If Mitt Romney had promised in the debate to write (once elected) every American a check for $50,000, our pundits would still have stood around congratulating the man for coming out the winner.
They see it as their job to be psychologists rather than experts.
Imagine if we had both Obama and Romney give a presentation on particle physics. Then we asked a panel of physicists which presenter did a better job of educating the people about particle physics. What would we think if the physicists talked about who was more aggressive or who blinked more, totally ignoring that Romney was describing organic chemistry instead of particle physics while Obama actually dealt with the subject at hand?
Why do all our pundits, who all follow politics religiously, think it not their job to explain the facts and that their expertise is best put to use pretending to know how people feel?
