My biggest blogging error in 2011

posted at 12:21 pm on December 31, 2011 by

I think it is a healthy development that more bloggers are taking the slow news period at year’s end to audit their own work. It is a practice that ought to be adopted more by those in the establishment media who are actually paid for the opinions and predictions. Thus, it seemed only fair that I promote the trend by auditing my own 2011 blogging.

First, I will note the task of scanning an entire year’s worth of blogging — even my relatively modest output — helped show me why more people do not audit their work, quite aside from not wanting to revisit one’s own errors.

Second, my preexisting awareness of and annoyance with establishment punditry’s lack of self-awareness has meant that I am generally careful to couch my own analyses in terms of what is likely or probable. On the plus side, this means I rarely went out on a limb and embarrassed myself. On the minus side, it could be argued that not freely offering bold opinions is itself a blogging error. At the very least, it turns out that a list of my outright errors errors turns out to not be entertainingly embarrassing.

The vast majority of my minor errors tend to exhibit a common sin of political punditry — the straight-line projection from the current situation. For example, in “Destination Florida,” I think the basic point that the GOP nomination may be decided in the Sunshine State holds up, but in making that point, assuming that Bachmann would remain the frontrunner in Iowa, just as Rick Perry got into the race, was obviously mistake several times over.

Speaking of Rick Perry, his candidacy is the focus of my biggest blogging error in 2011. Although I am not a supporter of any of the GOP candidates, my bias for a more conservative candidate than Mitt Romney caused me to discount the potential for gaffes to derail Perry’s campaign (perhaps because I thought Romney supporters were overstating that argument). Thus, “Why Rick Perry is the likely GOP nominee” still works as an academic exercise in political science, but I should have added the obvious caveat that the actual candidate matters above and beyond record and regional factors. I ultimately addressed the issue, but should have been on it much sooner.

I have considered the related issue of whether I was wrong about the impact of the GOP debates this year, but still believe the answer here is “yes and no.” Yes, insofar as Perry’s debate performances helped knock him out of the top spot, both because he insulted base voters in his defense of Gardasil vaccinations and in-state tutition for children of illegal immigrants, and in his seeming lack of debate preparation. Indeed, I may have underestimated the degree to which those stumbles reminded Perry of George W. Bush. Both consciously and subconsciously, GOP voters may have recoiled against a candidate who could help strengthen Obama’s near-inevitable attempts to blame Bush for his own failures and remind people how much they grew to disapprove of the prior GOP administration.

On the other hand, even upon further reflection, I believe it is fair to say that this was not a function of debates mattering per se, but largely a function of Perry’s splashy, late entry to the race. That late start meant the debates — and the media coverage of them — became the way most outside Texas formed their first real impressions of Perry (fairly or not). There is other circumstantial evidence for my point here. A look at Google search volume for Perry and the subsequent poll average (see the charts here) tends to suggest that people were losing interest in Perry even before he started debating. Perry’s rise may have been even more of a hype-driven bubble than even his critics believed. (Of course, lest I fall into the straight-line projection error again, I must add that if ever there was a cycle where someone like Perry could pull out of a campaign ditch, it would be this cycle.)

In sum, my biggest blogging error in 2011 was failing to recognize how easy it is to make the basic mistakes of punditry — straight-line projections and letting one’s personal preference color one’s analysis — even when consciously trying to avoid them. These are lessons establishment pundits could take to heart without auditing their work each year — but it helps.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Straight-line projections don’t work in the Time of the Black Swan.

disa on December 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Straight-line projections don’t work in the Time of the Black Swan.

disa on December 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Straight-line projections are commonplace even in the armchair punditry that we commenters engage in. I appreciate Karl’s self-criticism, but I’m sure he and we will all be back to the same old crap next year.

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I think some straight-lining is almost unavoidable when you write most every day. But I will try harder to identify it when I do it.

Karl on December 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I think some straight-lining is almost unavoidable when you write most every day. But I will try harder to identify it when I do it.

Karl on December 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I dunno, Karl. The way to avoid straight-lining is to talk about what’s happening NOW and not make attempts to predict the future as many commenters here are wont to do, it seems. Even in that aspect, there’s nothing wrong with predictions if they start with “I think that…” instead of “This will…”

Am I making any sense?

gryphon202 on December 31, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Karl,

Hey buddy, no one’s voted yet. Also,you’ve done a great job and remember, this is a new type of campaign where knock off the leader, hostile debates with raving progressives tearing down candidates on national TV. we have 3 real candidates 4 fakes and a total nutjob. It’s almost impossible to figure out what Iowa thinks of all this.

Hang in there

EricPWJohnson on December 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Don’t beat yourself up, Karl. You’re doing a great job, if I do say so from a biased perch. You could have a record of self-unawareness like, say, Paul Krugman’s or Thomas Friedman’s, and then you’d actually be in trouble.

Most readers are intelligent enough to take issue — if they do — with the substance of a blogger’s commentary, as opposed to getting worked up over the systematic cognitive tendencies that influence it.

I’m happy to see that the first to comment make the point that no one has actually voted yet. It’s early days to be writing the epitaph for the 2012 primaries.

And a Happy New Year to all!

J.E. Dyer on December 31, 2011 at 7:14 PM

So, wait…your biggest mistake in blogging didn’t involve lederhosen, 5 gallons of applesauce and two black footed ferrets?

MunDane68 on December 31, 2011 at 9:45 PM

So, wait…your biggest mistake in blogging didn’t involve lederhosen, 5 gallons of applesauce and two black footed ferrets?

MunDane68 on December 31, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Well Karl may be a boring stick-in-the-mud, but you don’t have to hold that against him. We’re talking about punditry here. ;)

gryphon202 on January 1, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Perry was pulled into the race by the establishment to keep Palin out. They had to know what a dunce he was and that Romney would shine next to him.

Kissmygrits on January 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM