In Canto 20 of Inferno, Dante confronts a pit where the sinners have had their heads twisted around backwards; they trudge, naked and weeping, through puddles of cooling tears. Virgil informs him that these are the fortunetellers, who tried to look forwards in life and now must look backwards forever.
In a completely unrelated subject, how about those election pollsters, huh?
In a century of history, we see a new pollster predicting elections with uncanny accuracy a few times, and then failing spectacularly, followed by another polling star repeating the cycle. And the failed pollster has an excuse. For example, after Nate Silver called the 2016 election for Clinton, he backpedaled by saying that he was actually right because he gave Trump a 28% chance of winning.
My $.02: All Silver was saying was that Trump might win. How is that in any way useful?
Allow me to call the 2024 election, based on my polling: Trump might win this one. So might Harris. Also, one or both of them might exit the race (death, disability, etc.)
Related: I regularly see headlines quoting someone who called the last nine (or whatever) Presidential elections, touting their prediction for this one. But tens of thousands of people publicly predict every election. Sheer luck will give one or more of them a perfect record. For a while.
Cory:
When it comes to serious political deliberation, questions like “who is likely to vote” and “what does ‘undecided’ mean” are a lot less important than, “what are the candidates promising to do?” and “what are the candidates likely to do?”
But – as Perlstein writes – the only kind of election journalism that is consistently, adequately funded is poll coverage. As a 1949 critic put it, this isn’t the “pulse of democracy,” it’s “its baby talk.”
