| Remember when we were told that Michigan needed to move its primary up so that the nation would hear more about the state's economic problems? "I've been surprised," said David Dulio, a politics professor at Oakland University. "I thought we would hear more. And what drives that is the power that Iowa and New Hampshire still have."
I'm not saying that it was obvious that this was going to happen, but it was obvious that this was going to happen. The argument that this was going to focus the nation on Michigan's problems for any longer than a day or two before the primary, or planned to actually do anything about them, was perhaps the silliest reason given for moving the nominating process up. One reason for this is something we all understand ... campaigns and elections aren't covered as meaningful explorations of issues, they're covered as horseraces. At this point, the media cares not a whit for issues, except how they might affect polls, and is really just interested in which horse is out front and by how many lengths. The other reason is that Michigan's primary is going to be covered according to the process by which it landed where it did. People will hear about how the delegations have been cut because the state parties broke rules (and, if the delegations are restored, the news will be delivered late, late in the process when no one is paying attention any longer and certainly not in the prominent way by which punishment was handed down -- the photos of Debbie Dingell with her hang-dog look will not be replaced), and if they hear about our auto manufacturing-driven slump, it'll be a side issue. How Michigan will affect the Republican field by driving supporters to Ron Paul is likely to get more press than will trade policies that encouraged what was already a flow of manufacturing jobs out of the country. |
