FAIR Action Alert: USA Today Squeezes Edwards Out of Race

[jgraz]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3234


Action Alert

USA Today Squeezes Edwards Out of Race

In a good example of corporate media striving to narrow down the Democratic primary field (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/8/07), USA Today (12/18/07) had a story on candidates' electability that wrote all but two of them out of existence. The story opened with the statement that "Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares better than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against prospective Republican rivals," and went on to report:

In hypothetical matchups for the general presidential election, Clinton and Obama each led Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Romney, although at times narrowly. Obama was somewhat stronger, besting Giuliani by 6 points, Huckabee by 11 and Romney by 18. Clinton had an edge of 1 point over Giuliani, 9 points over Huckabee and 6 points over Romney.

Missing from USA Today's polling about electability was John Edwards--even though aside from Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who consistently polls in double digits. And when other polls have included Edwards in questions about electability, Edwards generally does better than the other two, sometimes by wide margins. In a CNN survey of December 6-9, Edwards beat Romney by 11 points more than Clinton and 9 points more than Obama. He beat Huckabee by 15 points more than Clinton and 10 points more than Obama. Clinton lost to McCain in this polling by 2 points while Obama and McCain were tied, but Edwards beat him by 6. There's not as much of a difference with Giuliani, but Edwards still did 3 points better than Clinton and 2 points better than Obama.

If it's true, as USA Today's article reported, that "Democratic voters increasingly are focused on nominating the most electable presidential candidate," then the paper did those voters a real disservice by leaving Edwards out of the equation.

Like other establishment media outlets, however, USA Today seems to have difficulty providing a level playing field to a candidate who consistently attacks corporate interests--otherwise known as the media's owners and sponsors. An exercise in post-debate "fact-checking" by USA Today (12/14/07), for instance, took issue with this statement by Edwards: "One of the reasons that we've lost jobs, we're having trouble creating jobs...is because corporate power and greed have literally taken over the government."

The paper's "reality," as written by David Jackson and Fredreka Schouten, was this: "Edwards is wrong about job creation. There were 94,000 new jobs created in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since August 2003, 8.35 million jobs have been created."

Is USA Today unaware that the USA's population increases every year? In July 2003 the population was 290.8 million; the population now is estimated to be 303.6 million. So that's 8.35 million new jobs for 12.8 million more people. As a rule of thumb, the economy has to add 150,000 new jobs each month to keep pace with population growth. And the economy has lost about 3 million manufacturing jobs since 1998--most of them since 2000. But not, apparently, in USA Today's reality.

ACTION: Please write to USA Today to ask why Edwards was left out of the electability polling--and urge them to fact-check their fact-checking.

CONTACT:
USA Today
Brent Jones, Reader Editor
[e-mail]
1-800-872-7073

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. toot! toot!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3870107&mesg_id=3870269

:D I love the Internets. Writing them now, Thanks!

[asdjrocky]

2. K&R

Because I'm sick and tired of being told who I'm supposed to vote for.

Made the phone call, now writing the e-mail.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Isn't this how America elects a president? The media and pundits decide the race even before anyone

casts a vote.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Second tier candidates should either be all in, or all out.

If they included Edwards, they'd have to included all the second tier candidates.

[jgraz]

6. How do you define "second tier" other than what the MSM tells you?

Edwards is the only other candidate polling in double digits.
Several polls have Edwards tied or ahead in Iowa
Edwards consistenly beats all GOP candidates in head-to-head polling, with wider margins than either Clinton or Obama

Doesn't sound second tier to me.

[Yukari Yakumo]

17. Because...

Beyond Iowa and North Carolina, Edwards is a very distant third, often polling beneath the 15% threshold required to qualify for delegates.

That is what makes him "second tier".

[Armstead]

8. They should have included all the candidates

No excuse to automatically ignore any other candidate who fulfills the basic requirements of running and appearing in the debates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I absolutely agree - I need to call them. n/t

[maximusveritas]

25. Do you realize how long that poll would be?

and how much it would cost?

Every question costs money.
And especially if they're doing every single matchup, that would cost a fortune to produce. So that's why they have to narrow it down.

I used to rely on FAIR, but Media Matters has really supplanted them. This "Action Alert" on behalf of a single candidate is an embarassment to the organization.

[smokey nj]

5. Kick!

[balantz]

7. Letter written

K & R

[K Gardner]

9. Done... thanks for the heads up. K^R

[AtomicKitten]

10. It is clear both Edwards and Obama fare much better than Clinton.

And that pretty much blows her claim that she is the electable candidate right out of the water. However, Edwards does well and it is reprehensible that that very important factoid is being overlooked in the MSM. Surprised? Not me. The Media Heathers have a long and distinguished history of inserting their obnoxious selves into the mix. Feh.

[jenmito]

12. Maybe it's because he has very little chance of getting to the general election...

He's strong in one state. ONE. Even if he wins Iowa, as has been expected up 'til months ago, he's not really competitive in any other state.

