|
If the race is considered close by the public, then more people will tune in and they will make more money. They have a vested interest in this thing being "close." It won't really change the ACTUAL election results THAT much. I think if they said Obama was ahead by a lot, there'd be 4 separate effects:
1. A bandwagon effect.
People want to vote for the winning guy, so if they are told Obama will win, they are more likely to vote for him for that reason.
2. A complacency effect.
Some people who would've turned out for Obama might not turn out because they figure he's got it won anyways.
3. A hopelessness effect.
Similar to complacency, some McCain people may not vote because they may figure their guy will lose anyways.
4. A fired-up effect
Some McCain voters may get very fired-up and work even harder to get out the vote to stop what looks like a certain Obama win.
Given that Obama's supporters are more enthusiastic, I think that less of his supporters would be too complacent to vote than McCain's will feel it is hopeless. Furthermore, Obama's ground game is more extensive, so they will be better able to get those voters who might not vote out to vote anyways.
At the same time, I feel that logically a bandwagon effect makes a lot more sense than an effect of having McCain's supporters more fired up and angry about Obama being ahead.
As a result, I think a perception that Obama is ahead is good for Obama. The recent PEW poll found that over 60% of Americans think Obama is very likely to win. This is good for Obama. If the media were not trying to make it look tighter than it is, that number would be higher. As a result, I feel that the media is being somewhat detrimental, but I think that the 4 effects I mentioned largely cancel out. Obama seeming ahead is marginally good for him. Thus its not a huge deal for the media to downplay that. He IS still ahead, regardless of what they say.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
