I know it doesn't work that way, but it goes to show the power of the media corporations to shape the political process.
Trump and Bernie each have about 20% polling numbers for their respective parties. Assuming that Democrats and Republicans each have half of the voting public, that means they each have about the same number of current supporters among the American voting public. Further, in a head-to-head matchup, they are about equal, with Bernie having a slight advantage.
Hillary has 2 to 3 times that amount, but clearly Trump is getting much more attention than Hillary.
If you're going to say that poll coverage should be based on chances of winning the general election, I would argue that all three of these warrant equal coverage.
You could argue that the top two candidates in each party deserve equal coverage, since a stumble by any one candidate could lead to a change in primary outcomes.
You could argue that media coverage should be heavier for lesser-known candidates who are in the top two or three of each party, to ensure that the voting public has sufficient information to make a decision. In that case, Trump and Hillary are both well-known, so Bernie should get more coverage.
Obviously the media goes for the shiny toy, the attention grabber Trump. Is there more to it than that? We won't know till it's over, whetherr Trumps' presence in the race is beneficial to Jeb Bush or Scott Walker by delaying the inevitable scrutiny and vehement critique they would otherwise be receiving, or whether it will destroy the chances of Jeb Bush or Scott Walker if Trump ends up in an independent candidacy. Without Trump in the race perhaps we would have had more discussion of Jeb Bush versus Scott Walker, and more discussion of Hillary versus Bernie.
= new reply since forum marked as read
