Tag: Politics

And it’s Obama

It looks like everyone is calling the Democratic caucuses for Barack Obama. Predictions are futile, of course, but that would seem to bode well for an Obama victory in New Hampshire. And if that happens, wouldn’t Clinton’s campaign be close to over? Especially if John McCain’s uninspiring finish in Iowa moves New Hampshire independents to pick up Democratic ballots next Tuesday? I know, I know. I’m getting away ahead of events here. But still.

Mapping the candidates

This map on WashingtonPost.com is a hoot. Click on the candidate, and you get lines showing where he or she has been and a brief explanation of the campaign’s geographic strategy. But why so sparse? I’d have loaded in any previously published stories, photos and videos from those locations in order to turn this into something readers would stay with for a while. Still, it’s a good example of graphical journalism.

Democrats tied

Chris Matthews and company were very excited earlier tonight, claiming that Barack Obama was going to win, followed possibly by John Edwards, with Hillary Clinton coming in third. Not that anyone had actually voted.

Now, with nearly a quarter of the vote counted, Obama, Edwards and Clinton are virtually tied, with Edwards holding a slight edge — 32.62 percent to 32.2 percent apiece for Clinton and Obama. (The numbers are being continually updated, so they’ll have changed by the time you click.)

Mike Huckabee is beating Mitt Romney 36 percent to 23 percent at the moment. But John McCain may have a hard time claiming he’s the real winner if he comes in behind sleepy Fred Thompson.

Missing in action (II)

My friend Larz raises a good point, noting that there are at least 54 people running for president, yet only a handful ever get invited to debates or covered by the media.

I’m not naive. Based on poll numbers, fundraising, experience and the conventionality of their views, I’d say there are only six plausible candidates for president: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards among the Democrats, and Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain among the Republicans. (Sorry, Governor, but the Republicans are not going to commit Huckacide.)

But why should we be screening anyone out before a single vote has been cast? What should the standard be? It seems to me that if a candidate is competing in enough states to win the nomination of either major party, then he or she deserves at least some coverage. How much? I don’t know.

Then there’s the perennial conundrum over what to do in the general election, when independent and minor-party candidates come into play. Again, it seems to me that if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states so that she or he could theoretically win the presidency, then coverage is warranted.

Should such candidates be included in the televised debates? I’d say yes. Maybe for the final debate you could restrict it to candidates who are pulling at least 15 percent in the polls. But I don’t see how you can exclude people until they’ve had a chance to make their case.

Missing in action

I’m not one of those purists who believes all candidates, no matter how marginal, must be included in all media coverage. But it strikes me as pretty lame if you can’t find a way to wedge everyone into a chart explaining where they all stand on the issues.

So I was struck by a chart on pages 14 and 15 of today’s New York Times that excludes Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Republican Duncan Hunter. I can think of no reason why the Times’ editors would have left them out other than poll numbers so minuscule that they can’t be taken seriously. So let’s take a look.

First, the most recent national poll — a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey taken in mid-December — shows, on the Democratic side, Kucinich and Gravel with 1 percent each. That’s very low indeed, but not quite as low as the virtual zero scored by Chris Dodd. And, given that the margin of error is plus or minus 5 percent, those numbers are really no different from Bill Richardson’s 2 percent or Joe Biden’s 3 percent.

On the Republican side, Hunter scores a lowly 2 percent, just below Ron Paul’s 3 percent. Again, no real difference — a point that becomes even clearer if you look at Hunter’s and Paul’s numbers over time, which essentially show each bouncing around 1 percent to 3 percent.

What prompts the Times chart today, of course, are the Iowa caucuses, which will be held on Thursday. So do the Iowa polls show Kucinich, Gravel and Hunter lagging so badly behind everyone else that they uniquely deserve to be left out? Well, sort of, but not really.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, also conducted in mid-December, Hunter scored just 1 percent, while the next-lowest candidate, John McCain, had 6 percent. (I’m excluding Tom Tancredo, who’s left the building.) So there’s at least an argument to be made for Hunter’s not making the cut. Among likely Democratic caucus-goers, though, no such rationale emerges. Kucinich and Dodd are tied at 1 percent each and, in previous polls, Kucinich did slightly better than Dodd. (Gravel was left off the most recent survey, although his Web site shows that he’s still doing campaign events.)

By leaving off Kucinich, Gravel and Hunter, the Times demonstrates a clear bias toward conventional thought. Among the Democrats, Dodd has performed as poorly as anyone, yet he’s included — and he has been included in every debate, unlike Kucinich and Gravel. The difference is that Dodd is a mainstream liberal and a senator, well-liked by the media and a proven provider of good quotes.

Kucinich, on the other hand, is a radical congressman with a prickly personality. He’s got some interesting ideas, but when does that ever have anything to do with it? Gravel, admittedly, is a loose cannon. But if you’re going to start excluding candidates from issues charts, debates and the like, then Dodd, and even Richardson and Biden, are no more serious about winning the nomination than Kucinich or Gravel are at this point.

It’s at least somewhat clearer among the Republicans. Paul has raised a ton of money and is the darling of Internet libertarians. Although he’s not going to win the nomination or the presidency, he may run as an independent, which would be one of the big political stories of the year. Given that, Hunter really is the least plausible Republican, the longest of longshots. But he’s a congressman and he’s just one guy. Why leave him out?

The Des Moines Register has an issues chart online as well, and everyone is included. Not that that proves anything — the Times’ online issues chart also includes everyone, even candidates who’ve dropped out. (Locally, the Boston Globe has a similar feature online.)

This was the Times’ last chance before the voting begins to tell readers of the print edition — and there may be more than a few Sunday subscribers in Iowa — where all the candidates who are still running stand on a variety of issues. Yes, it’s graphically pleasing to make it appear that there are six Republicans and six Democrats running; the column widths are easy on the eye. But it’s not true.