‘Pay attention to me!’ political candidates say

By Matthew Gagnon

Posted Sept. 01, 2011, at 5:36 p.m.
Last modified Sept. 02, 2011, at 5:37 a.m.

On the national level, there has been a lot of talk about the cold shoulder Rep. Ron Paul has received from the media despite a very impressive showing at the Ames Straw Poll and being in third place in many national polls. The media establishment, it seems, doesn’t take Paul seriously as a threat to win the nomination, and as a result hasn’t devoted much ink or airtime to him.

But here in Maine, there are others who feel that they aren’t being given a fair shake.

Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post recently dismissed Scott D’Amboise as a serious challenger to Sen. Olympia Snowe, citing his inability to raise much money and his propensity for making ridiculous statements. He likewise labeled another Snowe challenger, Andrew Ian Dodge, as equally unsuitable as an alternative because of his atypical lifestyle, calling him a “cyber-punk.”

Naturally, D’Amboise and Dodge believe themselves to be serious candidates. But are they?

The argument from such gadfly candidates usually goes a little something like this: “If only the media would treat me like a serious candidate, cover what I do and stop dismissing me, my campaign would take off. The media is picking winners and losers!”

This kind of argument is made in every election, almost universally by candidates who have not gotten any traction (yet) and are being ignored by the media.

Sometimes they are right. There have been a number of instances where a candidate viewed by the media as on the fringe and unlikely to win has shocked everyone and proven their relevance. One of the best examples of this is Gov. Paul LePage, who many (including yours truly) expected to finish well behind a number of other candidates in the Republican primary last year.

But that almost never happens, and when it does there is usually a very good reason. In LePage’s case, he was an established public figure who had built a very impressive political ground game and was tapping into the mood of the electorate. The handicappers simply didn’t see or understand that like they should have, and made a mistake in their evaluations.

Most of the time, candidates who complain about not being treated seriously by the media don’t deserve to be.

So this does beg the question, what is a serious candidate? Does the media “anointing” someone as a front-runner and ignoring another end up choosing who is to be taken seriously? Is the lack of media coverage responsible for the minor candidate’s inability to break through?

Not really. The media’s ability to decide a race for voters is very much overblown. Candidates who receive overwhelming negative press win all the time, and candidates who are beloved by the media lose all the time. Treatment of a candidate rarely matters.

Winning a political race takes a number of things. First and foremost it takes a candidate who has the ability to actually appeal to voters. Then it takes a message that those voters will respond to. Then it takes enough money to actually introduce yourself to those voters. Then it takes a good campaign operation to do the grunt work of the election such as organizing people and getting them to the polls.

Candidates such as Ron Paul are ignored by the media mostly because they know that a 76-year-old non-interventionist libertarian isn’t going to win Iowa, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina or any of the key states in the 2012 primary, based on who the voters in those states are.

And guess what? Ron Paul thinks so too. He isn’t in the race to win, he’s in it to change the Republican Party. And in any event, if the media was wrong and he could win those states, he could do so without their help.

Candidates such as D’Amboise and Dodge are ignored by the media because thus far, everything needed to win a race is what they lack. No money. No grass-roots army. Thus far, their only hope is Republican distrust of Olympia Snowe, and that isn’t going to be enough.

If either wants to be taken seriously and have a chance at winning, they should complain less about the media and prove that they deserve our attention.

Matthew Gagnon, a Hampden native, is a Republican political strategist. He previously worked for Sen. Susan Collins and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. You can reach him at matthew.o.gagnon@gmail.com and read his blog at www.pinetreepolitics.com.

Similar articles:

Anonymous

This columnist makes a valid case here. Too often the media is blamed for way too much, when the media is not the determining factor. Political leaders, and others, look weak and ineffectual when they have to blame the media rather than take responsibility.
Anonymous

The premise of this is so off-base. Maybe people like Dodge and Ron Paul are equally as wacky, but that’s about it for similarities. The fact is, Paul has been performing well in straw polls and debates. Maybe the media can’t dictate which stories become the hot stories, but to not give proportionate invites to, let’s say, Sunday morning talk shows, does seem a lot like them tryin to pick the winners and losers in this. What more does Paul have to do to demonstrate that deserves the attention? Compare gays to barbarians? Bow down at the feet of the Kochs? What?
Anonymous

