The second state to weigh in held its primary yesterday. Judging from the results, it’s going to be a long spring. Anybody who is interested has probably already learned the results, so I have other observations to ponder.
The efficacy of entrance and exit polls, for example. I’ve come to the conclusion these polls hold little value, except for CNN and Fox News, that offer 24/7 commentary and must fill all those airwave minutes. My solution to this is to have CNN and Fox on only part of each day. I mentioned this to Earl who said, “Yes, but think of the advertising revenues that would be lost.” He has a point, except if there were a shorter broadcasting day there would be less need for such revenues.
As a child, I remember television stations going off the air at various hours in the night. Anyone with insomnia was invited to watch the test pattern that was shown until the station returned to the air the next day. I suspect there were fewer insomniacs back then, and I think there is merit in returning to this approach to avoid innocuous drivel from air-headed reporters.
Another issue I have: the presidential race is so wide open that no candidate is truly going to be representative. Take the Democrats. There are three front runners, one of which won Iowa and the other which won New Hampshire. The third will probably win one of the upcoming states. So, at this point in time, regardless of which candidate wins he or she really represents about a third of the Democratic votes. The other two thirds may have to swallow hard to vote along party lines. This isn’t an overwhelming victory for any candidate.
Then there’s the candidates’ assessments of their individual situations. Each has been guilty of saying something like, “This is only one state; we’re in it for the long haul; and we’re going to win.” Maybe this spurs supporters to excitement, but the last part of this exhortation may or may not come to pass. I’ve always been a believer in setting the expectations at a reasonable level and then exceeding them, instead of claiming victory before the final vote is cast. I guess I haven’t arrived in the twenty-first century yet.
Finally, I’m tired of adjectives, and I’ve only been engaged in the sport of politics since January 2. But such phrases as “explosive comeback,” “upset,” and “clear lead” are way over the top for me. Clinton’s showing in New Hampshire may not have been what the pundits predicted, but I don’t think it can be categorized as either “explosive” or a “comeback.” I wish, along with limits on campaign funding and the number of months candidates can campaign, there was a third rule. It would be that no superlative adjective could ever be used. Which means that one of my sentences early in this commentary would say that “. . . I think there is merit in returning to this approach to avoid drivel from reporters.”
I’m willing to start campaign reform by cutting out adjectives if everyone else is.
Leave a Reply