[asdjrocky]

13. By the numbers-

We here at the Edwards Campaign urge you to not swallow the spin of our rivals. John Edwards is, in fact, running a national campaign. In addition to the well-reported strength of our operation in Iowa, we have less-well-reported, but just as strong operations in states all across the country. We have eight times the number of field staff in the state of New Hampshire than the Edwards campaign had in 2004; we recently added two dozen field staffers in Nevada; and we were the first candidate to run ads in South Carolina (the state John Edwards was born in and won by 15 points in 2004). Given our support throughout the labor community and advisor's at work in all February 5th states, we will have the infrastructure in place to seize on momentum from strong early place finishes. But you don't have to take our word for it.

Introducing, Edwards By The Numbers....

1: Number of presidential candidates actually born in SOUTH CAROLINA - John Edwards. He won the state by 15 points in 2004.

4: Number of television ads John Edwards has been up on the air with in SOUTH CAROLINA - his home state - since being the first to go up on the air in the state in mid- November.

5: Percentage of IOWA caucus-goers polled in November 2003 who supported John Edwards before he went on to finish second with 32 percent of the vote in the actual caucus.

6: Number of percentage points gained by John Edwards in the latest McClatchy poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters, putting him at a very competitive 18%.

7: Number of percentage points separating John Edwards from frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the latest Clemson University Palmetto Poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters.

7: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in NEW HAMPSHIRE, since launching his first major television ad buy on November 3rd.

7: Number of states where the campaign has organized "Road Trip for Edwards" volunteers to come to NEW HAMPSHIRE for canvassing, including the FEBRUARY 5TH
STATES of NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND and MASSACHUSETTS.

8: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in IOWA since launching his first major television ad buy on November 1st.

10: Number of organizers John Edwards had on the ground in NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2003-2004. This cycle, we have eight times the number of organizers that we had in New Hampshire last cycle.

12: Number of state SEIU COUNCILS, representing more than 1.1 million working families, which have endorsed John Edwards for president, including those in the critical early states of IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE.

16: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE.

17: Number of visits John Edwards has made to the state of NEVADA in 2007 - more than any other major candidate.

22: Number of states that will hold primary contests on FEBRUARY 5th .

22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES where Edwards has state political advisers working on his behalf.

22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES in which the Edwards campaign has organized statewide grassroots organizing calls this month.

23: Number of days Edwards has spent in his home state of SOUTH CAROLINA - more than any other Democratic candidate.

25: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of IOWA.

27: Number of chapters of the Edwards campaign's local service arm organized in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA.

34: Number of days John Edwards has spent in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE during the 2008 primary campaign.

75: Percentage of NEVADA Democratic caucus-goers contacted by the campaign who identify themselves as "undecided," which the campaign believes works in our favor.

80: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.

99: Number of IOWA counties.

99: Number of IOWA counties where John Edwards visited - and took questions from Iowans - this year (and also in 2004). He was the first Democrat to do so.

99: Number IOWA counties where Edwards has announced steering committees, reaffirming the strength of his statewide organization. Again, he was the first Democrat to do so.

117: Number of public events John Edwards has held in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.

150: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of IOWA. (Note: Total number is greater than 150.)

1,000: Number of caucus trainings the Edwards campaign has conducted in the state of NEVADA.

1,690: Number of One Corps chapters, the local service arm of the Edwards campaign, across the nation, including 87 in WISCONSIN, 79 in OHIO and 74 in TEXAS.

6,000: Number of active and retired members of the United Steelworkers union in SOUTH CAROLINA, many of whom are actively campaigning and canvassing for John Edwards in the state.

8,000: Number of Communication Workers of America in ARIZONA who have endorsed John Edwards.

10,000: Number of Caucus for Priorities members in IOWA who have pledged to caucus for John Edwards.

11,000: Number of doors knocked on as part of Edwards' "Bold Solutions to Your Issues" statewide canvass in NEVADA on December 15th.

28,000: Number of working families in NEVADA represented by the unions in the state that have endorsed John Edwards, including the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers and local Communications Workers of America.

45,000: Number of UNITE HERE CHICAGO and MIDWEST REGION Joint Board members who have endorsed John Edwards.

96,031: Number of Transport Workers union members in FEBRUARY 5TH STATES who have endorsed John Edwards, including those in NEW YORK (53,729), OKLAHOMA (9,026), CALIFORNIA (8,860) and NEW JERSEY (7,574).

130,000: Number of phone calls Edwards campaign volunteers in NEW HAMPSHIRE made to voters in the state last week alone.

220,000: Number of NEW HAMPSHIRE voters in the 2004 primary.

235,000: Number of doors Edwards campaign volunteers have knocked on in NEW HAMPSHIRE.

330,044: Total number of dollars Edwards had raised in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA at the end of the 3rd quarter fundraising deadline - more than any other Democratic candidate.

