Pundit v. pundit on lessons learned in NY-23

I always like it when pundits unknowingly disagree in print.

Known disagreements–in any medium–are too often rote and played to extremes. And the “disputes” on tv and radio usually devolve to blather, quickly.

But today we have a couple of political writers–both knowledgeable and experienced–who have opposing views on the political lessons that can be learned from the outcome of the North Country’s special Congressional election.

In this corner, Chris Beam, writing for Slate.com, says “…the New York congressional race is especially ripe for overanalysis.” He even imagines what other pundits will say in response to each candidate’s win. And he follows each scenario with a paragraph that starts with “Why that’s wrong.”

In the other corner, Politico’s Alex Isenstadt, says NY-23 will give us a cornucopia of information to take into the 2012 elections.

Note, these two didn’t take opposing positions on the exact same hypothesis. The piece in Slate focuses on what the special election won’t tell us about the Republican Party. While the Politico column looks at a possible shift to the right by potential GOP Presidential candidates, especially Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (who endorsed Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman).

But for political junkies–especially those who love to hammer the media about political coverage–there’s a lot in these two pieces to chew on.

Happy reading.