Where's Mac?

It's interesting how much more interested the press seems to be in the Democratic race than in the GOP one. When after Iowa there was tons of attention showered on Barack Obama and nothing on Huckabee, I figured that was just part of the vast pro-McCain conspiracy. But after the media got the McCain victory it was hoping for, there's still more talk about the Democratic result.

The thing of it is that the Republican race is really much more interesting. It's a bigger field of semi-viable contenders and it's very unpredictable. What's more, there appears to be much more separating the Republican nominees from each other in terms of policy and approach -- Mike Huckabee is really, really different from Rudy Giuliani. My feeling has kind of been that I, personally, tend to focus on the Democratic field perhaps a bit more than it deserves because I'm a liberal and I've got a mostly liberal audience, but actually it seems that everyone is playing it my way and I'm not really sure why.

Comments

1) It's a Democratic year.

2) The race and gender politics of the Democratic race make it more interesting on a television level.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:06 AM

Yeah, like Petey said, Matt, the Democrat's going to be president . . . so the Democrats' is clearly the more momentous race. Then you've got the first-of-their-kind candidates, which is also important and exciting. And, uh, then you've got Petey's boy . . . who may still have a shot.

Posted by southpaw | January 9, 2008 12:09 AM

What Petey said.

It's like you're asking why the NCAA is more popular than the NIT.

Posted by lampwick | January 9, 2008 12:10 AM

"And, uh, then you've got Petey's boy . . . who may still have a shot."

Faint heartbeat, but I'll take it.

Surviving an Iowa loss was always going to be challenging, and he's part of the way towards surviving.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:14 AM

To add, the republican contenders seem like a bunch of boring old men. Sure, they fill out the whole spectrum of personality that we've come to associate with boring old dudes, from Huckabee to Giuliani. But, that's still a pretty narrow band of on the whole rainbow of human personality. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, more or less similar politically, are clearly, obviously different from each other, and it's more than the gender/race differences, although that helps explain some of it.

Posted by gerontion | January 9, 2008 12:16 AM

Also, in the insanely short horizons during which the official "expectations" are set, McCain's win was "expected," which is to say, it appeared likely over the last few days. Whereas Clinton's win was "unexpected." Had Romney won, it would've been a bigger story, although I think it still might've been eclipsed. This is also because what you describe as "interesting" on the GOP side is also what they call in media "complicated." It's harder to describe the more complex GOP arrangement. It's easier to represent the Democratic side at present -- just pick up an Obama doll and a Clinton doll and make them hit each other whilst yelling "boom!"

Incidentally, I don't blame or even disparage journalists and pundits for doing this. They are asked to make instant responses, and it is hard not to fall back on helpful master narratives.

Posted by infirm | January 9, 2008 12:17 AM

I think a lot of it is Obama-mania. I'm not trying to be glib. There is just something inherently exciting about what he represents, and whether you support him or not, I think his candidacy, his occasionally inspiring, near-cinematic speeches, + the energized Democrat electorate is drawing a lot of attention to the race.

I agree that in terms of unpredictability, you can't beat the Republican contest, although in some ways I find Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani so deeply flawed in some ways that I think McCain will come out on top by default as long as he can raise a decent amount of money.

Posted by Jason | January 9, 2008 12:20 AM

Petey's points are valid, but I think there may be another interesting factor: The 2008 Democratic primary has been the subject of media interest ever since HRC declared that she was not running in 2004. People have been speculating on a Clinton run since back when her husband was still in office, and in 2004 it became clear to the conspiracy theorists (who turned out to be right) that 2008 was going to be her year. The Hillary-as-presumptive-Democratic-Nominee-as-predicted-by-conspiracy-theorists story was the most interesting primary 08 story for years. Later Democratic entrants were part of the HRC story. The Republican nomination was, for a long time, a question of who will the Republicans pick to match against Clinton. This early and long-standing narrative, while now largely surpassed by others, gave the Democratic nomination process a great deal of momentum which set up the balance of interest which remains today.

Posted by Galen | January 9, 2008 12:30 AM

"I think there may be another interesting factor ... People have been speculating on a Clinton run since back when her husband was still in office"

No doubt.

The soap opera of the Clintons has always been great ratings.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 12:36 AM

Or it could be that the media, like MY, is liberal and vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, so they're more interested and enthusiastic in the D side.

Don't think too hard on this one.

Posted by Give It Up | January 9, 2008 12:46 AM

Is the Republican race still all that interesting? I might have agreed if Romney had won tonight, since that would have increased the number of viable candidates on that side; but as for now it appears the GOP nominee will almost certainly be either McCain or Huckabee: i.e. either the old guy who's run and lost before, or the Dixie primitive. That's an old story either way.

