Punditry is not an exact science

The News Virginian / News Virginian
Published: January 13, 2008

Paradox is palpable when editorialists take pot shots at punditry. The scenario is akin to hurling a bucket of water into the air - it is difficult to do without hitting ourselves.

Still, the gaggle of puffed-up pontificators musing and waxing prophetic over the presidential campaign is a target as irresistible as the proverbial fish in the barrel. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has ascended, died and risen again in the span of a few short weeks after stumbling in Iowa and sniffling her way back into the race in New Hampshire. She has undergone enough metamorphoses to make Kafka weep. Ditto her wet-behind-the-ears foil, first-term Sen. Barack Obama.

Intriguingly, while the so-called experts panted over Obama's rise in Iowa, they resorted to mocking over Gov. Mike Huckabee's victory on the Republican side. When Oprah's man scores the upset, it's exhilarating. When the Southern Baptist minister does it, time to ridicule his intelligence, complete with cross-eyed caricatures in political cartoons.

But where the pundits become truly laughable is in their euphoric depictions of the first two rounds of what we like to refer to as the actual campaign, as opposed to the perpetual one that feels like it began 20 years ago. If we listened to TV talkers, we might consider simply forgoing the rest of the campaign - which probably sounds like a good idea to some people - because, after all, the whole thing was pretty much decided in Iowa.

Never mind that Iowa's reputation as the foreteller of all things presidential is a bit inflated. True, the winners there in both parties went on to win nominations in each of the last three campaigns. But twice those winners have included unchallenged presidential incumbents - Bush in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1996. Does anyone remember Tom Harkin, the Democratic winner in '92- Or that the top two on the Republican side in '88 were Bob Dole and Pat Robertson-

Jimmy Carter took Iowa in 1976, but consider the field: Birch Bayh, Fred R. Harris, Morris Udall and Sargent Shriver. All of those who remember those names stand up. OK, the two of you can sit down now.

Put aside incumbents, and Iowa is 4-for-7 since 1972 in picking Democratic nominees and 3-for-5 on the Republican side. That's better than .500, but hardly the kind of record that translates to a sure thing. This is especially true in a year like this one, featuring a wide-open GOP race and a tight Democratic battle between two well-financed senators.

New Hampshire, as an aside, is no barometer. Before 2000, that state was just 2-for-7 in picking party nominees.

Super Tuesday, the day when primaries traditionally are held in more than a half-dozen states, is when we ordinarily see nominations decided. This time around, that day - dubbed Super Duper Tuesday - will happen Feb. 5, when more than 20 states with more than half the party delegates will hold primaries.

In an ordinary year, the campaign would end then. This is no ordinary year, particularly for Republicans, who frequently embrace a frontrunner early and coalesce behind that candidate through primary season into the convention. Former frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani is fading fast in national polls. So too is former top contender Mitt Romney.

Even Super Duper Tuesday might not sort out the GOP muddle. While many had expected the campaign to be over by the time it rolled into Virginia on Feb. 12, we expect this primary to have real meaning. So be prepared to hit the polls next month. This time, your vote and your state just might count.

If we are wrong, score another one in the loss column for the pundits. And watch out for that water bucket.