Are the Dem candidates getting all the press?

[Perd Hapley]

I have a question for those of you who watch TV.  Is it true that Clinton and Obama are getting all the media attention, while the Repubs are being ignored?

I work with a guy who supports Hillary, and he asked me why "you never hear about any of the other candidates," meaning the Republicans.  That was right after he asked me, "Hillary Clinton and Obama are Republicans, right?"  So, apparently, he's not seeing anything about the Rep. candidates on the news.

Don't worry, though, folks.  His criminal record prevents him from voting.   

[grislyatoms]

If Yahoo news headlines are any indication, the only ones running for Prez are Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

[Sergeant Bob]

I know if I watch the noos on the TV, it seems most of the attention is focused on Hillbama. Repugs generally get only casual mention.

[Manedwolf]

I have a question for those of you who watch TV.  Is it true that Clinton and Obama are getting all the media attention, while the Repubs are being ignored?

I work with a guy who supports Hillary, and he asked me why "you never hear about any of the other candidates," meaning the Republicans.  That was right after he asked me, "Hillary Clinton and Obama are Republicans, right?"  So, apparently, he's not seeing anything about the Rep. candidates on the news.

Don't worry, though, folks.  His criminal record prevents him from voting.   

Except for Fox, yes.

If someone watches Clinton News Network, hardcore-leftist MSNBC, etc...why would they expect to see Republicans?

[CAnnoneer]

Yes, Dems get most of the press. Part of it is shortsightedness, part of it lack of interest, part bias, part subconscious reaction, part propaganda tricks. I get the impression most media already believe Dems are going to win, and so the Repub primary is meaningless. So, for them the big question is "Hilbama or Baraklinton?"

Yes, that's what the political process has been reduced to.  Rip up your shirt, spray ashes over your head, and yell "You did it, you maniacs!"

[Perd Hapley]

And here I thought it was just a result of my co-worker just not watching the news at all.

[jamz]

The democratic race is a genuinely more interesting, having the first Black and female candidates in US history, of course they get the majority of the press.  If we had  Condi running against Powell or something, and the dems had a standard bunch of OWGs, (old white guys) then the repubs would get most of the coverage.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The democratic race is a genuinely more interesting

Yup. And more simple. There are three, maybe four possibles for the GOP - McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and... maybe... Rudy. And people don't think much of any of those candidates. Who really loves McCain - aside from his mother and Bill Kristol? Nobody knows much about any of 'em, nobody seems to care.

In the Democrat race, it's Hillary or Obama. Or John Edwards, if those two decide to kill each other. When will Edwards quit, and to whom will his delegates go? Was S. Carolina a dastardly Clinton plan, or just Bill without his meds? Think mafia. The Clinton Family versus the Daley Family. New York versus Chicago. Lucky Luciano versus Al Capone.

Take that with a grain of salt, though. Just watched The Godfather Part III, so I've got that on the mind.

[Perd Hapley]

The democratic race is a genuinely more interesting, having the first Black and female candidates in US history. 

Not a chance.  The firsts* are indeed interesting, but the novelty wore off a long time ago.  They are both lefty democrats, so who cares which one gets it?  The Republican field is far more interesting, given there are more contenders for the actual nomination,** and the ideological differences between Reagan conservatives, versus "moderates" like Guliani.  Then there is the Mitt Romney, "is he really a conservative now, and if he is, will Bible-thumpers vote for him?" phenomenon.  Not to mention Ron Paul.  Not to mention the incredible wildfire Hey, What Happened? candidacy of Fred Thompson. 

*We've had Black candidates and female candidates before.  But of course, those stood no chance of winning the nomination.

**I don't know how many are in the running on each side, but the Repubs had more candidates that could actually win the nomination.  The Dems only have two or three. 

[Standing Wolf]

Don't worry, though, folks.  His criminal record prevents him from voting.

Yeah. Right.

[Tecumseh]

The democratic race is a genuinely more interesting

Yup. And more simple. There are three, maybe four possibles for the GOP - McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and... maybe... Rudy. And people don't think much of any of those candidates.

  You are forgetting Ron Paul.  He did beat Guiliani in the majority of the straw polls.  Not to mention he has been getting a lot of press.  IF Rudy is a maybe, I would say Ron Paul is a definitely.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

You are forgetting Ron Paul.  He did beat Guiliani in the majority of the straw polls.  Not to mention he has been getting a lot of press.  IF Rudy is a maybe, I would say Ron Paul is a definitely.

