Is This Any Way to Run (or Judge) A Horserace?

Two thoughts about politics this morning.
The Bush-Cheney apparatus carefully hand-picks its audiences for campaign appearances, to the degree of weeding out anyone who won’t sign a statement affirming their intention to vote for the Republicans in November. I have to wonder if this is an effective strategy. Of course it prevents the candidates from being publicly embarrassed by tough questions or hostile voters, but by definition the campaign isn’t reaching many undecided voters, much less Democrats who might be persuaded to defect. Do they believe they can win with just the party faithful? On its face the policy seems self-defeating, but the polls suggest otherwise.
One reason the news media uses to justify its close attention to the horserace aspects of the election (often at the expense of substantive policy analysis) is that the effectiveness of a campaign can give voters a sense of how effective the candidate will be as president. It seems logical enough, but again, the facts suggest otherwise. Bush-Cheney ran a more effective campaign than Gore-Lieberman, but even Republican lawmakers are now questioning the Bush administration’s competence on the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the economy. It’s baffling to me that voters can look at Bush’s record over the last four years and want to return him to office, but it’s even more difficult to understand how the would-be professionals in the media can still think that competence on the campaign trail will translate into competence in the Oval Office.