Enter
Exhibits A and B to your right).
Hey, I just double-checked, but
it’s apparently only March in the
year 2014, so everyone can feel free
to just chill, for God’s sake.
Look, y’all. I ain’t even trying to
put the kibosh on discussing the
relative strengths and weaknesses
of potential 2016 candidates. I’m
even OK with making comparisons.
But we have to stop abusing this
poor word, “frontrunner,” before
the English-language’s version of
Sarah MacLachlan starts making
sad teevee commercials about it.
There is no “frontrunner” at this
point. There isn’t even a race.
But once the race is enjoined,
we’ll still really need some new
rules governing the use of this
word. As things are, we deploy the
word “frontrunner” way too readily, using it to describe everybody
from candidates who are clearly
dominating a race, to candidates
who have snagged a slight lead over
a pack of contenders, to — as in
the above cases — candidates who
aren’t even candidates. It’s important to remember that when Chris
Cillizza or Conn Carroll declare a
frontrunner, they’ve not taken the
pulse of America or done anything
quantitative to make that determination. They approach it with this
LOOKING FORWARD
IN ANGST
kind of thinking: “Which prospective candidate, if I named them the
‘frontrunner,’ would give my personal #brandz #moar #klout.”
But look, I’m trimming my own
excesses and taking responsibility
for my own abuses, as well. Back
in the 2012 GOP primary, as the
fortunes of the various candidates
waxed and waned over the months,
I passed around the term “frontrunner” a little too promiscuously.
So, now, I’m taking up the cause
HUFFINGTON
03.09.14