656,000: Number of working families represented by SEIU CALIFORNIA, which has enthusiastically endorsed John Edwards and campaigned widely on his behalf.

3.2 million: Number of union members in states all across the country represented by the labor unions who have endorsed John Edwards for president.

Momentum from strong finished in early states: PRICELESS.

It's a national campaign. As hard as you, and MSM try to ignore that, it is indeed a national campaign my friend.

He's working harder than anyone else. He's doing more with less, than anybody else.

And where John leads, all the others follow.

[jenmito]

14. All those high numbers show up everywhere but in the polls.

Are you saying ALL the polls lie?

[asdjrocky]

15. I'm saying: Read a news paper.

Watch the news. How often does his name get mentioned in MSM?

I think all national polls are irrelevant at this point.Even the ones that show those mythical head to head matchups. My comment wasn't on the polls, it was on the lack of attention from the media. To the exact point, the USA Poll. How is it that they don't even include Edwards, when all the national news outlets have been giving face time to all of the Pug candidates. Hell, CNN did a half hour love piece on Romney when he was polling, nationally, a point behind Edwards.

As an American, I want to hear all the information. Not what just five or six old white men think I should hear.

I guess you feel different.

And by the way, if you believe any of the polls, Iowa, National, New Hampshire or otherwise, you might want to take a look at history.

[jenmito]

16. I do. I guess you missed the cover of Newsweek and YOU haven't been following the news

for the last week. Non-stop coverage of Edwards. Wall to wall. "The Sleeper Candidate." "Can Edwards slip through the dog-fight of Hillary and Obama?" His poll numbers are a distant third STILL except in Iowa.

[asdjrocky]

22. Again, I say, if you listen to the polls....

Ah, forget it. It does no good with you.

You know, I've noticed a lot of great Obama supporters on this site, who seem to be really great people. They bring some great, informative issues to the table, and we discuss, and debate, without it ever getting heated, or nasty. They post good Op's that actually argue in favor of something. But with you, well, it's always a bit different.

Always play offense, is that it? Never defend, or God forbid, put one of your points of view out there. I know, it's far easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe. I've been tempted myself, many times.

[jenmito]

23. Again...if all the numbers you posted are true, the polls WOULD reflect them.

For some reason, they don't. I've started many threads about Obama. They only get responses from Obama supporters and then the thread sinks quickly.

[Yukari Yakumo]

18. Another number

1/2: The number of states Edwards is shown consistently leading in the polls. And that's an ancient Oklahoma poll where he is tied with HRC.

[Andy823]

20. You can lead them to the truth

But you can't make them accept it! :eyes:

The facts speak for themselves, and you did a great job of showing that. I think the people of this country will wake up by the primaries and see just who is and who is not on their side in this race, and that will be "John Edwards"!

[Andy823]

19. Here is the problem

He does "better" than any other dem in a head to head general election! Why do you not mention this? He has just as good of a chance on getting to the general as Hillary or Obama, and he will have a bettter chance once he wins Iowa!

Trying to write him off to make your guy look like the "only" other choice besides Hillary is simply cheap politics, nothing else.

I suggest you check your facts out a little better. The reason the MSM is making it a two way race is that they don't want Edwards to win because they are afraid of him. They know if he wins the republicans lose. They also know if Hillary or Obama wins, they will continue on with business as usual. You know how that is, corporations win, the American people lose, is that what you want? How is your guy going to stop them?

[jenmito]

26. Here's my answer:

I said that he won't GET to the general election so what's the point of mentioning it? He does NOT have just as good of a chance of getting to the general as Obama or Hillary. ALL the polls show that. Not to mention he has way less money than them to continue. He had to take matching funds because he didn't raise as much money as he thought he'd raise.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. As A Clinton Supporter I'm Willing To Concede That Edwards Polls Best Against The Republicans

That being said the data is limited because most pollsters only poll the two Democratic front runners, Obama and Hillary, against their potential GOP rivals...

Also, Edwards' benefits from operating under the radar... By the media "ignoring" him he is spared both negative and positive publicity...

[cali]

24. I agree. this stinks. He's a top tier candidate where it currently counts;

in Iowa and NH, and he's climbing in SC. He should have been included.

[jgraz]

27. Self-kick in the hopes of getting a few more letter-writers

Somebody needs to call USATODAY on their crappy-ass journalism. And we're just the crappy-ass-callers to do it.

[MGKrebs]

28. Maybe he squeezed himself out when he chose public financing.

Maybe the media would pay more attention if he would show how he is going to make himself viable with a probable 3 to 1 deficiency in funds.

Edwards should be reveling in the alleged lack of media attention. I mean, fer chrissakes, he's running an anti-corporate campaign. If he hasn't figured out a strategy on how to do this without the M$M, then he really is marginal.

Maybe he could enlarge his garage or something. That would get some press.