Political Horse Race Analysis...
... always piss me off. This from the AP is what I'm talking about. I can't stand people making predictions or saying it is this when it is nothing but specualtion. There are polls saying she's ahead, but really folks- its all name recognition. Obama has some but he also wasn't a first lady for 8 years.
As someone who has witnessed two presidential campaign cycles, I learned one thing: It's October and nothing is decided. People for the most part don't even know who is running. All of the debates mean nothing and people probably won't be paying attention until the end of November. So when I hear bull like this:
I get a little angry. The sad thing is most general voters won't be listening until next year and that is AFTER the parties have picked their nominees. So no regular voter even gets input. So much for primaries...
Here's My Rant
Let's face it- this primary system reflects none of the the actual principles it was founded on. Once upon a time it was supposed to take the candidate selection away from smoke-filled rooms. Now it still allows an elite class decide who gets it. But it isn't for the reasons the pundit class in the media (and "genius" analytical skills) say. It isn't liberal rank-and-file party voters deciding. IN fact the average party activist is cut out of the whole thing.
It is Washington money-funnelers. Who can get the most money the quickest. Clinton is a perfect example of this sham of a nominating process. I give Kudos to Obama and Edwards for their respective stands to fight it. But really those come from being unable to emulate Clinton's Washington schmoozing.
And then after all of this you hear inane news analysis like this:
This system is stacked for Washington insiders. Pretty much the same reason we started primaries in the first place. There are many ideas about how to structure the out-of-control front-loading of the primary system- but the this balancing won't do much when the Washington money-funnelers play gate-keeper.
As someone who has witnessed two presidential campaign cycles, I learned one thing: It's October and nothing is decided. People for the most part don't even know who is running. All of the debates mean nothing and people probably won't be paying attention until the end of November. So when I hear bull like this:
Memo to the Democratic presidential candidates: You can still beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, but you better act fast.
The former first lady looks more likely to win the nomination every day, showing strength in polling, fundraising and setting the campaign agenda.
I get a little angry. The sad thing is most general voters won't be listening until next year and that is AFTER the parties have picked their nominees. So no regular voter even gets input. So much for primaries...
Here's My Rant
Let's face it- this primary system reflects none of the the actual principles it was founded on. Once upon a time it was supposed to take the candidate selection away from smoke-filled rooms. Now it still allows an elite class decide who gets it. But it isn't for the reasons the pundit class in the media (and "genius" analytical skills) say. It isn't liberal rank-and-file party voters deciding. IN fact the average party activist is cut out of the whole thing.
It is Washington money-funnelers. Who can get the most money the quickest. Clinton is a perfect example of this sham of a nominating process. I give Kudos to Obama and Edwards for their respective stands to fight it. But really those come from being unable to emulate Clinton's Washington schmoozing.
And then after all of this you hear inane news analysis like this:
There is always the chance that Clinton could make an error in the next couple of months that would hurt her chances. Some argue that her vote against Iran at a time when anti-war Democrats are concerned about war there has the potential to damage her standing.
But Democratic insiders, including some working on various 2008 campaigns who spoke on condition of anonymity, agree that barring a major stumble, Clinton is all but sure to win the nomination if she wins the opening contest in Iowa. She is polling well in the states that follow, and no one else would be able to challenge her unless an Iowa loss made her look vulnerable.
This system is stacked for Washington insiders. Pretty much the same reason we started primaries in the first place. There are many ideas about how to structure the out-of-control front-loading of the primary system- but the this balancing won't do much when the Washington money-funnelers play gate-keeper.
Labels: Politics
posted by Amos at 9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home