A reader writes:
I think you and yours – political bloggers and print pundits – chose many months ago to pretend that there was actually a race for the GOP nomination. People as intelligent as yourself had to know from the start that it would be Romney. Yet you floated Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum et al. as fresh flavors of the month and tried to make readers think there was a contest, largely in order to drive page views and readership.
I agree that politics "is a theater at times." And, yes, "the performances require aesthetic and human judgments…" But to say that does not justify attempting to inject artificial suspense into a situation that does not warrant it.
That Romney would be the GOP nominee was obvious from the start to anyone who did not have something to gain by pretending otherwise. The reason this bothers me is it's a manifestation of the same need-for-novelty syndrome that allowed Palin to flourish in 2008.
Like sportswriters, political pundits have to puff up the sense of dramatic competition. If you look back on all the graphs of polls you posted on Daily Dish that purported to handicap a horse race that never was, you might wish your focus had been less narrow.
Having said that, I freely admit that you know your audience and I don't. Obviously, what you do works, as it should. It's just that I hate to see you join with the attempt to make Obama v Romney a race in which there's any doubt about the outcome. Obama will win by a considerably wider margin than he did in 2008. It's done and dusted. Those who willfully ignore that fact for the sake of creating the faux-suspense that boosts daily page views only cheapen themselves in the long run.
The Dish 