me too!

All states have unique differences, and we should all have the same voice.

http://www.wewantwes.com/wesismore.htm

http://www.wewantwes.com/respect.htm

[cthrumatrix]

24. i agree...a month of tv time for all (PBS, Debates, endorsements) and then

one day..everyone votes.

This is "horse hockey" that the person gets more "seasoned"...heck the media is holding back on their assassination of Kerry for the run against the "boy emperor"

[sandnsea]

4. Gore, rally around Dean

Come on. They just did this for Dean in December and Dean supporters all chimed right in. We had weeks if not months of who will be the anti-Dean. Can Dean be stopped. It's all the same thing with Kerry.

The candidate will be based on who the voters decide. Just like it was in Iowa.

[AP]

5. There's still an outsider with a chance to win.

[joshcryer]

8. You mean Dean, right?

:D

[AP]

14. Nope.

[auburnblu]

6. Amen

I almost get the feeling that the powers that be feel that it would be a crime to actually let minorities make an impact in the first vote. Listening to the "diversity, diversity, we love diversity" chants of the DNC rings pretty hollow when Florida and DC are lambasted for daring to consider holding an earlier primary. Talks of doing away with special privileges for the waelthy and a two class system while creating a two class voter system in the nomination process seems insane. Sorry Iowa and New Hampshire voters, tradition or not, I think in 2008 its time that voters in these states sat in the back of the bus and weren't first in line.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Record turnouts, motivated voters.

Where does anyone here get off insulting a majority of people whose reasoned decision might just be correct? Seems rather elitist of any candidate's supporters here to assume that another candidate's supporters are lackey's of the media.

[Gore1FL]

10. I don't think it was ever claimed to be a democracy

Primaries and Caucuses are not iherently 'democratic' processes.

As far as media crowning Kerry -- They are doing little more than laying odds -- much like when "The Sporting News" predicts the final placement of Baseball teams before the season starts.

That being said,

IA and NH are ectremely important in that victories or defeats there impact greatly upon the candidates abilty to raise money, and muster momentum from different upcoming contests. Despite the overall meaningless delagate count totals at this point, momentum and the ability to raise money are pivitol in the next few weeks and will make or break a campaign.

Kerry, because of these factors, is in the cat-bird seat.

[yellowdawgdem]

11. relax

Everything isn't a conspiracy. I mean, you could look at this Kerry win as a dark bbv controlling force. Or, perhaps it can be seen as politics as usual. Maybe Kerry arranged way ahead of time to get this nomination, and paid some people off, and promised to go along to a certain extent. Or maybe this is a sign that folks are so darn worried about another 4 years of Bush that they are trying to get an electable person, whatever that means.
imo all of the democrats are electable, brilliantly capable when compared to the current person in there. He is in over his head, and secretly would like to get out of there (i betcha).
short of martial law or a major terrorist attack that wipes out all of the dem candidates and replaces them with giant reptiles, I think we got a shot here.
One of the problems in our country is that we have too many options, but too little actual freedom. I wish we were less controlled and manipulated by our press. But that is not the case, really, and it is sad to me that Howard Dean didn't do as well as was hoped in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it could be that voters weren't sure enough about him- how he would do in the south, etc etc. And the other factor is that Kerry perhaps came across stronger/and with more warmth than is shown in our media. I'm certain that the rw-ers have been trashing Kerry right along too, because he is actually more liberal than Dean is.

[cryofan]

13. I just go with whomever the media seems to fear or despise

THey used to love Dean, so I rejected him. THey love Kerry. So I am rejecting Kerry. They do not like Clark. So he has firmed up as my number one choice.

[Piperay]

15. The media had already crowned Dean earlier

before there was even one caucus or a single primary, they are eager to get the whole thing over and done with. It's a matter of economics they want the field narrowed so they can cut costs by only having to follow one candidate around instead of seven. It really stinks because it deprives those of us who live in places like CA of having a say and having our votes count for anything. :argh:

[fujiyama]

22. Plus...

It gives the media focus on one person they can find dirt on.

[cthrumatrix]

23. dirt..? they want the election called for Kerry. That's called "favortism"

[isbister]

16. The people of Iowa and New Hampshire rejected

the media's choice of Dean. Let's let the people decide the rest of the way.

[Cascadian]

18. I am just sickened by the media.

I don't think I have been more sickened by the media than I have been in the last couple of weeks. They are all falling over themselves over Kerry and continuing to trash Howard Dean. Just one primary and one caucus and John Kerry has been anointed the nominee???? Oh please!! Absolutely pathetic!


John

[jsw_81]

19. Give me a break

If Dean had won IA and NH, you'd be celebrating his front-runner status and urging the other candidates to quit the race. And you know it.

[Cascadian]

20. probably

but that is a bunch of "what ifs". Let's get back to reality. the media is thrashing Dean and you know it.


John

[AnnitaR]

21. Well he could be getting the big IGNORE

like Clark has been!

Which is worse? Not for sure.

The whole bunch can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned!

Someone else decided the last election, WE are going to decide this one!

[HPLeft]

25. This race is not over

On the other hand, the Dean supporters who were telling Kerry to drop out in the fall need to look in the mirror. You can't believe how much crap was thrown the way of Kerry supporters in 2003.

The media are front-runners, pure and simple. They have discounted Kerry for months. Now they are discounting Dean. Poor Dennis Kucinich is routinely laughed at, even though his campaign's issues are every bit as credible as anyone else in this race. I'm a Kerry supporter, but I do share some of Kucinich's sympathies - and am outraged at how he's been treated. Dean's been treated like the Golden Boy in comparision, and IMHO, his issues aren't anywhere as intellectually credible as Dennis'.

Don't turn this into some media conspiracy. This is about laziness, the decline of broadcast journalism, and the rise of wise-ass, front-running TV pundits masquerading as experts.

[cthrumatrix]

27. they want to influence the voters...and the system is corrupt the

way it's set-up...so few people vote for a candidate and a winner is brought forth.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. The 'scream' did not bury him.

His 3rd place finish in Iowa did.

[napi21]

30. No, the media interpretation of it hurt.

First, Dean is not dead! Second, have you never been at a football game SCREAMING for your team? I sure have! Came home horse too!

I would have been screaming right along with him!

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. I agree with you that Dean is not dead

His 2nd place finish in NH is nothing to sneeze at. But firing his campaign manager in the middle of the primaries. All that does is reinforce the impression that his campaign is imploding.

[blm]

29. You didn't say a PEEP when the media declared his candidacy DEAD for

months.

Why didn't you complain then? Because you were HAPPY the media closed him out and dried up his fundraising so Dean benefitted.

[cthrumatrix]

31. the media assasination started on Dean...same time Kerry went up

surprise...surprise

[napi21]

32. Assisination, sort of, but really continuous opposition

It's been apparent that the media wanted an establishment candidate for a LONG TIME! Earlier I posted all the complaints they all had on why Dean couldn't be the nominee.

When Kerry found that guy whose life he saved and managed to put him out just before the vote in Iowa, that got him the military and "Wow, what a guy" vote in Iowa. That win gave him the needed bounce in NH...his neighboring state.

Wait for the bashing Kerry takes this week from the Pubs, and see what happens.

[PVnRT]

33. Maybe because

his candidacy was in trouble? Or how else do you explain the shakeup on his staff? Did he just get bored one day, or what?