Where the hell have these professional pundits been?

The NY Times' Opinion Page blurb for Charles Blow's column teases: "Wasn’t this election supposed to be a nail-biter?" Inside, in Blow's column, we read that "at this point, it’s hard to see a path to victory for Romney." And that, I'm sure you've noticed, has been the commentariat's swelling opinion for, well, several hours now--which says more about our preposterously pisspoor punditry than it does about the presidential race.

Why was "this election" presumed to be "a nail-biter"? Because the pundits stamped "nail-biter" on their punditry at the get-go. And why, now, is it "hard to see a path for Romney"? Because the pundits have finally seen what all the competent GOP contenders--Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour--saw at least two years ago: re-winning a brilliantly red gerrymandered House district is one thing, but conquering those purple states snaking from Pennsylvania to Nevada is quite another. In other words, the GOP grownups could read a brightly colored map--titled "Abandon hope all ye GOPers who enter here"--as well as they could do some damn simple math.

Could the pundits? Nope.

They also missed the poignancy behind the polls reflecting President Obama's high likability and steady, personal favorability. They seemed to miss incremental improvements in the economy and how the metronomic accumulation of those upbeats would begin to register with the electorate. They missed the politically potent fact that even given general dissatisfaction with the economy's current pace, the GOP was offering nothing but a return to Bush--and, inextricably related, they seemed to dismiss that the electorate unwaveringly blamed Bush--not Obama--for the mess we've got.

Throw into that gloomy pool a few other factors--weakening demographics among Republicans; the House GOP's insane, alienating policy proposals; the base's now chronic, aggravated derangement and the agonizing primary season that unmasked its leadership's dementia--and I'd defy anyone of any reasonably sound prognosticative abilities or raw political instincts to come up with ... "a nail-biter."

Ok, I hear you ask, then what was it these professional pundits were using as a predictor? As a vocational guide? As a measure of nail-biting competition? Put your drink down. Clear your throat. You don't want to choke on the coming chortle. They were (they had to be) using only head-to-head national polling--the most distracting, the most diversionary, the most useless predictor in play.

Now--duh--they're saying "it’s hard to see a path to victory for Romney." Well blow us away.

Comments

[Jay L]

I doubt it's naivete. Media companies are for-profit operations who have a significant financial interest in close elections - especially in the post-Citizens United era.

[Chad]

To be fair to the pundits, if one assumes that the American people are raging idiots -- which the pedigreed, "cosmopolitan" pundits doubtlessly do (without any consideration, of course, of their own roles in dumbing down the political discourse) -- then ANY election is a nail-biter, really. Particularly one between a man so *handsome* as Mitt Romney (be still my fluttering heart!) and one so, well, inescapably multicultural as Barack Obama.

[AnneJ]

Well so long as voter suppression efforts fail, then it should be a landslide, but I still refuse to take anything for granted. I live in a VERY red part of California a supposedly safe state for Barack Obama but all I ever hear whether or not I ask ( I don't) how much people hate this president.

[Peter G]

Ah well, I call this punditry musical chairs. The problem for the pundit is that to maximize his economic success the close horse race must be called. But to maintain any credibility he or she must eventually be right about something. And there is no bigger thing to be right about than this. So they circle and circle until the music stops and they scramble to state the obvious. And oh my brothers and sisters has Romney's music abruptly died! Woe betide the last pundit to hold onto the horse race meme. You don't want to be Baghdad Ali.

[Robert Lipscomb]

I plead guilty to posting betting odds ad infinteum. But really - you are wondering who will probably win one of today's college football games, wouldn't you check to see what the Vegas point spread is?

So why doesn't the media check and report betting odds?

OK, let them go ahead and look at all the polling data, but especially look at trends from composite sources, and look at it on a electoral basis. Especially look at Nate Silver's analyses.

Then go back to the betting odds. Those guys really know how to call an election.

My guess is that both campaigns have a "it's really close" message. If you are behind, you don't want your base to give up and not turn out. If you are ahead, you don't want them to take it for granted and not turn out.

And from a non-statistical, non-electoral basis, it will be close. I mean 52% is close to 48% in most situations. hell, you round both off to 50%.

There are very few reporters, much less statisticians, in the media.

[Lee]

The conventional wisdom focused almost entirely on the unemployment rate. No incumbent since WWII has one reelection with a rate above 8%. Therefore, Obama was doomed. Add to this the media self interest in a close race (if the super bowl is close, people watch to the end. If it is a blowout, they find something else to do, and you have the media saying it is a close race as long as they can

[MinneapolisPipe]

I'm not sure if Eisenhower warned us about this, but it is the Pundit Industrial Complex.

If it was not a "nail-biter", their inane drivel would have no perceived relevancy.