Sounds like a good Letter to the Editor possibility too.  Nicely done!

I am not sure this is a comparison of apples to apples.  Maryland has every election this year (county council, county executive, local constitutional officers, judges, HOD, Senate, Governor, Comptroller, AG, Congress, US Senate) whereas Virginia only has Senate and Congress.  Thus, there should be far more coverage of MD politics in the Post than VA.  Just like last year I am sure there was more coverage of VA politics than MD much like there will be next year.

As for the test, remember that MD has their Democratic primary in one month.  Hence the stories on Mfume, Cardin, even Simms and his rivals would probably be far greater.  If you look at stories from May and June you would probably see more stories about Miller, Webb, Hurst, Longmyer, O'Donoghue, and Ellmore.

Additionally, for MD you look at candidates for a very competitive gubernatorial election, and for a Senate seat that hasn't been open in 20 years when there is a major primary in a month.

In VA, you look at a number of races where an incumbent is being challenged and the major party candidates were set months ago.  A big difference from the situation in MD. 

I don't know exactly what criteria you used in your search and hence cannot replicate the test accurately.  However, before we say that the Post plays favorites with MD, lets look up Gus Alzona, Jeffery Stein, and David Zubairi (all vying for the GOP nomination against Van Hollen).  Let's look up Deborah Vollmer (runing against Van Hollen for the Dem. nomination).  Let's look up Michael Moshe Starkman (GOP candidate against Al Wynn) or Donna Edwards or George McDermott (running as Democrats against Al Wynn).  If these candidates are mentioned more often then Feder and Hurst, then it may be something to discuss.  But Feder and Hurst not being mentioned as often as Democrats running for Senate in MD a few weeks before the primary should not be big news.

Perhaps these stats should be reexamined in late September and October when both states are past the primary and in fall campaign mode.  I imagine there will be more stories about MD politics than VA then simply because of how many races there are in MD this year, but we'll see what happens.

John:

I'm certainly not claiming perfect science here, but just an informative snapshot.  I think there are a few conclusions we can draw here:

1) MD governor's race is clearly getting much more attention than any political story in VA.  Why? 

2) Coverage of Webb in at least the last month has been ANEMIC -- there were almost as many stories mentioning the Democrat in 3rd or 4th place in the MD Senate race, Josh Rales, as stories about Webb.  Why?

3) Incumbents are clearly getting much more coverage than challengers.  This is not completely surprising.  But is it fair?  Shouldn't the Post at least call the challenger's campaign offices up for comment when there's a major story about the incumbent?

4) You're right that the Post in general is doing a lousy job covering Congressional races.  But I thought one reason that the Post has so many versions of its Metro sections, tailored to different parts of the DC metropolitan region, was to allow for more targeted coverage to those regions.  Shouldn't that mean that Virginia readers should get to learn more about Hurst, Feder, etc., while MD readers get to learn more about the candidates you mentioned? 

To play devil's advocate:

1.  MD's governor's race looks like it will be one of the biggest in the nation.  O'Malley and Ehrlich are each looking to raise and spend upwards of $20 million.  Given the general political dynamics in MD, this is one race where we see a major chance of an incumbent losing.  O'Malley and Ehrlich have both been running this race for four years and I see more energy in that race than I do any race in VA.  Just cross over to MD and look at all the signs that are up for candidates already - it's unbelievable and only getting worse!  Additionally, both candidates are out there all the time.  When O'Malley does something, Ehrlich is there to comment on it and vice versa.  I don't see that dynamic in any race in VA.  I would argue this is the biggest race in the Washington metro region this year and hence deserves the most coverage.

2.  I have not gone back and read all the stories that mention Rales, but I would suspect that is about all they do - mention Rales in the context of a broader story on the race.  In my original post, I noted that the MD Democratic primary is a month away and is competitive between Cardin & Mfume.  With the O'Malley - Duncan primary no longer taking place, the Senate primary is the biggest one in MD and hence has gotten considerable attention recently and will continue to do so for the next month.  Rales has made himself a player in this race by investing millions of dollars of his own money and flooding the airwaves far earlier than any other candidate in the race.  That at least gets him mentioned in articles about Cardin and Mfume, though most of these mentions do not amount to substantive coverage of his campaign.  Webb, by contrast, is the nominee already.  I imagine that his campaign will gear up more after Labor Day when campaigns in VA typically do.  At that point, there will be more talk of him.  But right now, things in VA seem pretty quiet in most areas (with the 2nd being the main exception).

