Kevin,

Thank you for your response.  I do not believe the news makes all of our decisions.  They need controversy to exist, I understand that.

It was a pleasure to visit your state, when my daughter chose to move from California.  One of my friends was an attorney there for many years, she feels that John Edwards was a wonderful advocate for the downtrodden.

I will be joining the Democratic Club in my Senior Community of 18,000 residents.  It is not over until it is over and my latest reading material is a very old, small book.  "The Magic of Believing", fascinating to see what can happen when one believes.  You may be young, but reading your blogs and hearing about you from Christina, I believe our future has a real advocate in the good that humans can do.

Have a great day!

Paige Holloway

I second the thoughts on the media.  Being on campus during the lacrosse scandal really gave me a different (negative) perception of them and it's one they have yet to correct.

I want to touch on the polling for a second though.  Have you heard of the Bradley Effect (en.wikipedia.org/.../Bradley_effect)?  It claims that black candidates' polling numbers are often overstated, because those polled don't want to be seen as racist, by saying they're voting for a white candidate, so they lie.  Once inside the voting booth, the secret ballot allows them to do whatever they choose.

I'm not at all saying this is why Hillary won NH.  I think that was due to her campaign's efforts in winning over undecided voters over those 5 days and perhaps McCain pulling in independents who thought Obama had it won.  But, I still find this interesting, especially since the Iowa caucuses are a public process, which would seem to enforce the reverse of this: if you're more likely to say you're for a black candidate when polled by a member of the media, that motivation to appear unprejudiced should be much stronger when deciding in front of the whole community.

To delve a little deeper, I'm curious about what effect race could have on voters who, at the last second, "trust their gut" and decide in the voting booth.  It's been argued that, in job interviews with two highly qualified candidates (1 black, 1 white), because of internalized stereotypes based on race, a white decision maker who falls back on trusting his or her gut feeling is more likely to feel more comfortable with choosing the white candidate, who more often than not will get the job.  I'm curious if, for voters waiting til the last second, a vote for Obama might not "feel" right and their gut will have them move in another direction.

Then again, this post does no justice to how gender stereotypes and prejudices could affect Hillary in this election, which I expect to be equally significant.  I'm hopeful that these issues will not play a huge role in deciding the nomination, but I think they will have an impact.  I have no idea to what extent this all will matter, but find it very thought-provoking.  Sorry for going on so long, but I'm excited to see how this plays out among 3 excellent Democratic candidates.

Now that I have given up cable entirely you make me want to get it back in my home....just so I can watch the one 'news' anchor that I still find tolerable.  Jon Stewart!  I completely agree that it would be wonderful to hear more about what the candidates have planned and what they stand for and truly believe in rather than just the poll results.  Particularly since the news bites only ever focus on the top two candidates.  Sometimes you only get to hear about The Candidate of the Day if a little more time needs to be set aside to focus on Britney Spears' parenting techniques.  What scares me is I think the news services are actually telling us what they really believe we care about.  Like the lowest common denomiators of humanity are taking over and must be catered to.  

There is much more to the relationship between the media and their audience than polling.  Modern polling techniques produce extremely accurate results - assuming, of course, that the responses received were accurate and honest.  Thus, as indicated above, the Bradley effect question is raised.  Beyond that, the relationship was forever changed in the 1960's by Abbie Hoffman who taught everyone that the media could be used for a person's or group's own cause; that continues today to an even greater degree.  The truth is that much of what we read or see reported today is produced by the subject of the report.  Political parties and candidates are well aware of this and supply huge amounts of information to the media and are always gratified by positive responses.  They are not so much interested in accurate, in-depth examinations of issues (unless that applies to opponents) than in another outlet for their own messages.  If we as consumers of news (real news, not press releases or entertainment items) were demanding of quality, we would get it.  Likewise, if media in general were commited to providing quality reporting, perhaps more people could be converted to thinking, in touch, informed, and motivated citizens.  Yes, my view is somewhat cynical, but I am not sure which group is lazier: the media or the audience.  

Great idea!  You got a deal.  A side note which might be titled New Hampshire irony.  A couple of days ago a NPR report of the NH primary results included a brief interview with the woman (private citizen, photographer, 64 years old) who asked Hillary the "how are you doing?" question that elicited the humanizing response that many credit with creating generally more favorable results.  When asked who she voted for, the woman responded, "Obama."  His message moves her; apparently more so than tears.  

Why do the news media concentrate on the horse race elements of the election and not the substantive positions of the candidates?  In part it’s because the candidates don’t give out much substance.  The candidates are products that are being branded in an attempt to sell them to voters and substance is only a piece of that branding.  The Clinton Brand Candidate: Experienced Politician/Legislator. (Side note: Why does having had the White House as your residence address give you presidential experience?)   Obama: the Candidate of Hope and Unity.  Edwards:  The Fighter.  Guiliani: 9/11 – I Was There.  Etc. etc.  How did you put it, Kevin?  “I'd like to see a civil and insightful analysis of the candidates, delivered, as they say in retail, at the point of purchase.”  Hmmm.  And of course, the other candidates are trying to re-brand their opponents.  Obama: The Inexperienced Candidate.  Romney: The Weird Religion Candidate.   We’re participants in a consumer society first, a democracy second.

