The streamers have been swept up, the posters have been taken down and transition teams are being set up. But with the end of Election Day 1992, the question remains of all the "political experts," "special analysts" and "Washington insiders" who told us how the election was going to turn out: who best predicted the election results? According to the Washington Post's "Outlook Crystal Ball" contest, University American Civilization Adjunct Assistant Professor Frank Luntz was the top pundit this time around. According to the Post, Luntz -- the pollster for Presidential candidates Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan -- was the best overall at predicting the popular and electoral vote for President, and the new make-up of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Post's internal pollster, Richard Morin, determined the winner by taking the pundits' predictions and plugging them into a standard equation. The 1984 University graduate beat two-time champion Christopher Matthews of the San Francisco Examiner as well as Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, CNN's William Schneider, columnist Robert Novak, and political strategist Ed Rollins. "I am so pleased to even be included with these people. The idea that my name would be added to [this list] was very special," Luntz said yesterday. "Then, to actually out project them and to do so scientifically, that made it that much so special." Luntz -- who was the second closest in guessing the party breakdown of the Congress -- said that he used a model of the country and of the four states with the largest number of Representatives to predict this number. Luntz projected that the Republicans would gain seven seats in the House. When the votes were counted, the GOP gained nine. He also came within one of predicting the make-up of the Senate. But he was off by 30 in the Electoral College breakdown. Luntz explained that he felt that Texas, which Bush carried, would go to Clinton. Luntz said that his metamorphosis from a pollster to a pundit during this election cycle -- he was extensively quoted by Newsweek and The New York Times -- is due to his background in academia. "I've studied elections and electoral behavior for more than a decade," he said. "So, I have been able to bring historical analysis to electoral behavior that other pollsters may not have had." Luntz added that although his "Penn education didn't help at all" in his rise to the top of the Beltway "punditocracy," his teaching has been beneficial since he is able to talk politics with people who are not "insiders" like himself. "Every Monday I get brought back to Earth," he said. Luntz teaches "Current Controversies in American Civilzation," and will teach "Candidates, Campaigns, and Consultants" next semester. Many of Luntz's students said they feel his new honor is much deserved. "It's obviously a very distinguished honor," said Ron Dermer, a Wharton senior. "It's very cool that someone who won an honor from the Washington Post hangs out with his students." College senior Jefrey Pollock added that this is just part of the "constant acclaim" Luntz gets "from the outside world, the real world." Pollock explained that Luntz's "unconventional" teaching style and "his ability to know students on a personal level" is why he does not receive praise from within the University. "Maybe it's about time the pople in the University gave him the same credit," Pollock added.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
