I generally like Chuck Todd

Mostly because he brings science to the gaggle of pundits who daily trying to play oracle. Still, Andrew is dead-on in checking him for basically saying non-pandering equals fail:

Chuck basically says that unless you pander in soundbites, you lose. If you show respect for your opponent's views, you lose. However defensible this is as analysis, it isn't part of the solution, is it

I understand that sentimentalism is deadly for these guys, and that they have to be realistic about the electorate. But every once in a while it's good to be existential about your craft. Moreover, it helps to have some humility and remember how many times you've been wrong. It's like Hillary won, or something.