Some of us have been ranting and tearing our hair over the incredibly moronic and unhelpful horse race coverage of the presidential campaigns, especially leading up to the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primaries. While it’s gratifying to hear the pollsters and pundits be a little contrite in the wake of New Hampshire’s so-called “upset”, it’s the nature of the coverage itself — the daily calibrations in the largely fictional “who’s up and who’s down” meter — that leads to the kinds of over-predictions and hyperbolic buzz that offends me. Meanwhile, is anyone bothering to inform us what the policy differences are among the candidates? What their records actually look like? Slate gets at the problem of polling today. Thanks to Krista for sharing.