For months pundits told us this year was different. The calendar was too compressed, the big states were front-loaded, and someone -- in this case Rudy Giuliani -- could win the nomination without winning a single early contest.
You can now put that to rest: Meet the new primaries, same as the old primaries.
So what happened? In a word, the media.
Look at all the attention the networks gave to the Democratic contest in Florida, even though as of now not a single delegate will be seated from their primary. When there's a contest going on, we'll cover it. Giuliani thought he could survive past all of that, but he got steamrolled by the lack of attention. The rise of Mike Huckabee, the resurrection of John McCain and the back-and-forth between those two and Mitt Romney sucked all of the attention away from Giuliani, and he has spent the last few weeks trying to find it again. Instead, all voters have heard is horse-race stories about Giuliani's strategy.
All told, it's a spectacular collapse. In 2004, Howard Dean led for a brief period of time in national polls before faltering in Iowa and quickly fading. But Mr. Giuliani led for most of last year, and had a lot of very smart people declaring he had the magic key to the new primary system.
— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (6)
Guiliani started off challenging the Clintons for media attention. For some reason, he backed off and lost the initiative. The media only likes issues if they provide opportunities for conflict, conflict that helps the media create the news. Look at the coverage of the Republican primaries. Boring, boring, boring. Look at the Democrats, tears, finger pointing, dirt digging, mud slinging and race and gender baiting. Who gets hurt in the end, the citizens; the citizens because the media has built celebrities of hope, but the hope is based on image and not issues, not integrity, not reality. The leaders right now are three Senators. What have they done in the past seven years that will be any different than the next seven years or in the case of the Clintons, the power spin shuffle of the 1990s.
Posted by Larry Stone | January 30, 2008 1:27 AM
Giuliani the front runner touted by the media, though he has never been one has now crashed and burned. LOL
Posted by carpediem | January 30, 2008 1:38 AM
Why is it that the media is not seen as a propagandist machine? It seems to gets away with it? Is there not a watchdog group?
I thought I heard of this (watchdog group)
some time ago?
Posted by Kevin | January 30, 2008 12:03 PM
Hi Stephen...
Craig Sterling the photographer from Old Town Alexandria here...BTW...Great coverage!
I think the Guiliani implosion and a lack of national attention by the public and the media was due mostly to his lack of "what's happening now" rather than what happened on 911. Seems to me his entire campaign was centered around 911. Oh, a little miscalculation on campaign strategy didn't help as well!!!!
He made a lot of enemies during his time as Mayor of NYC...I guess it was payback!
Regards...Craig Sterling
Posted by Craig Sterling | January 30, 2008 12:15 PM
I guess the Giuliani campaign shows just how worthless early polls really are. I loved seeing the mainstream media last year saying Giuliani was ahead in the polls and that Clinton had a "lock" on the nomination. Look how wrong they were. Look how wrong the polls were even in New Hampshire, where Obama was expected to win by a comfortable margin. Polls don't really mean much until people start voting. Also, what candidates do and say during a primary has a huge effect on future primaries (one can only wonder how Hillary will do on February 5th after the stupid things Bill said in South Carolina). Anybody who says they know who's going to win this nomination, in either party, is dreaming. We are probably looking at contested conventions for both parties, something that hasn't happened in roughly 60 years. God help us all.
Posted by Libertyship46 | January 30, 2008 12:28 PM
Everyone has to check out the article "White Voters with a Side of Hispanics" on the blogzine Savage Politics. This is an awesome discussion and analysis on the current Democrat and GOP candidates and their eligibility.
www.savagepolitics.com
Here is an excerpt: "Tuesday night's Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC's Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a 'gross' favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN's pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat ('Beauty Pageant' was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama's 33%, Edwards' 14%, and Gravel's 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney's 31%, Giuliani's 15%, Huckabee's 14%, and Paul's 3%. Let's discuss each Party's results and their realistic consequence.
First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most 'base' Republicans, much of it owed to McCain's overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush's Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the 'moderate wing' within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to both Romney's and Huckabee's 29%. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but when you also consider that the majority of non-Evangelicals (Catholics, Atheist, etc.) also." Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64
Posted by Elsylee | January 30, 2008 8:30 PM