,
3 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Also, a lot of primary campaigns don't feature major differences among the candidates on policy. Clinton and Obama had very little to divide them in 2008, for example.
Elections are mostly *not* about wonky arguments over policy. Or to put it another way, you could have exhaustive coverage of the candidates' policy positions and still have plenty of time left over for the horse-racier aspects of the campaign.
So while I'm a huge fan of some of the people making this critique (e.g. @jayrosen_nyu and @Sulliview), I find "cover elections thru policy, not the horse race" to be a bit of a red herring. The argument should really be about whether there's too much *election* coverage, period.