The premise of this is so off-base. Maybe people like Dodge and Ron Paul are equally as wacky, but that’s about it for similarities. The fact is, Paul has been performing well in straw polls and debates. Maybe the media can’t dictate which stories become the hot stories, but to not give proportionate invites to, let’s say, Sunday morning talk shows, does seem a lot like them tryin to pick the winners and losers in this. What more does Paul have to do to demonstrate that deserves the attention? Compare gays to barbarians? Bow down at the feet of the Kochs? What?
Anonymous

Who owns the mainstream media?
Why would they be so determined to dismiss Ron Paul and make him out to be crazy?
What would they stand to lose if Ron Paul was elected?

Those are some of the questions a few of you need to ask yourself first, then go out there, investigate and educate yourselves!
Anonymous

Who owns the mainstream media?
Why would they be so determined to dismiss Ron Paul and make him out to be crazy?
What would they stand to lose if Ron Paul was elected?

Those are some of the questions a few of you need to ask yourself first, then go out there, investigate and educate yourselves!
Anonymous

Paul needs to jump on board with the war mongering progressives and neo-cons if he wishes to be part of the discussion. Unfortunately the man stands on principle, believes the most prudent course of action is a return to the constitution, and is therefore considered crazy.

The new sanity is the old insanity…par for the course.

Unplug the tube, get online, and educate yourself!
http://twitter.com/usernamenuse sailing

Actually, Nick Silver of NYTimes’s FiveThirtyEight has Ron Paul about tied with Bachmann in liklihood of winning Iowa, and that is without taking into account that Randy Travis will not be helping Bachmann with get out the vote efforst there. You are behind the times.
Anonymous

I am sick of anyone with a libertarian perspective being bundled as slaves of the Kochs’. Ron Paul has been sharing the same message for his ENTIRE lengthy career. That is merely a way to write off those who support the constitution. Give me a break.
Anonymous

This proves the arrogance and slanted view of the media. “Candidates such as Ron Paul
are ignored by the media mostly because they know that a 76-year-old
non-interventionist libertarian isn’t going to win ..” How do they know that? Are they in the business of polling? The media should not be in the business of deciding the election, they should be giving fair play to all the candidates, especially considering the success of Ron Paul in this election.

Seems to me he has as fair a chance as the other candidates, after all, he did come in second in the ‘IOWA’ straw poll (Statistical tie). Not to mention Bachmann bought the plated meal for the occasion in which the poll was held for many of her votes.

Ron Paul IS in this race to win. I believe the quote about trying to change the republican party is from his last run.
Anonymous

They all support the constitution. It however is their version of the Constitution that they support. Ron Paul is no different from Obama or Boehner in that fact. We have a disagreement about what is in the document and we have disagreements about what is right and good for this country, that does not mean that they don’t support the constitution or want what is best for this country.
Anonymous

They all look like more of the same. Nothing exciting. Where the heck are honest, dedicated for the people, candidates?
Anonymous

I agree with most of your editorial, but don’t think the media has any business “deciding” who can win and who is a serious candidate. Right now, because of the 24 hour news business, we have a media dedicated to creating news when there really isn’t any. They do this by using daily polls, each worded in a way to deliver predictably controversial results. Then the media covers the POLLS and really never covers the candidate’s specific positions. Gingrich brought this up during the last debate and he was spot on. I wish every politician and pundit would respond to poll and campaign strategy questions with something like this: “I’m here to talk about the positions, not about the process.” Then we wouldn’t have the problem you’ve raised here.
Anonymous

I agree with most of your editorial, but don’t think the media has any business “deciding” who can win and who is a serious candidate. Right now, because of the 24 hour news business, we have a media dedicated to creating news when there really isn’t any. They do this by using daily polls, each worded in a way to deliver predictably controversial results. Then the media covers the POLLS and really never covers the candidate’s specific positions. Gingrich brought this up during the last debate and he was spot on. I wish every politician and pundit would respond to poll and campaign strategy questions with something like this: “I’m here to talk about the positions, not about the process.” Then we wouldn’t have the problem you’ve raised here.
Anonymous

