Snap polls render pundits obsolete

If it wasn't for the snap polls, the pundits would be proclaiming this night a glorious victory for McCain. John King, who gave McCain an 18-15 victory in his debate scorecard, was just on ranting against the snap polls, saying they were bunk because people are answering just after watching the dabate, while being too "emotional" ... unlike the pundits who are all about reason and logic.

Whatever.

I love how the American people don't give a shit what John King thinks. They can decide for themselves who won.

And that's why John King hates them.

Update by MissLaura: I was about to post just about the same point Markos makes here. The two examples that stood out to me were David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell.

David Gregory repeatedly proclaimed McCain's "I'm not Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have run 4 years ago" to be The Line Of The Night. He clearly wanted it to be a defining moment of the campaign.

But something held Gregory and his colleagues back. That was the knowledge that snap polls were coming, and the likelihood that those polls would show Obama to be the winner.

Andrea Mitchell articulated it directly -- and sniffily -- saying that McCain had won on points, whether the polls would reflect that or not.

They didn't like it, but polling technology is one more way their role as gatekeepers has been diminished.