After every election I get more and more convinced that journalists who parachute into an election arena and try to report on whats happening on the ground, don’t know their backside from their front. How can you miss an electoral tsunami? This is possible only if you go with pre-conceived notions, and ask questions and hear stuff that reaffirms what you want to believe. They also play safe: Bihar and UP? Just stick to caste and try to sound profound about it. Or mention some sub-region and try to intellectualise it. Dont risk trying to see if the ground has shifted and something else might be at play with the voter, something that transcends the traditional political dynamic. What if you get it wrong? Well, you have been getting it wrong by analysing election mood by sticking to old political metrics. For instance, Bihar has a huge diaspora in rest of India. Once you travel out, old caste lines start breaking down. Plus you see how other places function and progress. Those influences are transmitted back home. Is this a factor influencing voting behaviour? I dont know but its certainly worth considering. And of course once the results are out, reporters try and act as if they know why it turned out the way it did. Bottom-line: political reporting that can capture the election accurately is dead. It is mostly useless, third-rate, agenda and bias driven, and pure trash (some honourable exceptions aside).