I agree with most of your editorial, but don’t think the media has any business “deciding” who can win and who is a serious candidate. Right now, because of the 24 hour news business, we have a media dedicated to creating news when there really isn’t any. They do this by using daily polls, each worded in a way to deliver predictably controversial results. Then the media covers the POLLS and really never covers the candidate’s specific positions. Gingrich brought this up during the last debate and he was spot on. I wish every politician and pundit would respond to poll and campaign strategy questions with something like this: “I’m here to talk about the positions, not about the process.” Then we wouldn’t have the problem you’ve raised here.
Anonymous

I agree with most of your editorial, but don’t think the media has any business “deciding” who can win and who is a serious candidate. Right now, because of the 24 hour news business, we have a media dedicated to creating news when there really isn’t any. They do this by using daily polls, each worded in a way to deliver predictably controversial results. Then the media covers the POLLS and really never covers the candidate’s specific positions. Gingrich brought this up during the last debate and he was spot on. I wish every politician and pundit would respond to poll and campaign strategy questions with something like this: “I’m here to talk about the positions, not about the process.” Then we wouldn’t have the problem you’ve raised here.
Anonymous

I agree with most of your editorial, but don’t think the media has any business “deciding” who can win and who is a serious candidate. Right now, because of the 24 hour news business, we have a media dedicated to creating news when there really isn’t any. They do this by using daily polls, each worded in a way to deliver predictably controversial results. Then the media covers the POLLS and really never covers the candidate’s specific positions. Gingrich brought this up during the last debate and he was spot on. I wish every politician and pundit would respond to poll and campaign strategy questions with something like this: “I’m here to talk about the positions, not about the process.” Then we wouldn’t have the problem you’ve raised here.
Anonymous

Go ahead, give us the answers.
Anonymous

Go ahead, give us the answers.
Anonymous

Go ahead, give us the answers.
http://twitter.com/rklindell R. Kenneth Lindell

Geez Matt! You completely ignored Gary Johnson. What gives? :)
http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

They know he isn’t going to win the primary, because the primary electorate in all of those keys states is not going to give him more than 10-20%, and the winner will get quite a bit more than that.

The straw poll is a test of nothing other than organization. Romney purchased his win in 2007 with busses and tickets, just like Bachmann and Paul did this time. In the actual caucus, Paul will do better than he did last year, but his ceiling is still about 10-15% in all liklihood, based on who is in the electorate. Perry, Bachmann or Romney (assuming vote splitting) will win in Iowa.

South Carolina Republicans are hugely socially conservative, very pro-aggressive foreign policy, and so on and so forth. This is a state for people like Perry.

Florida Republicans are moderate, they are old, and they don’t want to deconstruct the state.

Paul’s only legitimate shots at winning primary states are New Hampshire and Nevada, based on the voters in those states. And those states are very very unlikely wins for him, since Romney is putting everything he has there, Huntsman is doing the same, Perry/Bachmann will be coming off some Iowa steam into New Hampshire, etc. So he won’t have much of a chance there. And in Nevada, Romney is going to be virtually impossible to topple off there. But even assuming he miraculously won both of those states, two states is not going to give him the nomination.

Ron Paul is in the race to change the conversation and reshape the Republican Party from the inside. Sure, he’s trying to win, but he is well aware of the fact that he isn’t going to.

I should point out that while it is not true, I have been accused of being a Paul supporter many times in the past. I have a lot more in common with him, ideologically, than I do Rick Perry or Romney for instance.

But my larger point here is that while the media undoubtedly blows it when it comes to who they pay attention to sometimes, most of the time they don’t, and they pay attention to who deserves to be paid attention to, given the seriousness of the candidates.

If a candidate wants attention from the media, than they need to prove why they should be taken seriously. Media attention doesn’t dictate votes anyway, so if they’re ignoring you just put your nose to the grindstone and grind out a win like LePage did in the primary last year.
http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

The media doesn’t decide who can win and who is a serious candidate. They respond to who the consensus feels can win and who is a serious candidate.

That is a very important difference, because the media’s mandate is to cover what the people want to read, and if there is some gadfly candidate with no money to get his message out, no campaign organization to whip up votes, a message that will only resonate with a few voters, and no hope of even coming anywhere near winning, people don’t care. Nor should they.

