As we all know, the 2008 presidential campaigns are getting swamped with coverage lately. It is beginning to seem slightly ridiculous to me the amount of media attention that these potential candidates are getting. Shouldn't the country still be paying attention to who is currently in office? What's that guy's name…..Bush or something?
With almost two years left until the 2008 elections, it seems like all American media outlets are becoming more and more obsessed with the 2008 candidates, instead of focusing on the current status of our country.
Certainly, this is great for Bush…the less negative attention he gets, the better. But is this extensive coverage good for the 2008 candidates? On the surface, most people would say yes. Candidates need to get their names and faces out in front of the public so voters become familiar with them. However, not all coverage is good coverage. Here are a few reasons why all this early campaigning might backfire for the 2008 candidates currently stealing headlines:
The Pew Research Center recently published an article about the accuracy of early campaign polls. The gist of the article is that because 2008 campaigning has started earlier than ever before, historical polling tactics are going to be irrelevant and ineffective:
It's not just the case that polling in the nominating contests is perilous. Polls that test hypothetical general election matchups at this stage in the cycle are mostly wrong about who will win the White House. Early polling does provide a benchmark for charting trends in voter sentiment, but it probably won't be very predictive of the eventual outcome in 2008.
This is a pretty interesting article. It notes that while Republican pre-campaign polls have tended to be pretty accurate, polls about the Dems have been all over the place. And, since there is no singular Republican frontrunner, the potential accuracy of pre-election polls is even more questionable than usual.
This prompts me to ask an important question. Why is the 2008 election so different from past elections? What has caused this explosion in coverage?
The optimistic half of me wants to think it's because Americans are genuinely interested in the political future of their country. Given the low apporval ratings for President Bush, it makes sense that Americans would take an active interest in who will be our next leader in 2008.
But the realistic side of me tends to agree with Eric Boehlert from MediaMatters for America:
The press truly has embraced the notion of the nonstop campaign and I think has done so for increasingly selfish reasons. For political scribes, presidential campaigns used to be the sports car their parents let them take out for a spin once every four years to show off. Now it's become a case of incessant cruising, with endless preening and posing. Specifically, White House campaigns can be career-making seasons, when high-profile promotions, book deals, TV punditry contracts, and teaching positions can be pocketed.
For news media companies, presidential campaigns mean big business; relatively inexpensive content that can be endlessly rehashed. In other words, they're good for the bottom line.
Think about it. When was the last time you actually heard something original about the 2008 presidential elections? Maybe it's now, as you're reading this blog post.
Sign up today to have our latest posts delivered straight to your inbox.