. >> jim griffith. >> is horse race coverage a vital or superficial aspect of american political discourse, and does a focus on horse race coverage on media outlet prov e provide. >> i believe since the polls are are a measuring stick of how the horse race is going, i think it's pretty clear that a lot of the coverage goes to candidates that are perceived to be ahead or perceived to be within striking distance of the lead. so there is a definite way that an emphasis on horse race determines who gets covered and how they get covered, but i think now there are plenty of ways that the web offers up ample opportunities for people to move beyond horse race coverage, to hear about what issues are, to hear a lot about the biographies and stories of the candidates so if you add up all the information that's available in this environment on politics and how people use it to assess candidates, there's more stuff coming from more directions with more different story lines and more different sort of frameworks than was the case probably a generation or two generations ago, so it's probably a more dive

i also have jim griffith. >> with the speed of how things come out today, you know, on social media, everyone wants instant gratification -- the way things come out today, it's so fast, and like you showed that video with howard dean and, you know, you got to hear 20 seconds or 25 seconds of them talking. but now on the internet of social media, you get three-second quips for sound bites, and people are making their judgment on that, and i'm just curious how you feel about that, how people are uninformed and just make their decision based on three-second sound bites. >> i think i'm going to remember my political science correctly on this. there have been really interesting studies that have looked at people's basic values and basic partisan inclinations, so that would be a year and a half away, the summer before the year of the election. and then looked at where people ended up on election day, and a lot of what happens in between doesn't influence them at all. there are stories, there are scandals, there are instantaneous -- furors over things, and for most voters most of the time,

jim. screens in russia close up on our key. our guys it's time for tonight's tool time ward and this one is going to billionaire kenneth griffith for then you have money doesn't have enough influence in politics here the weekend the chicago tribune published an interview with griffin the founder and chief executive of the hedge fund company called citadel now in that interview griffin was asked whether he thought the super rich had an inappropriate amount of influence on politics and this was his response he said i think we actually have an insufficient influence those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet spoken like a true ego does to go billionaire only somebody totally detached from reality to believe that the richest people in this country don't have enough influence over politics over the last few decades wall street's political contributions have increased by over seven hundred percent thanks to citizens united that's put outside spending on ads rise to over sixteen hundred percent so far and today's politicians