George,

As an eternal optimist, I'd like to believe that the guy "operating that snow blower across the street" as Michael Moore suggested, is rid of all prejudice and will only pick the candidate on his/her credentials, her/his record, their intelligence, their promise of a better world if elected, the "content of the character", etc.

I am also a realist and the record goes beyond Wilder and Bradley. Harvey Gantt was a "shoe-in" to beat Jesse Helms in the North Carolina senatorial race in 1990 -- the results were just the opposite, the landslide went to Helms.

All the polls saw a substantial margin for the mayoral race in New York City in 1989 -- in fact, better than ten percent lead for Dinkins over Giuliani -- Dinkins won by less than 2%.

If polls are so consistently inaccurate, I would think the candidates would choose to spend their dollars in more productive areas.

My understanding of the thinking of the Clinton camp prior to the election this past Tuesday, based solely on the polls, was a complete reorganization of the campaign, with the possibilities of skipping some of the upcoming primaries: losing in Iowa and New Hampshire called for an overhaul.

Yes, miracles happen -- Romney was predicted to lose -- he did. John McCain was predicted to win -- he did.
Obama was predicted to win by at least ten percent -- he didn't. Hillary Clinton was the predicted to lose -- she won.

Liberal California had Tom Bradley beating George Deukmejian by double digits -- Bradley came out on the losing end in the 1982 gubernatorial race. Bradley, far better known, was bested by a relative unknown.

I just hope that the theories outlined in recent letters are 100% correct.

Harry Tenney (Electronic mail, January 11, 2008)