Super Tuesday Prediction

Here is my prediction for Super Tuesday. I think Clinton will win comfortably (at least 4% in total). That is not a scientific analysis, just a hunch based upon my cynicism of the media’s influence on the political process.

It’s hard for me to tell if my biases are distorting the interpretation of reality or if the media has a bias that is distorting (or shaping) reality or a combination of both. It appears to me that the media is shaping Obama’s momentum via their power of suggestion. It’s the same way that the media chocked of Edwards early on in the process by declaring who the front runners were, Hilary and Obama.

Hilary won the last primary, which was Florida. She won by a wide margin. The Florida election did not count officially in terms of delegates being awarded, however, millions of Democrats voted notwithstanding. In terms of the momentum of people’s choice, after South Carolina the momentum was back in Hilary’s court, but the Media did not report it that way. It appears to me that media exuberance for Obama and the ratings his strong candidacy have produced for networks works to the benefit of Obama’s numbers.

The New Hampshire poll showed Obama leading by 8% over Clinton, prior to their primaries. Clinton ended up winning by about 3%, and that was dismissed by the media as a result of her near tears in an interview. I don’t know how true that is and have no way of knowing. However, empirical evidence has demonstrated that whites tend to say that they will vote for a black candidate, more so than they actually will do at election time. If nothing else, the New Hampshire poll results and the actual Election Day results demonstrate the fallibility of polling.

Even more troubling is the number of polls being taken and how they reflect wide variance of results. Most recently, there were 4 California polls taken, two showing Obama ahead and two showing Clinton ahead, by wide variations. It seems to me that pollsters that once were not given much attention or credulity are now being brought to the forefront, by the media, if they suggest favorably for Obama. The media has a vested interest in making this out to be a neck-to-neck horse race because they are salivating at the rating and revenues it generates. Furthermore, it appears that many media personalities really don’t like Clinton. In the debates no one asked a question about the overall economy, despite that being the number one issue in the minds of voters. Was that due to the fact that the economy was so strong under Bill CLinton and they did not want Hilary to benefit from that fact?

I know that I am on record as saying that I don’t like or care for Hilary, due to the way she answered a question that was of particular interest to me, however, the Media constantly harps on her being a polarizing figure. I don’t think that such statements are fair to her, as simply observing this election; I have seen nothing more polarizing about her than Obama or Edwards. Anyone who takes strong stances and position are seen as polarizing. If person does not have strong stances and position then they will not be seen as polarizing, but such a person is not likely to be the type of person who will stand for what is right when right needs a strong advocate.

I have grown so disenchanted with the American Political process that I try to divorce myself from it in rebellion. That is why I have not voted in years. The process is simply not fair. The media has too much influence. Money has too much influence. The staggered primary dates are just totally outgrown its usefulness.