The morning of November 7, 2000, the Gannett News Service carried the following handicap of one of the most eagerly-watched competitions…
The Hillary Rodham Clinton-Rick Lazio Senate race, which most polls show will be close, follows the tradition of tight races in the Empire State.
Less than 24 hours later, Ms. Clinton defeated Mr. Lazio 56%-44%. In other words, the vote wasn't close. We use the word "landslide" to describe closer elections.
I think it's important to remember things like that when we watch political discussions these days. I keep seeing predictions about what will happen in the next presidential election (3 years from now) or even when Hillary's up for re-election (5 years from now)…and not only predictions but confident, can't miss predictions: Bush can't lose, Bush can't possibly win, Hillary has no chance…
As Tom Snyder used to say on The Tomorrow Show, "You wonder what goes through their minds." We don't, at this moment, know if Hillary Clinton will run again, who her opponent might be, what shape the country will be in then, what she may or may not have accomplished in the next five years, et cetera. But folks who, 24 hours before her last election, were sure she'd lose are now insisting that their projections for the next one should be taken seriously.
The interesting thing is that, in the above-quoted Gannett story (which you can read by clicking here, though it isn't necessary), they say that the polls in the Clinton/Lazio race vary to show Hillary with anywhere from a 2% to 12% edge. To me, this translates to "could be close, could be a rout," but no one is ever paid to write that the polls are meaningless, and the author of this story started with the premise that elections in New York are always close.
Well, maybe they are. The one the other night was pretty close — and, significantly, the pollsters didn't think so until just a few days before voting. I'm just real skeptical about any samplings more than about a week prior to an election. Most people think they're worthless…and I think they're a lot less valuable than that even. And I'm really sick of folks wasting bandwidth and insulting my eminently-insultable intelligence by saying that certain elections far in the future are definitely going to go their way. Do a search for "Bush 2004" and see how many people are trying to convince everyone that it's already decided. Once upon a time, and a lot closer to Election Day, his pop was a shoo-in for that second term.
I mean, can't we declare some kind of cyberspace moratorium on handicapping the 2004 presidential election until we at least have some clue who'll be running? Call me crazy but I have a feeling that might affect the outcome. At least a little.
Also, I have the following comment on the New York mayor's race: I get a couple of New York TV channels and both those men should be deeply ashamed of the commercials they ran. In fact, no one who would allow such swill belongs in public office.