3.  Everyone talks about the advantages of incumbency and this is certainly one of them.  Is it fair?  That is debatable.  On one hand, someone could argue as you do that challengers should be asked to comment any time an article mentions the incumbent.  On the other hand, some would argue that an article on policy should not turn into one about politics.  I am not close to the Webb campaign, so I don't know to what extent Webb has tried to be out in front issuing statements whenever Allen does something newsworthy.  This is something O'Malley has done very well in MD.  However, as Mayor of Baltimore, he has a better platform from which to do this and can talk about how some things affect Baltimore and seemingly transcend the political motivations for his statement.

4.  I can't argue with you on this point.  However, I will say that my experience with the Post has been that the articles are the same in the different versions but the placement differs.  So everyone will get the articles no matter where they live, it is just a matter of whether they will be on the front page of the Metro section or somewhere inside.  I don't argue that this is right, but simply note that it seems to be how it is.

This is an interesting discussion that makes some good points. After 36+ years in NoVa I've sensed that WaPo has done a marginally better job covering Virginia politics (and other stuff) over the years but still reflect the orientation of its top editors who tend to live in Northwest DC and Montgomery County.

The thing that bugs me is editors making assumptions that since incumbents usually win (except for the 3 that got beat this week, but never mind about that!), therefore papers don't need to cover races unless there's a strong reason to believe that the incumbent might lose this time. 

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -- challengers can't get any traction if they can't get any publicity, so incumbents become even more entrenched. 

In a truly democratic system, every incumbent should be subject to the voters' will -- no "safe" seats.  The WaPo and other parts of the media have an obligation, and a lot of power, to educate and empower voters to make informed decisions on these matters.  And they could do a much better job of it.

I agree with what you say about "no safe seats."  But it goes far beyond the media.  While media doesn't help, I would argue that there are several factors that are more signifcant.

1.  Redistricting - In VA, the 3rd & 8th districts will likely never elect a Republican.  The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th districts will likely never elect a Democrat.  The only chance for competition in these districts is in a primary and those are pretty rare in this state.  As long as districts are drawn safe or with incumbent protection in mind, competitive elections will not follow.

2.  Institutional factors - As a member of Congress you have many things at your disposal throughout your term that a challenger would not.  Press attention.  Newsletters.  Franking.  Invitations and speaking requests throughout the district.  The ability to respond to constituents on any issues they contact you about.  The ability to retain information on issues constituents contact you about and use that info for targeting purposes.  These advantages make it hard to beat an incumbent.  Based on these factors, I would argue (and many here would disagree with me) that the 9th will never go Republican as long as Boucher is in office.  The 10th will never go Democrat as long as Wolf is in office.  The 11th will never go Democrat as long as Davis is in office.  If Drake survives this year, the 2nd will likely never again have a chance at going Democrat as long as she is in office.

That takes care of every Congressional seat in the state.  Due to either redistricting or institutional factors for incumbents, they are safe seats.  The media then simply makes a business decision (since media is afterall a business) to not provide much coverage of these races because they are indeed safe.

Kindler - you and I have been back and forth on this over the past two days.  You and I would probably agree on a lot, and particularly on the need for more competitive elections.  I think I am looking at the the issue with the press as the press making a business decision and you are looking at it as them providing a public service - a case of realism vs. idealism.  But until other factors change to provide greater competitiveness in elections, the press will not report very thoroughly on races they consider to be foregone conclusions.

John, you're right that we'd probably agree on a lot. 

But I must respectfully take issue with the idea that it's "idealist" to expect the press to pay more attention to local Congressional races.  There are many different business decisions that the press (or any other business) can take, and there are many ways for them to serve the public interest and their bottom line simultaneously. 

I think that stimulating more political horse races is a very effective way to sell papers.  Telling more about rising stars like Andy Hurst and Judy Feder can make for interesting reading.  While I recognize that newspapers have limited staff and must allocate them accordingly, I think they should consider the benefits, not just the costs, of this type of coverage.