This is the same reason why ESPN covers Red Sox, Yankee, Phillie, Met, Angel/Dodger, etc games, and give very limited ink and air time to the Royals and Pirates. Teams that aren’t threatening to win anything generate less interest.

You can say it is their duty to cover the gadflys, as though that attention will suddenly make people aware of what they are missing, but not only is that not true, very few people want to read it.

Ron Paul might not have been the best example, because he generates interest for people to read about… but in terms of little known outsiders with no base, no money, and no anything in a state race… the point stands.
Anonymous

My point is that the media is the strong mouth of those who don’t want to stir the pot. There only purpose is to keep the go nowhere, Republican/Democrat, same sh!t different year status quo upheld. People should look for alternative information on the candidates. Like looking at Rick Perry’s johnny-come-lately libertarian facade.

After the Iowa straw poll, Ron Paul was intentionally ignored and even laughed at. All of the mainstream news stations began reporting about “top tier candidates: Bachman, Romney and Perry” almost in unison and in the same terms based on the poll results, even though Perry wasn’t even in it and Romney did poorly. It’s almost as if someone told them to shut up about Ron Paul (not to get conspiratorial). Supporting any of these other globalist wet dream, flip flop, support the war, waste our tax dollars candidates is disgusting.
Anonymous

What’s in the constitution is clear as day. The powers given to the government are CLEARLY outlined and limited, anything outside of the ammendments is STRICTLY for the states to decide. It does not give the government the power to dictate what I buy (health insurance), it does not give the president the right to involve us in wars without congressional approval, it does not say alot of things. What it does say is clear as day…and Ron Paul understands that. If you want to bend the constitution to the benefit of your agenda then why have it at all?
Anonymous

Well it is a good thing that you and Ron Paul came along. I mean, this country has been arguing what is in the Constitution for 223 years. Now it is great that we have two world scholars such as yourself to settle the argument that has been going on since Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately none of the authors of the document could agree exactly what was in it, but now we have you for enlightenment.
Anonymous

Well it is a good thing that you and Ron Paul came along. I mean, this country has been arguing what is in the Constitution for 223 years. Now it is great that we have two world scholars such as yourself to settle the argument that has been going on since Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately none of the authors of the document could agree exactly what was in it, but now we have you for enlightenment.
Anonymous

Well it is a good thing that you and Ron Paul came along. I mean, this country has been arguing what is in the Constitution for 223 years. Now it is great that we have two world scholars such as yourself to settle the argument that has been going on since Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately none of the authors of the document could agree exactly what was in it, but now we have you for enlightenment.
Anonymous

Well it is a good thing that you and Ron Paul came along. I mean, this country has been arguing what is in the Constitution for 223 years. Now it is great that we have two world scholars such as yourself to settle the argument that has been going on since Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately none of the authors of the document could agree exactly what was in it, but now we have you for enlightenment.
Anonymous

Well it is a good thing that you and Ron Paul came along. I mean, this country has been arguing what is in the Constitution for 223 years. Now it is great that we have two world scholars such as yourself to settle the argument that has been going on since Hamilton and Jefferson. Unfortunately none of the authors of the document could agree exactly what was in it, but now we have you for enlightenment.
Anonymous

you’re just one of those living document nutjobs…if you have any further questions about what unconstitutional nonsense your republocrat globalists are pushing feel free to contact me…thanks
Anonymous

Actually, Ron Paul is the perfect example. Although I personally don’t see a lot in Ron Paul, he raises lots of money, has a strong political machine, and gets quite a bit of support. However, the media insiders don’t like him (or his ideas). The self-appointed gods of politics, the main stream media, have decided that he isn’t fit to be president and just doesn’t cover him. Nobody, no matter how solid their message or sound their ideas, can survive a virtual media boycott.

So, how do the media Einsteins divine who gets the press and who doesn’t? At least superficially by polls. The amazing thing about these polls is that they fluctuate hugely almost daily. They do so because they mean absolutely nothing. Who are they polling? Are they urban, rural, literate, ever voted in their life, etc. Several networks and newspapers have been caught polling skewed populations. I won’t accuse them of polling to support their ideology, be will accuse them of using questionable polls to justify their decision to ignore certain candidates. It’s a good thing we didn’t have polls in Lincoln’s day.

