What a bad month for "political pundits".

Those whose political experience is purely based on pontification under bylines had truly shown their lack of knowledge.

Yes, the irony of writing about how so-called “political pundits” got the last thirty days all wrong while writing on Substack under my own byline is not lost on me. However, I’m speaking of people who have strictly written about politics throughout their entire career, and never dabbled in the practical side of it ever. That’s where we differ.

But yes, it’s been a bad month for them.

Let’s start with the debate. We all saw it. We all know it was a horrible performance. And we all know why it was a horrible performance. Still, after the debate, many Democratic-leaning journalists and pundits rejected the whispers of Joe Biden to drop out of the race. Instead, they tried to change the narrative. They tried to put the focus on all of Trump’s lies. Even so, there was more news about Jill helping Joe down three steps instead of the Trump lies that we have all become numb to. No matter how much lipstick they tried to put on the Biden debate performance pig, it wasn’t going to look any better.

Polls showed this, with Trump improving. Then after someone took a chunk out of Trump’s ear in Pennsylvania, Trump’s numbers continued to go up. Still, the pundits were talking about how great the economy was, that Trump is still a liar, and that Democrats have no choice than to stick with Joe.

Then Joe dropped out.

This brings us to “Part II” of their misguided views of politics, that Kamala Harris was a “bad candidate”. Personally, I’ve never understood this narrative. The pundit said that “people didn’t like her”. My point had always been that people didn’t know here. Even though she has been active as vice president, she was rarely in the public spotlight. Therefore, how could people hate someone that they didn’t even know. Still, they worried that Kamala would be worse than Biden for a number of reasons, from people “not liking her” to the old “woman” or “race” argument. And no, Hillary didn’t lose because she was a woman. She was a shit candidate, as well as her campaign.

Then Kamala became the nominee. The polls skyrocketed for the Democrats. Going from a few points down to a few points up, Kamala had totally transformed the face of the race. All the negative things that the pundits had said about her before her entry into the race were now eating crow, or at least ignoring the fact they said anything bad in the first place.

Then came the vice presidential nomination.

This is where the pundits and journalists were finally going to draw a line in the sand. The pick MUST be Josh Shapiro. It can’t be anyone else. He can help Democrats improve their votes in four counties in Pennsylvania. He is seen as “moderate”, and most importantly, he is the governor of Pennsylvania. Oh, did I mention he is from Pennsylvania. And finally, he is from Pennsylvania. Yeah, this was basically the only argument for having Shapiro on the ballot.

But Harris picked Walz.

Oh no, what a tragedy! He isn’t from a swing state! He isn’t a typical politician. What…he never used a teleprompter? How could the Democrats make such a colossal screw up! This is the worst pick since Andrew Johnson! And he talks about cars and county fairs. How could the Harris campaign shoot themselves in the foot like this!

Then he spoke. Everyone fell in love with Walz. And when he gave his speech at the DNC, showing pride in his family and his family reciprocating, everyone knew he was the right choice. No more talk of Josh Shapiro.

Give some pundits credit, like Chris Cillizza, who rightfully admitted that underestimated the power of Tim Walz in this campaign. I mean, Cillizza is from New England, so I can forgive him for his ignorance as to how Midwest America works and feels. But still, he came out and said “hey, I was wrong.” Many, however, as just hoping that people will forget that they were steadfast against Walz just so that they can avoid doing what Cillizza did.

So yeah, everything that they have been saying since the Biden debate debacle has not only been wrong, but usually a 180. Their predictions were not just wrong, but misguided by the lack of actually understanding voters. However, people still listen to them as if they are an authority on how elections work, yet they have probably never talked to a voter as a representative of a campaign. Basically, they will never have a clear understanding of elections through their ivory-colored lenses.