Now that we’ve gone out and voted on Super Tuesday, all the political pundits are eager to tell us how we voted and what it REALLY means. It’s good you and I can get out there and provide nice paying jobs for all those good people, isn’t it?
I’m more than a bit cynical about the role and the need for political analysts, can you tell?
In fact, I think every political analyst should be required to start his or her report with these words:
“Once upon a time in my world …”
Take any three “analysts” out there and compare them. Look at their explanations or predictions about the Democratic primary results for example. I’ll bet you’ll find a multitude of contradictory conclusions: The Super Tuesday results were great for Hillary Clinton; great for Barack Obama; bad for Hillary; bad for Obama; neutral for Clinton; neutral for Obama; etc.
Why does this happen? It happens because they are contractually compelled to say SOMETHING, just about anything, because television air time and Internet or print space costs money, and the analysts’ employers aren’t about to be pleased if they say something like: “What the heck? We don’t have a clue what’s going on in voters’ heads.”
Personally, I voted for Obama. I did it because I honestly think Hilliary Clinton carries too much “political baggage” to be electable in the general election in November. (While we’re at it, I’ll give you my best prediction at this point. It’s changed in recent months, but here goes: In November it’ll be Clinton v. McCain and McCain — it hurts personally for me to say this — will win in a landslide.)
So — you know how you voted and why you voted that way. Want to share with the rest of us? Leave a comment.
Technorati Tags: political analysts, Super Tuesday primary results, Democratic primaries, Republican primaries, just a guy who reads the papers