Donald Trump shall always eclipse the other characters of 2016 and rightfully so. The triumph of history's underest underdog meets and exceeds Biblical standards. David slayed but one Goliath. Donald slayed an army of overgrown thugs.
In celebrating the Donald's victory and the accompanying populist uprising, it is easy to lose sight of some of the other characters in this captivating saga. At the other end of the hero spectrum are the gargoyles known as pundits and pollsters. Trump's victory did not affect the composition of the pundit class. As with the poor, the pundit class shall always be with us.
The Nate Silvers and Frank Luntzs and Larry Sabatos showed themselves to be either liars or fools or in some cases, both liars and fools. Other professions would change their personnel, but not the punditry. Their job security is tighter than even a corrupt FBI agent's. The only pundits relegated to the unemployment line were those embroiled in allegations of sexual impropriety. Pundit 1.0 is still Pundit 1.0.
The universal excuse for the 2016 collective miscalculation is that Donald Trump is such an aberrant aberration that no one could predict his victory. A corollary of this is that "everyone else was wrong too." If we cheated off of Nate the Grate's paper, why should we get stuck sharing the dunce cap? Points taken but...
The anti-forecasting of 2016 was not a fluke. The pundit class has been consistently wrong going back to at least 2014. Given the volume and frequency and magnitude of bad prognostication, it is hard to encapsulate the falsity but here are a few choice nuggets.
1. The down ballot results of 2016. The pundits had the Dems capturing the Senate and some of them had them taking the House as well. The House was called for the Republicans early in the evening.
The Upper House seemed like easy picking because Senate classes are skewed (more about that later.) The Republicans had 24 seats to defend while the Dems had only 10, most of which were locked up in safe blue states. The Demoncrats needed five seats to capture the fort. They got two.
Notably, the two GOP losers, Kirk and Ayotte, distanced themselves from Donald Trump. Kirk was opposed by a strong candidate in the Chicago colony of Illinois. It probably did not help that he was also recovering from a stroke. Ayotte, on the other hand, had no excuses. She just blew it.
Two out of twenty-four. Not exactly a wave. Meanwhile, in the bluer than blue state of Minnesota, the Republicans captured both state houses. In the bluest state of all, Vermont, a Republican governor was elected.
Many an entrenched and entitled pundit had publicly advised the GOP to shield their innocents from the blood spatter that would emanate from the Trump campaign. Focus on salvaging the down ballot candidates. As it turned out it was Hillary, not Trump, who poisoned her downstream allies.
2. The 2014 Red Wave. 2014 might pale in comparison to 2010 in the sense that Gehrig paled to Ruth. Yes, the Babe was the long time leader in home runs but the Iron Horse would hold the record for grand slams posthumously for 72 years. 2014 was a grand slam.
2014 saw the GOP win gubernatorial races in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts. Of course, they once more held the House. Most importantly, they picked up eight seats in the Senate. Double grand slam!
Those who were shocked by the inaccuracy of the pollsters in 2016 had short memories. The Oracles were every bit as stupid in 2014 as in 2016. Almost every Senate race by almost every pollster predicted better results for the Dems than was reflected in the vote tally. Those of us who occasionally entertain notions of conspiracy observed that the pollsters were wrong in a very predictable manner: They ALWAYS erred in the same way. They always inflated the Democrat candidate's popularity. We would see this trend repeated in 2016 and later in the special elections of 2017. Special
Here is a reprint from November 5, 2014:
The Big Losers: Pollsters
Political polling isn't easy, I will concede that. Meteorology can also be challenging. A weatherman might overstate a blizzard but if he overlooks a Cat 5 hurricane, he should consider a career change.
Pat Roberts was in a statistical dead heat with Greg Orman. Roberts won by eleven points.
Tillis was losing to Hagan. He won by two points.
Perdue was not going to reach 50%. He got 53%.
McConnell was supposed to be in a tussle. He won by sixteen points.
Cuomo was supposed to win by a landslide. He got 54%.
Did they even poll Gillespie-Warner? What about the Maryland governor's race? I don't recall anyone saying Hogan by nine.
The pollsters called New Hampshire races correctly even though the governor's race was closer than predicted. They got the Massachusetts governor's race on target. They called Michigan, Ohio, California, New Mexico, South Carolina and Hawaii. Guess they can still shoot fish in a barrel some of the time.
The Rush Limbaughs will tell us the polls understated GOP leads to encourage Democrats. He might be right. Of course, not every pollster is driven by ideology. Professional reputations are on the line. If a balance of power has shifted, it shifted most dramatically in the pollster arena.
Pat Roberts was in a statistical dead heat with Greg Orman. Roberts won by eleven points.
Tillis was losing to Hagan. He won by two points.
Perdue was not going to reach 50%. He got 53%.
McConnell was supposed to be in a tussle. He won by sixteen points.
Cuomo was supposed to win by a landslide. He got 54%.
Did they even poll Gillespie-Warner? What about the Maryland governor's race? I don't recall anyone saying Hogan by nine.
The pollsters called New Hampshire races correctly even though the governor's race was closer than predicted. They got the Massachusetts governor's race on target. They called Michigan, Ohio, California, New Mexico, South Carolina and Hawaii. Guess they can still shoot fish in a barrel some of the time.
The Rush Limbaughs will tell us the polls understated GOP leads to encourage Democrats. He might be right. Of course, not every pollster is driven by ideology. Professional reputations are on the line. If a balance of power has shifted, it shifted most dramatically in the pollster arena.
Special Elections of 2017:
The Dems got giddy after defeating Roy Moore for Jeff Sessions vacated Alabama Senate seat on December 12, 2017. The election was a farce from the get go. With only one national race the national news media could muster all of their forces against Roy Moore. The "Washington Post" orchestrated a smear campaign against Moore and their colleagues would goose step in unison.
The GOP establishment would pile on. Moore had defeated their preferred candidate, Sessions fill-in, Luther Strange, in the Republican runoff. A not great effort by Moore and credible claims of voter fraud would allow the Demoncrats to ride the perfect storm and capture the Senate seat until 2020.
Fluke victory? Yes, I would say so. The other 2017 special elections for vacated Congressional seats would play to form. The Dems would claim the California Congressional seat and the GOP would take home all the other marbles...Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Montana. Maybe there wasn't so much buyer remorse after all.
Meantime: 538 continues its rosy-glass predictions for the Party of Clinton.
Special Elections So Far Point To A Democratic Wave In 2018
And how about this one where Nate Silver lackeys quote many a discredited pollster.
In Part II we will examine the individual senate races and see why Dem majority versus GOP super-majority is an even up proposition.