I guess so. I know his 'base' is a tad more vocal/loyal/fervent than that of most of the candidates... but I don't think he'll make it... anything's possible, but the complete lack of media attention seems to leave choosing a candidate up to name recognition.

I don't think national polls are too accurate... since he hasn't campaigned in a lot of states yet, thus very little name recognition. And with Thompson gone, there is the chance he could win the 'we want a true conservative' vote... but I'm afraid it won't come to be. If he's still in the running when the TX primary comes around, I expect to put in a vote for him.

[Tecumseh]

The democratic race is a genuinely more interesting, having the first Black and female candidates in US history. 

Not a chance.  The firsts* are indeed interesting, but the novelty wore off a long time ago.  They are both lefty democrats, so who cares which one gets it?  The Republican field is far more interesting, given there are more contenders for the actual nomination,** and the ideological differences between Reagan conservatives, versus "moderates" like Guliani.  Then there is the Mitt Romney, "is he really a conservative now, and if he is, will Bible-thumpers vote for him?" phenomenon.  Not to mention Ron Paul.  Not to mention the incredible wildfire Hey, What Happened? candidacy of Fred Thompson. 

*We've had Black candidates and female candidates before.  But of course, those stood no chance of winning the nomination.

**I don't know how many are in the running on each side, but the Repubs had more candidates that could actually win the nomination.  The Dems only have two or three. 

  We actually agree on some things. 

But I believe that Jesse Jackson ran for POTUS with the Democrats.  I also believe that Alan Keyes ran but I might be mistaken on that.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't worry, though, folks.  His criminal record prevents him from voting.

Yeah. Right.

Well, he does live in Illinois.      

I believe that Jesse Jackson ran for POTUS with the Democrats.  I also believe that Alan Keyes ran but I might be mistaken on that.

As I said, there have been a number of Blacks to run for President.  Sharpton, Keyes, Jackson.  Carol Moseley Braun and Shirley Chisholm, Black women who also ran for President.  Elizabeth Dole ran, too.  But Obama and Hillary are probably firsts in winning primary/caucus votes, and having an actual shot at the nomination.  Not quite sure about that, though. 

Full disclosure:  I didn't know about Chisholm, and I forgot about Dole.  Thanks, Wiki!   

[Bogie]

Keep in mind that name recognition is a BIG DEAL with the "politics of the masses."
 
And there is a _sizable_ percentage who will decide to vote for a candidate based on who they think will win - they do not want to have voted for the loser, so if media is predicting a winner, that is the candidate that gets the doofus vote.
 

[Iain]

Can only answer for British media - but yes, they do, but it does genuinely seem to be because of the woman/black thing, plus the Bill Clinton connection and the apparent back-stabbing.

Ron Paul's name has appeared a few times in columns that I've seen. Huckabee too, but that seems to be mostly 'really? really? the earth is 6,000 years old? really?' type stuff. Or maybe that's just the science-y blogs I read occasionally.

Not got a TV anymore, most of my news is internet based so I'm not a good sample of the UK populace.

[Tecumseh]

Keep in mind that name recognition is a BIG DEAL with the "politics of the masses."
 
And there is a _sizable_ percentage who will decide to vote for a candidate based on who they think will win - they do not want to have voted for the loser, so if media is predicting a winner, that is the candidate that gets the doofus vote.
 

  Sadly this is true.  I think that we need to stop relying on the media to help choose the elections.  As a trend I would like to see the people actually researching their candidate.  I also would like to see people stop voting for people because tehy are a member of a certain party. 

[Paddy]

Yes, because to most of the American people, it's just entertainment, and the Republicans are boring.

[Tecumseh]

Yes, because to most of the American people, it's just entertainment, and the Republicans are boring.

  They are not boring, they are horribly boring.  Perhaps if they decided to run a black or female candidate they would get more press. 

What I also find interesting is that they deny Ron Paul a chance to speak.  His views are very different from the mainstream GOP candidates.  I suspect that if more people heard what he has to say then they would get more coverage.  His supporters know what he has to say but the outlets are not allowing his message to be heard and selectively auditing what he has to say. 

I think if he was given equal treatment by the GOP the media would have a lot more press.  But the powers that be are so afraid of the man they would not allow it to be heard.

[SteveS]

I have a question for those of you who watch TV.  Is it true that Clinton and Obama are getting all the media attention, while the Repubs are being ignored?

No, I hear plenty on McCain, Romney, and Guiliani (even though he has backed out).   I just saw a story on the governator backing McCain.  I will admit that Ron Paul is getting much press now, but he never really did get much.  Huckabee seems to be fading, too.