Check out Howard Fineman’s new column, Why Is the Race So Close?. His method of “analysis” is simple; list a number of factors which should favor the generic Democrat, and then contend that Obama’s average 6 point lead in the polls is not large enough. Actually, I put the 6 point lead part in there, Fineman uses no real numbers in the column aside from McCain’s age, it’s all qualitative hand waving. Now compare this sort of intellectual production to what pollster.com went about doing, Is Obama Underachieving?:
Despite the fact that pundits have claimed that Obama is not performing as well as he should be given the economic and political conditions, the models used by political scientists to predict election outcomes–models based on these very conditions–tell a different story. Obama is currently out-pacing the predictions made by some models and lagging only a few percentage points behind others. But his support does not stray more than 4.2% away from any of these predictions. Thus, there isn’t much support here for the notion that Obama is greatly underachieving in this election. At least not at this point in the race.
You can see their logic and numbers in the full post. The assumptions of the model may be wrong, but it exhibits enough clarity, right or wrong, that you can elucidate your objection in a concrete manner. As for someone like Howard Fineman, you have no idea what doesn’t count as “too close,” he can always move the ball in his own mind because “close” is just a term which is a label for that mysterious value that he refuses to share with you. The mainstream media is essential and critical for many things; when it comes to political punditry though it produces an inferior product to most weblogs. Most political weblogs are filled with partisan trash from what I can tell, laugh out loud inanity which makes you wonder at how low we humans can go in the uses we make of our God-given minds, but at least their uninformed blather has some verve, punch an perspective. In contrast, mainstream pundits like Howard Fineman have to pitch to the lowest common denominator, so their vague contentions are comparatively insipid. It’s like comparing a loud unabashed fart to a semi-audible one; if you’re going to embarrass yourself go 100-proof and let it rip! Fundamentally pundits like Howard Fineman are relics from the age of 3 networks and a few print glossies. I doubt they’ll ever be fired, but they won’t be replaced when they retire.
Comments are closed.