Do media polls mean anything to the public? Polls mean more to the press and pundits. At this time of year -- while pundits are desperately counting political yard signs and bumper stickers -- the public is putting away Christmas decorations, getting their children settled back in school and returning to their regular work schedules.
While this may cause the media, pundits and pollsters consternation, I don't view this as a negative. The press/pundits prefer there be a clear front-runner, because it makes their job easier. It is far more difficult for them when their preordained political landscape changes, or their expert analysis is shown to be faulty.
The abysmal reporting of the Iowa caucus is the latest example. Iowans hadn't even begun to cast votes and the media had already erroneously reported candidates were withdrawing from the race. Ballots were still being counted and the media had already determined what the results "really" meant to the national process -- what Iowa means to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday, and who is still a "serious" candidate. Give me a break!
Stop trying to shape the political landscape. Just report on it. Report what the candidates say; I can determine what it means. I don't need you, or a host of political experts, to tell me what I heard or read, or who should be taken seriously -- I can figure that out. Let the primary winner be determined by the number of votes cast and, accordingly, the number of respective delegates won.
You don't need to predetermine the winner of the next primary; just accurately report who won the last one.
Wayne J. Clarke, Evans