The other day, John Kerry got what must be the worst news he's had in a while: Pollster John Zogby is predicting that Kerry will win the presidency in November. Why is this bad news? Well, have you followed Zogby's track record? This is the man who in the New York Senate race of 2000 said it was too close to call and predicted "I think we're looking at a one point race." He said this the day before the election and the next day, Hillary Clinton beat her opponent 56%-44%. You and I could have just picked numbers out of a hat and been more accurate.
So if Zogby was that far wrong the day before an election, why should anyone listen to him a month before it, let alone six? I dunno. The bigger question to me is why he is climbing out on this limb now. At the moment, every poll shows Kerry and Bush pretty much tied, given the margin of error. If I were a nationally-known pollster who earned his income on the basis of accurate projections, I don't think I'd be calling it for a guy who doesn't have a lead — or even a running mate — no matter what my numbers indicated.
Zogby qualifies his forecast noting that "anything can still happen" and that Kerry could blow it. Obviously, this is so. We can all imagine dozens of things that could happen in the next six months including another terrorist attack, the capture of Osama Whatzisname, more revelations like the Abu Ghraib ones, Halliburton-related scandals…and of course, every candidate will say a couple of really, really stupid things that their opposition will successfully exploit. But doesn't the fact that "anything can still happen" only point up the futility of a prediction this far in advance? Especially during a volatile year for this country? I still think that when we look back at the election of November, 2004, we'll say it hinged on events that occurred in the few months before the vote.
Speaking of premature predictions: Some time ago here, I predicted that John Kerry's running mate would be Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. I hereby withdraw this prediction. Since then, Republicans have hammered Kerry on being a pro-choice Catholic. I don't think that's a serious charge but I think it is a distraction Kerry doesn't need…and he therefore doesn't need another pro-choice Catholic on the ticket with him. My guess now would be Dick Gephardt who's a boring speaker but who could be of use in winning Ohio, Missouri and Iowa. If Kerry can win those states, he'll probably win the Oval Office. Personally, I'd rather see John Edwards because I think he's a more interesting speaker.