Posted by Jed Lewison on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:30 AM Pacific

You're a complete idiot (no love for the pundits edition)

Today, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times summed up the state of the primary campaigns heading into the holidays.

December 24, 2007 With Nod to Holidays, Candidates Keep a Vigorous Pace Before the Break By JEFF ZELENY

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — If there were any doubts how competitive the presidential race remained, fresh proof could be found Sunday in the itineraries of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who risked testing the holiday patience of voters as they campaigned across the state before suspending politicking for a Christmas break.

Notice someone missing? John Edwards, perhaps?

In fact, Zeleny didn't mention John Edwards or any Democrat not named Obama or Clinton in the entire article -- not once. No Richardson, Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich.

Zeleny even mentioned Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Bill Clinton.

But nobody else. It's as if John Edwards and the others had dropped out of the race entirely.

Whether its media bias, media incompetence, or a mixture of a two, this kind of bull is nothing new.

The pundits screwed up just as badly in 2004. Take a look at what Adam Nagourney said back then a mere 8 days before the Iowa Caucus (we're now 11 days away):

January 11, 2004 Campaign in Iowa is Called Pivotal and Still Close

Eight days before the Iowa caucuses that will start the voting for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean and Richard A. Gephardt are battling for dominance in what many Democrats describe as the most contested and potentially decisive caucus campaign their party has seen here in 16 years.

The competition here has been complicated by spirited bids by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, each of whom has calculated that coming in second, or perhaps third, in Iowa would lift his candidacy going into the New Hampshire primary a week later.

As we all know, John Kerry beat Howard Dean by 20 points. He beat Dick Gephardt by 26 points. Edwards came in second.

I can see Rick Moranis playing the role of Adam Nagourney in "Honey, I Shrunk the Field!"

If the reporters who cover politics are a sorry bunch of idiots, the people polling Iowa are a useless bunch of wankers. Currently, Pollster.com finds that in Iowa, Barack Obama leads the field with 29%, Hillary Clinton is second with 27%, and Edwards is third with 23%.

These numbers are absolutely meaningless. Pollster.com wasn't around in 2004, so they don't have a track record to review, but until the very final couple of days of the campaign, the caucus polls in Iowa were terribly unreliable. In fact, until five days before the caucus, the polls universally showed a contest between Dean and Gephardt.

What happened? In the final few days, lots of people changed their minds. Take a look:

It wasn't just Iowa. In the 12 national polls I found that were conducted after December 1, John Kerry broke into the top three spots only once -- and it was a third place finish, with just 12%. Dean, Gephardt, Clark, and Lieberman all outpolled Kerry. I even found a poll showing showing Hillary at 43% -- in early December, 2003!

The fact that the polls shifted tremendously in short periods of time should be no surprise; primary and caucus voters are the most knowledgeable voters out there. As a result, they are aware of the full range of options before them, and the more options a voter has, the more likely it is that he or she will change his or her mind.

Still, the prognosticracy went on the record with some pretty stupid predictions.

For example, the day before the Iowa Caucus David Yepsen opined:

I think Howard Dean's still in pretty good shape. I mean, even though these polls are showing Kerry and Edwards surging, Edwards just doesn't have the organization that the other candidates do.

On the day of the caucus, Yepsen predicted a Dean victory:

Howard Dean should win the Iowa caucuses tonight.

Of course, Yepsen was wrong, and he wasn't alone. After Kerry's resounding victory, the media, which had completely fucked up its analysis of the horse-race, shifted into head-scratching mode. Golly-gee, they asked themselves, how could we have missed the mark by such a wide margin? (Perhaps they could have asked Judy Miller?)

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times wrote the obligatory "Ooops, we did it again" article.

Results Show Conventional Wisdom Short on the 'Wisdom'

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: January 20, 2004

For weeks, reporters practicing the tricky art of political prognostication here declared the Iowa Democratic caucuses to be a two-man race, with former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont riding to front-runner status on a jet stream of antiwar sentiment and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri close behind.

That piece of conventional wisdom and countless others, espoused on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, were incinerated Monday night, as political punditry went into a frenzied recalculation of voter sentiment that was certain to reset the tone of the coverage for the race as it heads to New Hampshire.

When Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts emerged as a clear winner around 8:30 in Iowa, some members of the mainstream media were asking themselves whether they had missed the story, or whether it had simply changed at hyperspeed.

Despite polls showing late surges by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, many pundits still believed as late as Sunday that Dr. Dean had the best chance to win.
...

Wolf Blitzer declared on CNN, "The pundits had basically written off John Kerry and John Edwards, yet they did so remarkably well here."
...
Jon Banner, the executive producer of "World News Tonight" on ABC, said in a telephone interview: ''The race was turned on its head. I don't know that we missed the story, but the story changed."
...
"When MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby had the poll which showed Kerry ahead, people held their breath and said, What does that mean?" said Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press" on NBC, referring to results released last week showing Mr. Kerry leaping to the head of the pack. "That won't hold up."

Tell you what: Jeff Zeleny and the others are going to be proven wrong again.

They can try to silence our candidates, but they can't silence our voices.

