In some ways getting away from the "horse race" angle is refreshing, especially this early.  Other than the celebrities, coverage has focused on "human interest" angles in an attempt to hook the reader.  These angles, unfortunately, have no semblance of substance to them. There's the "death of the moderates" story on Rhode Island.  The "first black senator from the old confederacy since Reconstruction" (TN).  Hawaii with the old guard vs. the money bags newcomer has not gotten the expected play (I guess they don't want to tick off Time/Warner as I guess Ed Case's brother Steve is the biggest stockholder).

Montana has a chance of staying in the news as the populist rancher with the flat top vs. the establishment tinged with corruption makes a great story.

Same with Virginia with sometime Presidential frontrunner Allen struggling for his political life against a fighting Democrat in Webb.

Missouri?  Not fresh candidates and no real hooks.  Even Maryland has a lot more potential.

You're on fire, Chris.  Several great posts in the last 24 hours.

The media doesn't give a crap about anyone who won't come on their talk shows.  It's that simple.  Talent - not on the talk shows.  Chafee - for the most part, not on the talk shows.

and I can't add anything to the debate other then what all has been mentioned.

But I think, yes, this is another example of media being sensationalistic rather then investigative.

Still you'd think we'd be hearing about races with an interesting "hook", like Jack "son of Jimmy" Carter in NV.

-C.

I'm a Missouri native.  Aside from it being a very close race the really interesting thing is the Stem Cell Research referendum in November and how the business elites in St. Louis & KC are getting sick of wingnut state legislators.  This is a major political fissure among the GOP.  McCaskill is loud & clear about her support for Stem Cell research.  Talent, after flip-flopping around is with the radical right, his base.  I really think the referendum will help McCaskill, its a wedge issue that we can win.  

It's also of real importance to Missouri's economy.  The state wants to be a biotech research center.  Missouri has made progress in that field.  Business leaders know that they can't have nutty legislators or religious review committees acting as the authorities on what research can and can't be done in St. Louis & KC labs.  

Why ahs the media decided to focus on two senate races this year at the expense of all the rest?

The media is focusing on Connecticut and Pennsylvania because both states represent the worst the Democratic Party has to offer. Unfortunately for PA, CT is the one state where that is going to change.

I agree, the coverage isn't where it really should be.

With regards to NY and FL getting more hits, I wonder if it is because NY and FL have more web-based local news organizations. I know Google News will hit local newspapers, so maybe NY and FL have more.

However, it seems evident to me that the nationwide media seems overly focused on the NYC area, DC, and from time to time California. I just don't have fancy facts to prove it.

Chris, great post... three quick links with data from the blogosphere:

Montana: 1393 in the last month.
Missouri: 627 in the last month.
New York: 451 in the last month.

I'm not sure exactly how much better the blogosphere has been on this (i tried to use the same search terms as you) and frankly it is very hard to also figure out reach in this process, but it is a really really interesting question.

This is perhap the most obvious thing I have ever posted here (aside from me stating ad nauseum that Hillary is truly a progressive and has the voting record to prove it):

A senator from NY has the exact same vote as a senator from Arizona.  And you cannot even say sens from big states have more influence.  Nevada anyone?

As far as the future of the country is concerned and things like radical judges, as seat from MT should be treated like a seat from anywhere else.  I can understand focusing on GOVERNOR races from big, influential states, but senator races is silly.

Excellent post.  Its actually worse than sports coverage.  Imagine if the baseball section of your local paper covered the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and Giants, and only the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and Giants.

I think the situation becomes critical when you look at state legislators, and county governments for metropolitan counties (which often have larger populations than some states).  You get nothing on all.  Coverage of House of Representation races is not great.  In fact, when petitioning for a Congressional race, I met people who had never heard of Congress.

Actually the coverage is slightly better this year than usual, thanks in part to blogs like this, but it really is a scandal.

Certainly within 10 points at the ballot box. If not much closer. That's hardly an outlandish prediction. An incumbent with 9 million dollars, and in a state that tilts several points our way but not exactly New York. Even a moron like Santorum will find a way to make this reasonably close. He's going on the air with an ad blitz very soon.

Otherwise, I agree. The lack of polls in the top tier but smaller state senate races has been absurd.

However, look for this in the fall: much greater number of polls in competitive House races. Since the House is more likely to be in play than the senate, the media will latch onto that and the residue will be significant increase in specific House polls, and not merely the generic House preference polls.

I don't see why it's a shock that Florida is getting such coverage. Nelson is the only southern Democrat up for re-election. Seeing how well the Sourthern Strategy has worked for the Republican Party, the media would be foolish to ignore this race.

Did you find no stories on Jack Carter or did you forget the Nevada race?

...the large number of NYC publications that cover New Jersey politics, especially since both New York statewide races (governor and senate) are going to be massive blowouts in favor of the Democrats.

How you managed to get that I'm the one-issue voter out of that is beyond me. But, whatever, go ahead with it. So much for us being the "Big Tent Party", eh?

Hotline (sorry, don't have the link) makes an excellent case that the Virginia race is the most important of the Senate contests.  Basically, if Allen wins, he will do so in the full glare of the DC based press corps, can say that he turned back a strong challenge in a swing state, maybe his win will be the one that keeps the Senate for the Republicans.  If Webb wins, the Democrats have a potential new star, plus they knock a fairly formidable Republican presidential candidate out of contention.  And the main issue in the race will be the Iraq war.