Utica Progressive

Jack Shafer at Slate doesn’t see much wrong with covering the Presidential Primaries like a horse race. Since I wrote about this yesterday I was interested to see what he has to say. His main point is, the primaries are a race, so the media does need to cover them that way, at least in part. It is important to know who is winning, who is raising money, and who is picking up endorsements. I understand that the media should and must cover this as news, as long as it’s not the only news.

Shafer maintains the the press has been covering the issues and, in any case, if you need more information just get on the internet and find it.

The most telling point Shafer makes is that voters do make decisions based on horse race data, looks, and style.

But these subjective impressions also convey essential information that helps voters decide which candidate will govern best. For instance, in this campaign the difference among the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards health-care plans are negligible compared with the changes likely to be mandated by a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party. To make an intelligent decision about which one of these three to vote for, a citizen needs horse-race data.

There lies the problem, we have a race for the Democratic nomination between three candidates barely discernible by anything other than race and gender.  If you are looking for a candidate left of center you do not have a meaningful choice when it comes to policy.  You may pick the individual you like the most, but you are stuck with the same platform no matter what.