Wrong-way prognostication…
Give it up. No one can predict elections with accuracy and, most important, with consistency. Howard Kurtz surveys the errors. Not even the real experts can do it. I recall an article in The New York Times Magazine in 2000 in which a scholar from the rational choice school made the prediction that Al Gore would win the presidency–and not just win it, slam dunk it. On the cover was a graphic of his elaborate formula (rational choicers love those formulas because they posit the possibility that political science can/should be a “real” science). Some of their models are pretty good. In fact, I’d say the rational choice method comes as close to real prognostication as we’ll ever get. And they were wrong about Gore.
UPDATE (10:55 a.m.): Dick Morris has egg on his face. &c. rubs it in. FOX offers a round-up of errors.
UPDATE (11:00 a.m.): Brill’s Content used to keep a score card of Sunday pundit predictions. And many commentators have wondered over the years why it is that none of these talking heads pay a price for error. Why do they still have jobs? Why does anyone continue to listen to them? These questions only make sense if one assumes that prediction is a legitimate journalistic function. Political prognostication is a sport, an entertainment. No one pays a price because such antics have so little political value. It’s simply fun to watch.
I respectfully disagree, although it must be said that my employer, CQ did not predict a Republican Senate this year. Nobody gets elections *exactly* right, but there are some folks who get really, really close, and I think we’re in that group. We predicted Dem House gains in 98 (and were the only ones to do so) and 2000 and generally have been pretty good about being in the range. It’s like target shooting, except harder. Everyone tries for the elusive bullseye when they should be trying to get it close.
Yes, but then would you agree that there’s a big difference between what it is CQ does and what it is the TV talking heads do? Do you really want to be equated with the TV pundits?
But, also yes, I’m guilty of generalizing. I blasted prognostication in general in the first entry and then confined it to a certain kind of pundit in the UPDATE. So I suppose I should focus my comments more carefully. I mean to chastise the TV talking heads and the less responsible print pundits.
A publication such as CQ has certain obligations to accuracy. I would assume that your outfit makes double sure of your data before making a prediction–something I don’t see from, say, the Sunday pundits.
Thanks for the cogent comment!