The one aspect of the Republican race that is a bit interesting is that the establishment isn't getting its way for once, and can't even agree on what that way should be. But they will fall in line eventually and work to persuade us that Huckabee represents the American dream, and anyone who disagrees is obviously an elitist.

Posted by ChuckE | January 9, 2008 12:49 AM

Much more interesting candidates, much BETTER candidates, and much more likely to win. This is one of the cases where the people are interested in the Democratic primary and the media follows.

Posted by Trickster | January 9, 2008 1:11 AM

It's the same reason the NBA shows the Lakers and the Heat every Christmas instead of Mavs-Warriors or some other more interesting match: superstars drive the media. The Dems have LeBaron and Duncan while the Repubs have the Barry brothers.

The vote totals are also pretty embarrassing for the Republicans--McCain got beat soundly by Obama tonight.

Posted by Tbone | January 9, 2008 1:24 AM

Until tonight I thought the Republican side was a little more interesting. Watching candidates go to extreme lengths to repudiate their former positions/statements and prove how anti-terror they were was more enjoyable than debating mandates. I was hoping the McCain candidacy would stay dead just so I could see the Reagan coalition implode.

Posted by disagree | January 9, 2008 1:24 AM

Maybe unpredictable does not equal interesting. A head to head matchup makes for better narrative.

Posted by RL | January 9, 2008 1:59 AM

There's a much simpler explanation than all that.... it's the story.

The media gravitates to the most dramatic story they can find. The most dramatic story that can fit in 6 words or less. Something they can shout about.

Ie: "Clinton cries, Clinton wins! Shock!"

Once they find a nice simplistic mono-syllabic narrative, they stick to it. Because examining all the contrary evidence in support of contrary, possibly more accurate interpretations? Pooey! That's boring! How do I write that up for the TV graphic?

And thus, we get what happened this week. Media hyperventilates over Obama's victory, a victory with a wide enough margin to get them soon hyperventilating over the titillating possibility of an imminent Clinton collapse. Nothing else matters. Then they hyperventilate over the inaccurate overreaching of their previous hyperventilations.

Ultimately, the Republican race is much less hyperventilation-worthy. What's the soundbite for "McCain completes comeback we kind of expected and Romney continues with weak showings so may be done or may not be because he's loaded and Huckabee still could be viable in the south and what the hell is going on with Guliani?" Whew.

The TV is obviously chief among sinners in this way, but it permeates everywhere else.

Posted by Jimmy | January 9, 2008 2:34 AM

And RL just said exactly what I was thinking in one sentence.

Posted by Jimmy | January 9, 2008 2:36 AM

There is actually a simple reason for all of the attention paid to the Democratic nominating process. Obama is waging the primary contest using the same strategy that Clinton is using: massive escalation of resources. The only way that Obama can protect his candidacy from the Clinton smear machine is with a continuous aura of total media saturation -- thus obliging Clinton to adopt a similar level of media omnipresence to protect her candidacy.

The Republicans just have too many viable candidates right now. Funding a similar full-scale media "total war" would just be a waste of time and money for them.

Posted by Joseph | January 9, 2008 3:44 AM

McCain's victory speech was really, really awful. Not that I thought MSNBC should have openly laughed at him, but it was bad.

Not that I necessarily think that's why the coverage came out the way it did. But it did feel like he blunted some of his own momentum.

Posted by Royko | January 9, 2008 5:44 AM

I think everyone is overthinking it. McCain, the septugenerian that he is, went to sleep.

Posted by Josh B | January 9, 2008 8:27 AM

Also, it's hard to cover the Republican side "fairly." Because reality has a partisan bias against them.

You've got a case where Ron Paul, widely regarded as a lunatic, is pulling in roughly the same vote as Giuliani, national hero of 9/11. How do you cover that?

Huckabee is likewise a problem--he's an identity candidate, but the media isn't allowed to call him an identity candidate, because the group he speaks for gets special treatment. And they can't talk honestly about his positions without pointing out that he's got an utterly incoherent foreign policy and his domestic policy is anchored by the "fair tax," one of the most lunatic fiscal proposals since...well, since Ron Paul.

I think it's a terrible disservice to the Democrats, because the policy plans they Republicans are putting forth are absolutely radically crazy, or frighteningly ignorant. That is, when they can be bothered to talk about their plans at all. People have a right to know these guys are way, way out there--especially since they're going to try and dramatically change all these positions as soon as they get in the general.

