Universally insipid coverage of the primaries yesterday....
I’m sorry….it’s like watching the 7:30 PM NFL coverage on Sundays in season. All these exclamations of the results made with assurances post facto. Just brilliant analysis. 
Barely a mention is made of the poorly interpreted “trending candidacies” from just a day ago. I recall many years ago I heard an analysis of the coverage post-election night of the Truman-Dewey election. Apparently for hours, the NBC newsman was stating that although Truman was ahead, when the “rural precincts” reported, Dewey would prevail. I remember laughing out loud when the commentator said, in the 1990’s, they were STILL waiting for those precincts to report.
I’ve been watching this all day on three networks (never FOX of course) and you would think that the results last night were predicted by the incredible insight and intellect of the commentators on each of the networks. It reminds me of when in 1985 Villanova upset Georgetown and almost unbelievably, in the rebroadcast, CBS deleted Brent Musburger’s vilification of Villanova’s chances during the pregame show. I know this because I taped both broadcasts.
My point is, belabored though it may be, that the networks seem to now cover politics as they cover sports: they attempt to appeal to the rivalry/contest and then after the game/election is decided, refuse to acknowledge that they were…wel….WRONG about so much.
= new reply since forum marked as read
"conventional wisdom" about the "inevitability" of the GOP taking congress in the fall. Echoed here on D.U. quite frequently.
