Handicapping the "horse race" coverage

A number in the self-proclaimed 'highbrow media' have complained at the shift of election coverage from substantive news to coverage of what has been termed the "horse race", which basically denotes the relative polls. Normally, I'm all highbrow, all the time. However, on this point I have to take issue with those who complain at the greater emphasis on the polls than on the candidates, because the former is what I, and many others, care about.

Hearing Bush or Kerry's message after the conventions carries almost zero interest to me and the 90% of other likely voters who already have their man picked. Certainly some things the candidates and their surrogates say are interesting and relevant, but really I'm just waiting for November 2nd. As a responsible voter, I'm basing my vote on the candidates platforms (set before the conventions) and their respective histories. What either blowhard says during August, September, and October is on par with a gossip column.

The mainstream media does a lot of things wrong. But one thing they do right is pay close attention to the things that interest me and millions of other viewers: which candidate is ahead in Ohio and a dozen other swing states. Now, coverage could be more nuanced and intelligent, for sure. But the emphasis? They've got that right.