November 11, 2012


A little schadenfreude for y'all — National Review's Pre-Election In-House Pundit Predictions.

As you'd probably expect, the certainty of the predictions correlates strongly with the wrongness of the predictions, and the predictions seem to fall into three broad categories:
  • The "I don't really know for sure, but my gut feelings are …" category, which could better be named the "Damn The Facts…" brigade. These are always my sentimental faves — who can blame someone for going with their gut? Unless of course, they're a paid contributor, editor, or consultant….
  • The ostensibly fact-based predictions, facing the little problem that they chose the wrong "facts" or that their "facts" were simply wrong. These people presumably know better, but need to say what they say to keep the faithful happy; and,
  • The ideologically-driven Believers who will never admit they were wrong, or who will just rewrite the history in their own little bubbles to fit their predictions retroactively. These are the really interesting ones, of course, but utterly beyond the pale of sane, polite discussion.

All in all, a fun read of insights from inside the conservative reality distortion bubble, and (in some cases) a way-too-scary look into the minds of Believers…. (and thanks to Ed Brayton's Dispatches From The Culture Wars for the link).

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home

www Tight Sainthood