: Poll position is crucial…
As I said yesterday, the press contributes to the stability of the primary process in three ways. Today I want to consider the first of these: The press decides which candidates are viable, i.e. which have a realistic chance of winning.
The concept of viability is important for two reasons. First, according to many studies of voter behavior, most people are loathe to vote for candidates that they believe cannot win. Common sense tells us this is “wasting” a vote. Second, viable candidates are more successful fundraisers. Nobody wants to waste money on a loser.
As politicians announce their candidacies, the press begins making evaluations of viability. These evaluations are based on numerous criteria–except voter choice. Until the primaries happen, no voter choice is recorded except in opinion polls (and many of these do not weed out non-voters). And such opinions, so early in the campaign, are most often based on name recognition, momentum, and fundraising ability–only the latter not under the control of the press.
It is more than seven months until the Iowa caucuses, and we already have a frontrunner according to the polls and the reporting. While Lieberman apparently trails in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, he leads a current national poll. If we accept Prof. William G. Mayer’s predictive model, the primary-state polls do not matter. Whoever leads in the national polls before Iowa wins the nomination. Consider this from the cited reporting:
And there is still nervousness in the campaign that unless Lieberman does well in fund-raising during this quarter, he could be all but written off by party pros.
Does it matter what party pros think? The concept of viability suggests, and the Mayer model predicts, that Lieberman will do well in fundraising (well enough?) because he leads in the polls. This does not, however, suggest that he will remain the frontrunner. In seven months, another among a limited number of candidates (Kerry? Gephardt?) could, and almost certainly will, emerge. The press will evaluate these performances and have the last word on their viability.
The question is: Emerge based on what?
In this series:
Who wins and when…
Long, hot summer…
The Search for drama…
Stable process = lack of choice…
the article mentions that most are unlikely to vote for somebody who they believe can’t win. Can anybody provide a reference? thanks!
Gurian, Paul-Henri. “Presidential Nomination Campaigns: Toward 2004.” Political Science and Politics. 36(2) April 2003.