(image via cnn)
Has anyone ever accurately predicted the results in minute detail of the Iowa caucuses, or, for that matter, the New Hampshire primary? Cokie Roberts predicted that Pat Buchanan would win in New Hampshire in 1996 over Bob Dole, but she as much accounted it to luck and having all-but-lived in the state leading up to the election. There are not too many other sterling records of reliable predicting of who wins. Their processes, quite frankly, are far too mysterious.
It seems -- as if by magic -- that every four years we are stunned -- stunned! -- at who won what and just how wrong all the pundits who make six figure salaries were. Dean and Gephart were the front runners in Iowa in 2004 up until the last moment that their brutal scorched-earth attacks annihiliated one other, leaving only Kerry and Edwards standing (And Wesley Clark, stooped).
Why is that? From Dick Morris (Who is safe on neutral, non-Clintonian subjects like the political mechanics of polling the early primary states) in TheHill:
"To make things more complicated, both Iowa and New Hampshire permit independents to vote in either party primary, making the process three-dimensional. Voters in the Republican primary not only have to decide whether to back Rudy or Thompson or McCain or Romney (or, in Iowa, Huckabee) but must also figure out if they would rather vote for one of the Republicans or go into the Democratic primary to vote against Hillary."
No comments:
Post a Comment