You're a complete idiot (no love for the pundits edition)

Today, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times summed up the state of the primary campaigns heading into the holidays.

December 24, 2007 With Nod to Holidays, Candidates Keep a Vigorous Pace Before the Break By JEFF ZELENY

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — If there were any doubts how competitive the presidential race remained, fresh proof could be found Sunday in the itineraries of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who risked testing the holiday patience of voters as they campaigned across the state before suspending politicking for a Christmas break.

Notice someone missing? John Edwards, perhaps?

In fact, Zeleny didn't mention John Edwards or any Democrat not named Obama or Clinton in the entire article -- not once. No Richardson, Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich.

Zeleny even mentioned Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Bill Clinton.

But nobody else. It's as if John Edwards and the others had dropped out of the race entirely.

Whether its media bias, media incompetence, or a mixture of a two, this kind of bull is nothing new.

The pundits screwed up just as badly in 2004. Take a look at what Adam Nagourney said back then a mere 8 days before the Iowa Caucus (we're now 11 days away):

January 11, 2004 Campaign in Iowa is Called Pivotal and Still Close

Eight days before the Iowa caucuses that will start the voting for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean and Richard A. Gephardt are battling for dominance in what many Democrats describe as the most contested and potentially decisive caucus campaign their party has seen here in 16 years.

The competition here has been complicated by spirited bids by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, each of whom has calculated that coming in second, or perhaps third, in Iowa would lift his candidacy going into the New Hampshire primary a week later.

As we all know, John Kerry beat Howard Dean by 20 points. He beat Dick Gephardt by 26 points. Edwards came in second.

I can see Rick Moranis playing the role of Adam Nagourney in "Honey, I Shrunk the Field!"

If the reporters who cover politics are a sorry bunch of idiots, the people polling Iowa are a useless bunch of wankers. Currently, Pollster.com finds that in Iowa, Barack Obama leads the field with 29%, Hillary Clinton is second with 27%, and Edwards is third with 23%.

These numbers are absolutely meaningless. Pollster.com wasn't around in 2004, so they don't have a track record to review, but until the very final couple of days of the campaign, the caucus polls in Iowa were terribly unreliable. In fact, until five days before the caucus, the polls universally showed a contest between Dean and Gephardt.

What happened? In the final few days, lots of people changed their minds. Take a look:

It wasn't just Iowa. In the 12 national polls I found that were conducted after December 1, John Kerry broke into the top three spots only once -- and it was a third place finish, with just 12%. Dean, Gephardt, Clark, and Lieberman all outpolled Kerry. I even found a poll showing showing Hillary at 43% -- in early December, 2003!

The fact that the polls shifted tremendously in short periods of time should be no surprise; primary and caucus voters are the most knowledgeable voters out there. As a result, they are aware of the full range of options before them, and the more options a voter has, the more likely it is that he or she will change his or her mind.

Still, the prognosticracy went on the record with some pretty stupid predictions.

For example, the day before the Iowa Caucus David Yepsen opined:

I think Howard Dean's still in pretty good shape. I mean, even though these polls are showing Kerry and Edwards surging, Edwards just doesn't have the organization that the other candidates do.

On the day of the caucus, Yepsen predicted a Dean victory:

Howard Dean should win the Iowa caucuses tonight.

Of course, Yepsen was wrong, and he wasn't alone. After Kerry's resounding victory, the media, which had completely fucked up its analysis of the horse-race, shifted into head-scratching mode. Golly-gee, they asked themselves, how could we have missed the mark by such a wide margin? (Perhaps they could have asked Judy Miller?)

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times wrote the obligatory "Ooops, we did it again" article.

Results Show Conventional Wisdom Short on the 'Wisdom'

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: January 20, 2004

For weeks, reporters practicing the tricky art of political prognostication here declared the Iowa Democratic caucuses to be a two-man race, with former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont riding to front-runner status on a jet stream of antiwar sentiment and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri close behind.

That piece of conventional wisdom and countless others, espoused on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines, were incinerated Monday night, as political punditry went into a frenzied recalculation of voter sentiment that was certain to reset the tone of the coverage for the race as it heads to New Hampshire.

When Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts emerged as a clear winner around 8:30 in Iowa, some members of the mainstream media were asking themselves whether they had missed the story, or whether it had simply changed at hyperspeed.

Despite polls showing late surges by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, many pundits still believed as late as Sunday that Dr. Dean had the best chance to win.
...

Wolf Blitzer declared on CNN, "The pundits had basically written off John Kerry and John Edwards, yet they did so remarkably well here."
...
Jon Banner, the executive producer of "World News Tonight" on ABC, said in a telephone interview: ''The race was turned on its head. I don't know that we missed the story, but the story changed."
...
"When MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby had the poll which showed Kerry ahead, people held their breath and said, What does that mean?" said Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet the Press" on NBC, referring to results released last week showing Mr. Kerry leaping to the head of the pack. "That won't hold up."

Tell you what: Jeff Zeleny and the others are going to be proven wrong again.

They can try to silence our candidates, but they can't silence our voices.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison