NOW YOU SEE IT - NOW YOU DON'T

It's not really because I just found out there is no tooth fairy.There aren't enough teeth left in my mouth to become concerned. Besides I have no unreasonable financial expectations when I soak my upper plate each night before retiring.

My comment also has nothing to do with dental hygiene or gene heredity. No, instead, once more it has to do with an old curmudgeon's light hearted jab at our media.

Today's target is all those political polls - the reliability of the polling  - the previous unreliable assurances given us by the media - and the "now you don't" typical explanation or rationale when we find out - once again -  that Dewey didn't really beat Truman in the 1948 presidential election.

To those of you who have been told for weeks that Trump was an Iowa "shoo-in" by the caucus method you may feel cheated in belatedly discovering that part of that methodology included the flipping of a coin to determine who really would be declared the Iowa winner - with pretty much the same result in the NFL playoffs.

No, instead you were provided with the same informational incisiveness that you received from the media when covering Y2-K in 1999/2000.

It's called "prestidigitation" folks: "Now you see it - Now you don't" - and in Trumps case it possibly may not be all that "Presidential either ."

OK, there were three points belatedly made as to why the pollsters and their work product were "WRONG" - according to an "expert" source from Notre Dame - of all places - whose first name is Darren-  and who should not be confused with a popular male character in Bewitched.

While tempting - I'll stop the analogy right there due to a need for brevity and two pending appointments. 

Darren W. Davis- a political science professor who specializes in public opinion and political behavior - has furnished us via the USA Today front page with rationale behind the alternate ending of this scary movie - called "The Iowa Caucus".

 He is  joined in the article by Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report - who belatedly explains to us that New Hampshire polls may be even more unreliable.

One suspects it's another version of : "I'm sorry - I thought you saw the bus approaching behind you - or I would have warned you." 

This opinion as well as that of Darren's may or may not  be similar to a race track tout whose expertise you may no longer want to rely on after you bet the mortgage payment on a horse that came in with an 8th place finish.

Taking the analogy further I believe at the track it's called "hedging your bet".

Amy also spoke uncharitably about Trump's "polarizing nature "as a possibly  contributing factor. It's Walter's view that this alleged character flaw "helped turn out people who don't want to see him win."

Let's go back to Darrren's 3 point rationale to justify not informing either Chicken Licken or Henny Penny (possibly devout Trump followers):" the sky is indeed falling." 

(1) This is an extremely volatile political climate driven by an angry electorate     whose voting preferences are difficult to gauge. (Obviously confirming the above suggestion the coin flip approach is indeed not any more easy to predict than if it took place in the NFL playoffs).

(2) Pollsters low-balled turnout among evangelical voters and underestimated Cruz's get-out-the vote operation. (What? You mean these guys do count for something?)

(3) The Iowa Caucuses are uniquely difficult to predict, with a quirky process and lots of last minute deciders.

(A Fourth unrelated reason for the surprise results and which possibly was too late at press time was the revelation by Darren that "I always thought that Bernie Maddeen looked suspicious.)

Let  me repeat my premise that my gripe was strictly with the media press and not the Iowa election results. I truly didn't care if Trump won or not.

Did I fail to mention that in any of my past political blogs? 

.

PICIOUS

DID I FORGET TO METNIONT HAT IN MY PREVIOUS PLOGS?