2008 State Polls

Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Others Silenced at ABC News Debate -- The Media is Selecting the Front Runners

August 25, 2007

Two days ago we found that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were not given equal speaking time through our analysis of the debate. Afterwards, we were asked to analyze the Republican ABC News debate by visitors to our site -- in doing so -- we found an even bigger discrepancy in the amount of time the candidates were able to speak.

There were a total of 14,694 words spoken at the debate and 11,928 of those were by one of the candidates. The breakdown in the total number of words can be seen in the table to the right and is displayed alongside the poll numbers that those candidates received in the ABC News poll heading into the debate.

Mitt Romney clearly dominated the debate in terms of the number of words he spoke. He uttered more than one-fifth of all the words at the debate -- out of nine candidate -- it was more than 3 times as many words as was spoken by Ron Paul.

If the emphasis of the debate was to give more time to the candidates at the top of the polls, they did a good job. You can clearly see that the poll numbers almost exactly reflect the relative polling positions these candidates were receiving heading into the debate.

One could argue that the talking time was deliberately dispersed this way by looking at the differences in talk time between the first half and the second half of the debate. They were adjusting the talk times to reflect their agenda of promoting those high in the polls and silencing those low in the polls. It is obvious when you look at how much Rudy Giuliani was allowed to talk in the second half of the debate -- due to his lack of talk time in the 1st half. Or in how little Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter were allowed to speak at the second half of the debate -- due to their abundance of time in the first half.

Ron Paul was clearly silenced the most. His 2% in this Iowa poll may have him hovering near the bottom but he is consistently 2-3% all around the country. The same cannot be said of T. Thompson, Brownback, Tancredo, or Hunter and those candidates were able to speak more than Paul.

There has been no evidence to suggest that the poll numbers themselves directly impact how voters vote but there has been mounds of documented evidence to suggest that the media props up the candidates that are high in the polls so much so that voters are affected. In short -- voters are affected indirectly by poll numbers through the media's emphasis on polls.

This couldn't be summarized any better than Herbert Asher, a political science professor at Ohio State University in his book "Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know".

"Speculation about how polls affect voters has been widespread and contradictory. Some observers argue that polls ... increase the incentives for supporters of the trailing candidate to change their preference... Others emphasize the underdog effects...rally around the candidate the polls show to be losing.... but... Polls have an indirect effect on voters through their impact on campaign contributors, campaign workers, and media coverage..." -- Herbert Asher; Political Science Professor; Ohio State University.

The media's impact on the polls can not be ignored -- they are choosing the front runners, don't you know? If you are upset at how the media is choosing our candidates then promote this article and send it off to your friends.

Critics of my article will claim that the news organizations are giving the voters the candidates they want to see -- they are going by the public opinion polls for pete's sake...

"There are literally dozens of people running for the Democratic nomination. Does each one deserve equal time? Do Ole Savior, Bob Boyer, Wrendo Godwin and all the rest deserve attention equal to Clinton and Obama?" - blogger at DU

That argument is valid and has a lot of traction with the majority of voters but they are just pawns of the system... The candidates the voters want to see are the ones they are programmed to see by the media -- a vicious cycle of Democracy in which the Media has downright control. Besides, the candidates that they invite to the debate should all have equal time.

Leave your comments below as to where you stand on the issue, do you think the media should give equal time to all candidates? Do you think they are choosing the front runners? Do you think the people are getting what they want? Is this good for democracy?

Comments in Response to our ABC News - Democratic Debate Article (Source)

"In a perfect world, the media would focus on issues and not the game of elections." - Magic Rat of Democratic Underground

"This election, as have others before it, is being shaped for us. They are telling us who we should be considering. They control the frequency. If they showed more of Kucinich, more people would know of Kucinich and they could just as easily drop the novelty of Clinton and Obama if they wanted to. The media frames the candidates and the debate and they frame us in the process." - Texas Explorer of Democratic Underground.

What happens when you put up 2 of the same products side by side, only difference between them is the label. Product A gets hours of free advertising time in all the major newspapers, tv networks, and radio stations. Product B gets none. Which do you think the average Joe will buy in to, product B?" - Pawel K

Websites Talking About my Kucinich-Gravel Article

• RawStory - ABC News Denies Kucinich Campaign's Bias Complaint
• Democratic Underground - Democratic Discussion Forum
• NewsBusters.org - Gladnick's comments.

Who gets your vote in 2012?

Barack Obama (BO)	Mitt Romney (MR)
Email:

Traffic During 2008 Election

2008 Election Results - Presidential

2008 Predicted Electoral Math

2008 Democratic Primary Results

2008 Republican Primary Results

2008 Independent Candidates

Nader	Bob Barr
McKinney	Baldwin

Latest Presidential Tracking Polls 2008

Election Polls