: Primary instability paradox…
There’s an interesting paradox to press coverage of presidential primary campaigns. Let’s call it the “primary instability paradox.”
As Prof. William G. Mayer’s predictive model demonstrates, the process is stable, i.e. the outcome is in little doubt. As the public record shows, the leader in the last national (Gallup) poll before the Iowa caucuses wins the nomination. This suggests that the real race for the nomination happens long before the primary season.
Because of the narrative bias of journalism, newspapers and TV cover the primary as an unstable process, i.e. as if the outcome were in doubt. Each candidate plays a role in his/her own master narrative. These personal-political stories clash with the stories of other candidates. The press focuses on these personal-political dramas–what we call horse-race coverage. This dramatic presentation of events overshadows the more crucial pre-primary season in which coverage of policy could make a real difference in the outcome.
By portraying the primary process as unstable, the press thus plays a role in the actual stability of the process. And a stable primary processes robs citizens of choice. Citizens believe they are choosing the nominee during the primaries. The choice, however, has already been made.
When the series continues: A look at how the pre-primary decisions are made and who makes them.
In this series:
Who wins and when…
Long, hot summer…
The Search for drama…
Stable process = lack of choice…
Poll position is crucial…
A good story…
Writing the plot…
