All the media outlets ask it, from Fox News on the right to MSNBC on the left and everybody in between. When covering elections, they cannot help but to pose it to every single guest they host.
The common, yet glaringly problematic question is this: Who do you think will be the nominee? Incessant media focus on this question degrades the quality of election coverage, impacting our political discourse for the worse.
Think of the 2012 primary season, when prattling pundits perpetually predicted Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, Romney was the guy because he was, as so many candidates are, called “electable.”
But what does that even mean? “Electable” should describe someone who will get things done because she has a plan and has already had some great accomplishments, someone who believes in America, and someone who will give the people the truth.
It seems instead, however, that electability is based on limited willingness to make the necessary significant changes and the big decisions. It is also many times based on likability. Why does it matter if the candidate is good-looking, charismatic, and into similar things as the typical American voter? How are those good credentials?
While it’s fine to address and mention the more personal qualities of the candidates’ lives, the discussion should not focus on them; our political climate suffers to the extent we let such superficialities influence our choices.
Just as in 2012, the Republican primary is looking to be filled with an array of candidates. We cannot treat the choices as we did last time. We need to find the best presidential candidate, not the most “electable” one.
So this primary season, let’s not let the media cater to the lowest common denominator of political discussion. They — and we — should focus instead on the issues and the candidates’ plans and beliefs. They — and we — should compare the contenders against one another, so that people can get a more transparent, easily acceptable understanding of all the potential presidents, their accomplishments, and why they’re different from someone else. They — and we — should not focus all of the attention on one specific candidate because he or she is “electable.” This would give more attention to lesser known, less certain candidates, because one person’s name would not constantly be aired over and over again, taking time and recognition away from the other contenders.
In 2011, for example, the media mostly ignored Rick Santorum. Yet once he started to catch people’s attention, he managed to extend the primary into April before Romney secured all the necessary primary delegates. Whatever one thinks of Santorum, this is an impressive feat.
When journalists and pundits interact on TV, let’s not give them our attention unless they ask about the issues and what the candidates think, not who is going to win; that’s our own job to decide. Let’s look at the issues and solutions, not a candidate’s electability. And let’s make a change in Washington, D.C. come 2016.
