In this column for today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman begins by telling us
This is my fifth presidential campaign as a New York Times columnist, so I’ve watched a lot of election coverage, and I came into this cycle prepared for the worst. Or so I thought.
I was wrong.
It is not just the focus on horse-race coverage, it has been that people, even relatively smart people
have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play
because
people aren’t being properly informed about the basic arithmetic of the situation.
He writes this column not as either a poliical scientist nor a polling expert, but he does refer to the Nates, Cohn and and Silver.
He dismisses the idea of “momentum” except perhaps early in the race, when candidates might still be competing for “credibility” because eventually
it all becomes a simple, concrete matter of delegate counts.