With respect to the questions Dan raised.  I wouldn’t read much Bradley Effect into the New Hampshire results.  In Iowa, the polls had the Dems in a virtual 3-way tie, yet when they caucused Obama came out on top by a wide margin.  Are we saying there was a reverses Bradley Effect going on there, where the all white voters said they backed Clinton and Edwards anonymously in the polls, but when it came time to caucus publicly they went with their true racial bigotry and voted for the black guy?  I think race wasn’t a major contributor in the outcome in either state.  In 2004 we had The Scream.  In 2008 it’s The Sob.  The Scream was fatal.  We’ll see if The Sob has lasting effects or whether it was more a timing issue.  My guess is it’s a timing issue.

Dan mentioned voters “trusting their gut” at the last second in the voting booth.  I think this has significant impact and is one reason why the polls are often wrong.  We tend to over-value our conscious mental processes; we prefer to think of ourselves as purely rational in our decision making.  But the fact is that many of our decisions are based in large part on unconscious processes, and our rational selves scramble after the fact to fill in the gaps with “rationality.”  In other words, when a decision is made mostly as a result of unconscious processes, our conscious selves by definition can’t know this.  So when the decision is made, we have to come up with an explanation that makes sense and that doesn’t make us a bad person.  (“Why did you, Mr. 32-year-old Man, have sex with that underage girl?”  “We love each other.”)  When  you were a kid, did you ever dream you were falling over the side of a cliff only to be jolted awake to discover you were falling off the edge of the bed?  In reality, you started to fall off the bed first and followed by your mind spinning a reason, a reason that had dream logic.  In that example, it wasn’t your conscious mind establishing a logical cause for the action, but it’s the same principle.  When you do actions as a result of processes in your unconscious mind that are contrary to what your conscious mind would do, your conscious mind scrambles to find an acceptable explanation, one that will maintain the illusion that your “self” is actually in control. This happens fairly regularly but we don’t often notice because we’re so good at it.  Maybe you’ve been driving along thinking “man, I’d really love an ice-cold Coke,” and you pull into a Stop-N-Spend and end up walking back to your car carrying a cup of coffee.  Making decisions is similar to collapsing the wave function in quantum physics.  Before you make the measurement (decide) there is only a probability that the particle is where you’re looking, it’s not actually there.  When you do the measurement you collapse the wave function and there it is (or isn’t).  Likewise, before you go into the voting booth there is only a probability that you’ll vote for the candidate you think you will.  It’s only when you actually pull the lever that you find out who you voted for.  Most of the time, it’s going to be the one you thought it would be when you went in, but there are going to be times that it isn’t, because your conscious self in fact doesn’t know see the whole picture.  And when it happens, you’ll tell your spouse, “At the last minute I remembered what she said on Good Morning America and felt she really has the character/experience we need.”  Whereas what actually happened was that all along she’s reminded you of your Aunt Mildred who gave you $5 for your birthday when you were 10 or something; something percolating along in your unconscious that, in this case, pushed through over the wishes of your conscious mind.  And it’s not that you are just ashamed to tell your spouse you voted someone into the White House because she reminds you of Aunt Mildred; you simply don’t know that, but you had been compelled to come up with some reason, so you took the first plausible one that presented itself.  In a few days, upon mature reflection, you might even come to realize the true reason: it was because it’s about time we had a woman in the White House.  But it still was Aunt Mildred.

As far as going out and gathering other opinions and reporting back, why not try to get the people with the other opinions to sign up and express them here in their own words?  That’s what I’m going to do.

Dan: And you thought your post was long!

Since I have joined the fight on terror, I have been inundated with the stories on our news stations of all the things soldiers are doing wrong for their country. Media is driven by scandal and misery. Movie stars doing drugs or Britney showing it all, or Tom Brady having a bad foot is what sells papers.

How about write a story about SGT Harry Kohn. You probably are saying, who? He is a 61 year old soldier who served in Vietnam. Saw most of his platoon killed, was wounded himself and then returned home to a country that did not want him. Then in 1983 he joined the Idaho Army National Guard and served as a Medivac crew chief, saving 100's of lives with his medical skills. In 1995 he became a Blackhawk crew chief and has served in that role every since. He is now in Iraq with me and has served his country with honor and dignity and has never asked for or received a "nickel" (as he would say) in the way of bonuses or promotions because he never graduated high school. He will retire from the Army in 2009 (because the Army is making him) after 26 years of service and in 5 years many will not remember he served but you all may remember who won the Masters, NBA Finals or the ACC tournament.

My point is that the media drives the way we value many things. Due much in part to my experience here in Iraq I have begun to question what I value. The lack of visual stimulus here has forced me to read more books and I have learned allot about my countries past and the great people who have lived and died to make this country free. Those are the people I will forever value.