So what is the media’s role here? Obviously, it can be argued that there can be situation where the focus has be be maintained on possible victors. What good is a debate if 40 candidates participate, each speaking 90 seconds? So we have to limit that process to candidates that are raising money and have a modicum of organization. But, the selection process the media uses to ignore some and support others has to be transparent and documented. That I haven’t seen published in the BDN. Let’s see it.
Anonymous

Yes, I am one of those nutjobs like the founders who believe that the Constitution is open for interpretation. Now I realize in your brave new world there is no room for nuance and of course you are a much greater constitutional expert than the people who wrote the document. I will have them consult with you the next time we need to write one.
Anonymous

interpretation as long as it fits YOUR agenda right?
Anonymous

No, interpretation to allow differing views. If it were up to me, the government would stay out of our business largely, provide for defense (not offense like we currently do), and provide for the least among us. However, I believe in an America that is large enough and open enough to provide for many differing points of view of what is in the Constitution.
Anonymous

No, interpretation to allow differing views. If it were up to me, the government would stay out of our business largely, provide for defense (not offense like we currently do), and provide for the least among us. However, I believe in an America that is large enough and open enough to provide for many differing points of view of what is in the Constitution.
http://www.facebook.com/matthewgagnon Matthew Gagnon

How do you define, “quite a bit of support”, because 10-15% as a ceiling ‘aint “quite a bit” in my book. It is impressive, but not a threat to do any damage in the primary.

That’s Paul’s problem… he has the look of a serious candidate because of the money and machine, but his ceiling is so low. His anti-war stances, among other things, make him unpalatable to a great majority of Republicans. That limits (greatly) his growth potential.

That’s why the media spends less time on him. They all know that he is basically maxed out at this point. Perry has two to three times the support like a few weeks after announcing, and it isn’t because the media pays attention to him.
Anonymous

10-15% isn’t good in a 8-10 person race? The person that came in second in the Iowa straw poll (I know it’s stupid, but the media pretends it means something) isn’t a serious candidate.

Let me make two points:

First, what you have here is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The media gods decide that Paul isn’t a “serious” candidate for whatever reason. He suffers a virtual media blackout from all the liberal media, and most of the rest of the media. Then the media gods sit back and crow because he doesn’t go anywhere. If Perry was getting the media attention Paul is getting, he would be under 10%.

Second, many candidates that jump into the race (especially late in the race) enjoy huge poll numbers. This proves my point. They get HUGE media attention and a big short-term boost. But as we’ve seen with Perry, he is already coming back to earth, and the liberal mainstream media hasn’t even started to trash him yet. Those same boobs that respond to your polls, are the same ones that change their mind every week. Yeah, the same ones that don’t know the name of the vice-president lol.

Go ahead Mr. Gagnon, let’s see the BDN’s written criteria for writing candidates off? If it doesn’t have one, it’s just more of same… media attempting to have an impact on voters, in most cases to further its own liberal agenda.
Anonymous

10-15% isn’t good in a 8-10 person race? The person that came in second in the Iowa straw poll (I know it’s stupid, but the media pretends it means something) isn’t a serious candidate.

Let me make two points:

First, what you have here is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The media gods decide that Paul isn’t a “serious” candidate for whatever reason. He suffers a virtual media blackout from all the liberal media, and most of the rest of the media. Then the media gods sit back and crow because he doesn’t go anywhere. If Perry was getting the media attention Paul is getting, he would be under 10%.

Second, many candidates that jump into the race (especially late in the race) enjoy huge poll numbers. This proves my point. They get HUGE media attention and a big short-term boost. But as we’ve seen with Perry, he is already coming back to earth, and the liberal mainstream media hasn’t even started to trash him yet. Those same boobs that respond to your polls, are the same ones that change their mind every week. Yeah, the same ones that don’t know the name of the vice-president lol.

Go ahead Mr. Gagnon, let’s see the BDN’s written criteria for writing candidates off? If it doesn’t have one, it’s just more of same… media attempting to have an impact on voters, in most cases to further its own liberal agenda.

Opinion

Previous story:

Next story:

MATTHEW GAGNON

‘Pay attention to me!’ political candidates say

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Marketplace Coupons

Bangor Daily News

About Us

Subscribe

Advertising

On Facebook

On Twitter