Front-Runner: Defined and Explored

(This is Part 2 of the Previous Post)

I'd like to begin with the Wikipedia definition of Front-Runner:

Front-runner is a term to describe the leader in a race, whether political or athletic. The term arose from the close symbolism between political campaigns and athletic running events. The term is used in the U.S. Presidential primary process to label the potential nominee with the lead in the polls, the most name recognition, or most funds raised (or a combination of these).

Not to be confused with this equally exciting Front-Runner:


I would like to address this definition before I give my answer to the open question I left before.
Firstly, the Wikipedia definition specifically attributes the term front-runner to the Presidential Primary. This suggest that perhaps there is a much more significant value to being a front-runner in the primary than in the general election. I would propose that due to the structure of our primary system (different states at different dates) a candidate has much more of an ability to benefit from the snowball effect of being the front-runner. A presidential primary front-runner is not considered as such because of polling and fund raising success but rather because he is actually winning elections. This is why I believe that front-runner status is much more significant by a primary and this seems to be what the Wikipedia definition suggests. (While analyzing a Wikipedia definition may seem odd, I think in this circumstance it has significant value.)

Secondly, the definition is "the leader" in a race. The question is, who decides this? Is it the media? It is polling? Can two newspapers declare two different front runners? These questions make it difficult to truly define a front-runner outside of media coverage. The 2008 Presidential election is a perfect example, despite the fact that post- Republican Convention McCain developed a lead in the national poll, (The national convention was September 1-4 FYI) he was never declared the front-runner. (Perhaps this is the liberal media bias, but I'd argue otherwise).

Rather I would argue that the front-runner in a national election (in contrast to a primary) is solely a product of the media. There is no real way to prove a front-runner when it comes to a national election. There can be a front-runner in polls that is different from the front-runner in fund-raising creating a difficult question of who actually receives the title of "front-runner". That decision comes from the media. In a primary, the front-runner can be determined by which candidate at any given point in a primary is leading with electorate votes. This can change early on the primary season as seen here and here by McCain and later in the season as seen from here (CBS declaring Sen. Clinton the front-runner) and then later here (CBS) declaring Obama the front-runner.

This media's determination of a front-runner can very quickly shift in the primary season, but seems to stay fairly firm once the national election campaign begins. (I am not firm about this second proposal but please provide me data to the contrary if I am incorrect). I therefore believe that outside of a primary election the term front-runner is solely a media construct which benefits the "media anointed front-runner" significantly and there is nothing the underdog can do but sit back and watch.