Does anyone else think the Punditocracy hasn't earned its money this election cycle? Does anyone remember six months ago when we were assured by everyone other than Joe Lieberman's mom and dad that John Kerry was the absolute favorite to win the nomination? The pundits gave him an aura of inevitability -- he had the money, the organization, the best position for superdelegates, etc.
Then along comes Dean's, and the cloak of inevitability was passed to him. We were assured that Terry McAuliffe had doomed the party to a Dean nomination through the front-loaded primary schedule.
Now we've come full-circle, and they're as much as giving Kerry the nomination. Can you remember another election where the "experts" shifted this many times this decisively?
Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 25, 2004 01:42 AM | TrackBack
You have to admit that the polls have shifted, too, so it's not just pundits changing. Voters seem to have changed. My own sense of it is that people had been following the pundits until they started to see the real differences between the candidates, partly due to the special focus on those candidates that seemed to be in the lead. I wonder if the same sort of thing might happen again with Kerry now that he's in the lead.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at janvier 25, 2004 03:56 AM