This bit was infuriating. At no point did either of you make an argument about why such speculation is bad. You simply take it as obvious that it's indicative of some grave flaw in the media and the public that consumes such media.

But presidential elections are tremendously important. It is absolutely newsworthy how the various candidates are doing in their early efforts to pursue the presidency. And while you may think it worthy of nothing but guffaws, these folks ARE running for president. Whether or not they officially declare a candidacy, campaigns do not begin in the Iowa Caucuses; they are elaborate enterprises that really do take years of work.

We can pretend that this is not true, as you seem to wish. Or we can produce some good reporting on what is actually going on. Obviously, polling data on how Clinton vs. Christie would go is not particularly useful because so many things could change. But it's not NON-information. I absolutely guarantee that these candidates think it matters.

Obviously, the hypothetical nature of some questions is silly. But so was your 'critique' of those practices. Please direct your eye-rolls toward the quality of such reporting, not toward the premise.

While introducing this segment you reference PPP. You felt it necessary to identify them as "left leaning". It's hard to imagine what that added to the story. One could guess that you believe that being "left leaning" means their poll numbers are going to be skewed. Perhaps you are not aware that PPP was the most accurate polling group during 2012 campaign. So either you are just misinformed and inclined to use stereotypes, or this is another example of the lazy journalism which uses false moral equivalency as the basis of reporting. Of course the right is dishonest, having never met a truth they embrace, so of course it must be that way on the left as well.