Now, why should we read all the articles about why everyone was wrong about New Hampshire?

The reason there's this subject at all is because they were wrong before, so why should I care what they say now. This punditry is an absurd racket. First, they get to make mistakes — scribble, scribble, scribble, making mistakes. And then, that's their raw material for a whole new set of articles. They can look at anything that has already happened and purport to say why it happened. And who's to say they're wrong, since it happened and they've come up with reasons? But when it hasn't happened yet, and they exercise their facility to come up with reasons for things, it's embarrassing when the thing doesn't happen. Unchastened, they keep writing. They have to. They're pundits. But must I read it? The sheer dimension of the New Hampshire mistake has led to a flood of post-mistake writing, and I don't think I'm the only one looking at it from a distance and thinking I'd be a chump to read this. But then, I also think: I'm a pundit too. Shouldn't I get to work contributing to this flood? Don't I have some explaining to do? And you know whenever something needs explaining, I can come up with an explanation. Seriously, tell me something that didn't happen, and I think I could manufacture a reason why it would happen, if it did. Or do you have something better to do?