People have a right to know their candidates' plans, and we're not hearing what the various Republicans will do if elected, and how that comports to reality. That's a huge problem.

Posted by anonymous | January 9, 2008 9:37 AM

As a moderate Republican, I myself find the Democratic race far more interesting. I can also see myself voting for Obama because of what he represents, and because it would send a powerful message to the world. Whether he'd be a successful president I don't know (obviously he'd be better than the present one no matter what he does), but symbolism does mean something.

I pay some attention to the Republican race, but it's just not captivating. You don't have an outstanding or captivating person among them (by that I mean someone who could be considered the Republican Obama). In the same way that people were talking about Hillary as a throwback to the old issues and old ways of doing politics, that's the way this crowd of Republicans appeals to me. There isn't much fresh about them. The only ones who represent a real change from the Bush status quo are Huckabee and Ron Paul, and both of them have some weird and even scary ideas.

I'm glad that McCain won, but I have to say, "the thrill is gone." If only he had won the nomination and the presidency in 2000, we'd have a very different world today. But I can't help thinking that his time is over.

Sorry for the ramble, but I figured you might be interested in why a Republican thinks the Democratic race is more interesting.

Posted by artie | January 9, 2008 9:52 AM

As a moderate Republican, I myself find the Democratic race far more interesting. I can also see myself voting for Obama because of what he represents, and because it would send a powerful message to the world. Whether he'd be a successful president I don't know (obviously he'd be better than the present one no matter what he does), but symbolism does mean something.

I pay some attention to the Republican race, but it's just not captivating. You don't have an outstanding or captivating person among them (by that I mean someone who could be considered the Republican Obama). In the same way that people were talking about Hillary as a throwback to the old issues and old ways of doing politics, that's the way this crowd of Republicans appears to me. There isn't much fresh about them. The only ones who represent a real change from the Bush status quo are Huckabee and Ron Paul, and both of them have some weird and even scary ideas.

I'm glad that McCain won, but I have to say, "the thrill is gone." If only he had won the nomination and the presidency in 2000, we'd have a very different world today. But I can't help thinking that his time is over.

Sorry for the ramble, but I figured you might be interested in why a Republican thinks the Democratic race is more interesting.

Posted by artie | January 9, 2008 9:52 AM

What "Give It Up" said.

The MSM is covering the race like Matthew is covering the race because, golly gee willikers, the MSM is liberal just like Matthew is liberal.

I mean, really, you'd have to be completely in the Left Wing Cocoon to not see what is blindingly obvious.

Posted by Al | January 9, 2008 9:59 AM

1) It's a Democratic year.

This is obviously wrong. The press doesn't cover the AFC playoffs more than the NFC playoffs, even though it is obvious that the AFC team is going to win the Super Bowl.

Posted by Al | January 9, 2008 10:01 AM

I'm going to go all conspiracy theory here. By focusing on the Republican primary the MSM would shine a fatty spot light on how tenuous the marriage of social conservatives and big business is, and who in that marriage ultimately controls the levers of power. GE, Viacom, et. al. are certainly not interested in that.

The MSM love St. McCain in part, I think, because he is the only one who has a chance of holding the fracturing party together a little while longer - if for no other reason than no one faction of the GOP claims him as their own. They can safely lose in '08 with McCain and keep it together until 2012.

Posted by DanF | January 9, 2008 10:06 AM

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but whenever CNN shows their big pie chart of Republican results they never show Paul's name even they he is pulling in close to 10%. It's weird, they have this gray cross hatch with no lablel where Paul's votes are. On the Democratic side they show Richardson's name even though he only gets 5%.

Between this and the Fox candidate forum exclusion. I'm beginning to believe there is a MSM conspiracy to keep Paul down.

Posted by djslippyb | January 9, 2008 10:48 AM

The MSM is covering the race like Matthew is covering the race because, golly gee willikers, the MSM is liberal just like Matthew is liberal.

Al, have you really never seen any other election primary coverage? Or did the press just suddenly become liberal?

This is obviously wrong. The press doesn't cover the AFC playoffs more than the NFC playoffs, even though it is obvious that the AFC team is going to win the Super Bowl.

No, YOU are obviously wrong. The Patriots have had their own tab on almost every national sports page for months.

I mean, really. Try to keep up.

Posted by nolaboyd | January 9, 2008 11:19 AM

The reason we perceive more coverage of the Democratic contest is because the political pendulum has swung to the left. George Bush Jr. and his team pushed it hard, but it took more than four years to get the thing past the center.

Posted by Vaughn M | January 9, 2008 4:10 PM