How ‘the horse race’ is hobbling our national politics

When it comes to covering national elections, most newspapers — especially most newspapers like the Daily Herald that concentrate attention on local news — must rely on national syndicates or national networks for information.

Some readers complain about this because they resent what they perceive to be the political leanings of the national services. Local newspapers get complaints about using the Associated Press, for example, from conservative-leaning readers who believe the syndicate has a leftward bias. Liberal-leaning viewers of local Fox News television channels often complain their political coverage is distorted by the biases they see in Fox News network reporting.

But these prejudices are a bit misplaced. Local newspaper copy editors at the Daily Herald and elsewhere can and do watch out for instances of inherent bias in national and world news stories and edit the copy to more strictly conform to standards of objectivity. Local broadcast agencies, too, can make judgments and provide analysis that help viewers and listeners get a broad description of political or controversial stories. We all may need to do a better job at these things from time to time, but we’re not impotent to see legitimate concerns and address them.

Where I’m struggling with local media’s reliance on national outlets has more to do with the fundamentals of national politics. At the most basic of levels, Daily Herald policies discourage reporting on election polling and what journalists often call “horse race” coverage — that is, who is winning instead of what the candidates are saying. Yet, national news coverage — liberal, conservative or otherwise — seems heavily weighted toward the horses.

Every debate, for example, is followed immediately not by analyses of what individual candidates said but of who did well, who appeared to make points or lose points with what audience, who looked tough or who faltered. And, they’re inevitably followed by stories on how the debate performances affected poll numbers.

The net result of this type of reporting leads us to where we are with the Republican primary for president. Even before the Iowa caucuses, a field of candidates that once was more than a dozen strong - most of whom had qualified for ballots in at least 10 states - had been winnowed effectively to three. With DeSantis’s departure after what he perceived to be a disappointing performance, the field is down to two - amid declarations from the general punditry that even Nikki Haley should read the hand writing on the balance sheets and step aside to clear the way for Donald Trump.

This, after the results in two states representing a grand total of 10 Electoral College votes in the first two weeks of a monthslong primary process.

Somewhere here, it seems to me that voters have been seriously short changed. Maybe Republicans overall are happy with the two remaining choices they’re left with, but can it really be that the choices of 48 states of vastly diverse geographic and demographic interests fall naturally into line with what the voters in tiny New Hampshire and Iowa decide? Did the voters in those states ever get much valuable time examining those other 13 or more options?

Much is made — appropriately, in my view — of weaknesses in a primary system that seems preordained to produce such head-scratching results for both parties. Surely, the system needs some critical examination and overhaul.

And we in the media can’t escape some fault in that coverage too often leans toward the easy cosmetic issues that readers and viewers are comfortable with, as opposed to deeper reporting on the complexities of issues that may distinguish the candidates and give better insights into how well they would perform as leaders. Even at the more local level, we can — and do — routinely check on where candidates are getting their financial backing, for example, and we can focus our interviews and questionnaires on substantive topics that take readers beyond speculation on who is behind or ahead in the race.

But I also find myself thinking that other participants in this process have some responsibilities as well. Too often, candidates pander to the perceptions of the polls. Too often, voters make up their minds before collecting the kind of detailed information required to make informed, responsible choices. And, too often, financial support for candidates falters early because donors are watching — you guessed it — the horse race to see who provides the best chance for a return on their investment.

In the end, it all comes down to a partnership among all the key interests in an election — candidates, media, political parties, voters, donors and, of course, the system itself. To varying degrees, it seems to me that we’re all letting each other down.

To the detriment of our politics, our leadership, our nation and our communities.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on Twitter at @JimSlusher.