Election Day, V

The internet now is marveling over the fact that no matter how outrageous their claims are (Dick Morris) or how many times their predictions are wrong (everybody), no pundit ever goes punished or is held responsible afterwards. At all.

TNC:

Dylan Byers endorses the notion that Nate Silver's rep will "take a severe hit" if Romney wins. But if Silver is exactly right Byers, who implied that Silver was overrated, will take no hit whatsoever. Joe Scarborough will still have his show. And Peggy Noonan will still be able to assert the significance of her feelings. And I will go into class tomorrow and try to explain to 19-year-old kids why this sort of journalism can give you a plum place in the world of media but can't get you out of an undergraduate writing seminar.

James Fallows:

In pundit-world, the losers never have to pay off. You can assert with blowhard certitude that this or that candidate looks strong, this or that voting bloc is going to turn out, this or that strategy will be effective. If you're right, you play up that fact. If you're wrong, no one seems to notice or care. In Vegas, you have to pay up. In pundit land (or "we need to invade Iraq, now!" land), you just move on.

Sully's had it with the Dick Morrises of the world.

XMASTIME, in 2011:

As I wrote rather brilliantly and probably without pants HERE, getting paid millions of dollars to have such an incredible amount of influence in spite of repeatedly being wrong is a very unique thing.  Most of us get fired if we fuck up 2-3 times; meanwhile, these people get invited back again and again.  Baffling to me.   It's like the line Bill Madden of the NY Post likes to bring out about a manager who goes through his bullpen "in search of the reliever who doesn't have it."

XMASTIME, 2009:

A few years ago I was reading an article over at Sports Illustrated by Dr. Z. In the beginning of the article, he was laughing at himself for how poorly he had done the previous year of, after much analyzing and years of study on the subject, forecasting how each team would do that year in the NFL. He was wrong about most everything, he pointed out. Then he went on in the article to make....the next year's picks. About halfway through I'm like, if this guy was so wrong last year, why the fuck am I reading his picks for this year? Then I did a little research, and it's turns out he's ALWAYS pretty much wrong all the time.

Of course, that's just football picks. A game. But it seems like sports forecasters, weathermen, CEOs and financial "experts" pretty much can be wrong 100% of the time, and still not only keep their jobs, but make tons of money at them. This is a luxury the average working American does not have. I can probably leave Short Bus behind at the White Castle by himself 2 or 3 times before his parents decide "it might be time for a change." Hell, I'll prolly be fired for imagining it here. 

XMASTIME, 2011:

And I didn't even mention the bizarre string of "political pundits" we have on tv 24/7 as I did HERE and HERE where I wrote about the curious policy wherein no matter how many times a "pundit" or "expert" comes on tv and is 100% wrong about whatever is coming out of his pie-hole, that person is repeatedly asked back, and at no time does it occur to anybody "maybe we should get someone who is at least occasionally right about something?" What does it take to fire these people? They're like Tim Riggins from Friday Nights Lights - no matter how many times they get caught getting shitfaced and driving police cars off cliffs or defiling 12 year-old girls, not only are they allowed to stay on the team, but continue to have cheerleaders shot into their bedrooms with a cannon. Dave Weigel sums it up nicely:

But that's sort of the point: There is no real downside, at least in Washington, for being wrong.

Once you're in you're in, and there's seems to be no way out. Incredible.