If you want to know who is trailing in a Presidential race, look for who the media is covering.
The media has one singular objective: ratings. Everything is geared towards increasing viewers and ratings, translating into more profitable ad buys. Mass media looks for an interesting, compelling or controversial story. They also don't want to work too hard or get too journalistic or investigatory.
The easiest way they can increase viewers by "reporting" on the race is for the candidate that is running behind to be gaining, the leader to be falling or a dead heat. The talking heads were ecstatic when mitt didn't puke on himself on live tv during the first debate. Finally, they had the slightest opening. The losing candidate who had given them absolutely nothing to work with for months had finally not fallen on his face. They ran with it. They gave mitt over a week of full coverage. Why? It is a more interesting story, translating to more dollars, than "the incumbent President is handily winning the race."
Don't expect them to actually cover any issues. Don't expect them to investigate on claims, inconsistencies, lies, or even past transgressions. Unless is would result in a closer race.
They would do the same if a republican were every leading. They would seek out the story that had a chance of closing the gap.
TO a degree, I think it is better for Obama for the race to appear closer than it actually is. It challenges complacency. It motivates voters who may think it is in the bag. It forces Obama to be more forceful in calling attention to the gop's bullshit. But, when you see so many mitt stories, reporters clinging to a romney-favored national poll and ignoring Obama, take solace. It is because Romney is losing. He has been losing since the republican primaries started. He has been losing since the conventions, he has been losing since the debates and he will lose on Election Day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
