Quote (EndlessSky @ Feb 3 2016 05:47pm)
I mean, everything he's predicted has basically happened so far.
True, but I'm not clairvoyant or anything. Forecasting these two primaries isn't all that difficult when you know what to look at and what to ignore as outdated conventional wisdom. Some of these developments were even rather obvious (Cruz as the primary organizational muscle and favorite in the south, Jeb never recovering, Rubio as a last resort for the party, an elevated Sanders performance due to Clinton having to focus on so many states at once, Carson and Fiorina eventually fading because they didn't build infrastructure when their moment came, Clinton focusing on delegate accumulation at the expense of popular vote margin) when you know to strip away all the bullshit associated with mainstream political journalism and just focus on the real fundamentals of the races.
There were several people who caught on to Cruz's impressive infrastructure-building about 5-6 months ago, not just me. It usually takes mainstream journalists 3-4 months to catch up to the professional operatives, and I don't blame them for lagging further this time on account of Trump-related uncertainty. They're just falling victim to the same flaws they've always had: they just want to just create a damn overarching narrative and push it day in day out, facts be damned. They're so busy pushing their two stories of choice -- "Dems in disarray/Hillary is doooooomed!" and "the GOP is rallying around Rubio!" that they just miss basic things that have a profound impact on the race. They can't help themselves, they need competitive races so they can sell their copy.
Everyone in this business saw Cruz coming, Trump struggling to get his voters out, and the fact that Hillary would leave Iowa with a majority of delegates. That shit surprised no one. They won't be surprised by the snap-back in New Hampshire either, even though that'll get covered as "game changers."