"Pundits got it wrong"

From Howard Kurtz

In other words, just about everything you heard and read about the Iowa caucuses in November and December was wrong. Particularly those endless pieces about the importance of strong grass-roots organizations. The press would have done better if all the reporters had taken a long vacation.

The Fourth Estate has now gotten Dean wrong twice. Underestimating him in early 2003, overestimating him going into '04.
****

Now the same press folks who were wrong about how Iowa was going to break will tell you what Iowa means, how this scrambles the deck in New Hampshire, and so on.

For the next 48 hours, it will be all about Kerry is surging! Edwards is surging! Dean is fading!

And a good question from Lane Core

If pollsters can be so wrong the day before the event, when are they ever right except by coincidence? And why do we depend on them so much?

I think this might be a partial answer

The media love Iowa because it is a publicity gimmick that gives the networks huge clout over the nomination process. In 1984, Mondale got 48.9 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses and Gary Hart just 16.5 percent -- a three to one margin -- but the networks awarded Hart with a huge free publicity bounce that was his key to beating Mondale in New Hampshire the following week. In 2000, Steve Forbes had a much stronger second place showing (30.5% to George W. Bush's 41%), but the media ignored Forbes and lavished their attentions on Iowa-skipping John McCain, who rode the networks to victory in New Hampshire. It's the media caucus. Iowans get to merely participate.