Redstate

Who Needs a Frontrunner, Anyway? - Or - Ugh, Pundits!

By Mark I Posted in 2008 | Democrats | frontrunners | Media | Presidential Primary | Republicans — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Last night’s results in the Michigan primary further muddle the already muddled Republican nomination race. There have been three different winners in the first four contests, and by the end of the month, there may well have been four out of January’s seven. Still the media and punditocracy charge headlong into the scrum, seeking desperately to crown someone--anyone--with the supposedly all-important status of frontrunner.

Last night, it was Gov. Mitt Romney’s turn. Fox News’ election night coverage saw fit to crown him the frontrunner on the strength of his impressive victory in Michigan. But Mitt Romney is not a frontrunner. He carries no momentum into South Carolina on Saturday. Indeed, Romney trails the candidate whose frontrunner status he allegedly usurped by winning Michigan, Sen. John McCain; and trails the candidate whose frontrunnership was taken by McCain in New Hampshire, Gov. Mike Huckabee. Truth be told, neither McCain nor Huckabee were frontrunners either when they were so knighted by the media kingmakers.

So, why the rush? Why is the media so intent on declaring this guy or that as the frontrunner so early in what is shaping up to be a long primary process? And what’s so great about having a frontrunner, anyway?

Read on…

This is not to take shots at Mitt Romney, but it is simply ludicrous in this crazy primary year to claim that Romney is the frontrunner when he is not even the odds on favorite to win the next two major states. His supporters will claim that the Nevada caucuses, where Romney is likely to win, will give him two state victories in a row, a first for this nomination process. Any of the candidates would like to be able to claim three victories out of the first six states, with potentially three second place finishes as well. Romney is certainly in a strong position. But Nevada is not yet a major test of a Republican candidate’s strength with the conservative base, as is South Carolina; and it is not a delegate rich target, as is Florida. Nevada caucuses on the same day South Carolina votes, which means that the Nevada result will be overshadowed by the South Carolina coverage. Whatever momentum Romney has coming out of Michigan and Nevada will not mean much on Saturday night, when he finishes second or third in South Carolina.

By constantly declaring frontrunners, only to change them after the next state votes, the media does the process a disservice. First of all, the media had a hand in creating this long primary season by relentlessly covering candidate speculation and announcements, sponsoring debates as early as April of 2007, and hyping the candidates’ every move as if the election was in a few days, rather than over a year away. Having focused everyone’s attention on each and every little blip and bump in the polls, the media and pundits now appear to be growing tired of the process they helped shape. They are seeking to short circuit the voting by declaring a frontrunner in the hope that the label will propel that candidate to victory and move the process on to the general election. Too bad.

There are a lot of states that have yet to vote and a lot of Republicans eager to make their voices heard. Most of those will vote on the same day, February 5. To say that the winner of Michigan, South Carolina, or even Florida is the frontrunner before the 22-state onslaught on Super Tuesday is pre-mature. Odds are that we will have a much clearer picture of where things stand on February 6th. Ninety-nine total delegates have been chosen so far, out of a total of nearly 2,400. On February 5th alone, ten times that many, or 975 delegates, will be chosen.

Some may argue that the Republican Party is harmed by not having a frontrunner, and that it would portend better for the general election if the party were to coalesce around one or two potential nominees. That depends in large part on the dynamic of the primary process. This Republican primary has certainly been hard fought. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are real differences between the candidates on issues that must be fleshed out and addressed. This is a symptom of a healthy party with a lively exchange of ideas. Ultimately, votes decide these battles, and the party comes together behind their collective will. There is nothing wrong with a competitive, yet civil primary. It only serves to make the eventual nominee stronger and more prepared to go against the Democratic nominee in the fall.

The Democratic primary, on the other hand, is a good example of divisiveness. Democrats have no frontrunner, either. But Democrats also have no competing ideas. Every candidate is a far left liberal to varying degrees. Their primary competition has been limited to questions of experience, authenticity, race and gender identity, and loyalty to the left wing agenda. These questions tend to become personal ones, as witnessed by the numerous dust-ups between Sen. Hillary!™ Clinton, and the Senator from H.O.P.E™, Barack Obama. The Democrats are the picture of a party at war with itself, and the long primary season is much more likely to impact on their chances in the fall.

So, to all the reporters, campaign crawlers, observers, and pundits: let the process go on. Resist the temptation to have something to say just because the little red light is on. There are no frontrunners yet, and declaring one will not make it so. That power belongs to the voters. Get back to reporting and perhaps discussing issues a little, and leave the king-making to the people. Republicans are not being harmed by the process, they are being helped. Relax and take a deep breath, the primary has to end sooner or later. Then you can get on to the business of being wrong about the general election, too.