A lot of nonsense has been written about Tuesday’s primaries in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Arkansas. Some journalists says it’s good news for Republicans. Some say good news for Dems. Some say it sends a clear message about what will happen in the fall midterm elections. My own opinion is that journalists shouldn’t jump to any conclusions. Predicting what voters will do next November is like predicting what the weather will be like next November. Who knows? Journalists will be closer to the truth when they avoid drawing conclusions themselves. They should just state the facts, put the results in context, and quote respected experts on what they think it means, making sure to include a diversity of views. As for next November, I suspect that Robert Reich is right that the economy will still be a major factor, and I base that on historical evidence that high unemployment rates and recessions tend to hurt the party in power. And I agree with Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that journalists are making too much out of what is less of a clear outcome and more of a muddle. In a confusing situation we’re often eager, even desperate, for someone to give us explanations and point to broad sweeping trends that can predict the future. But sometimes there aren’t any clear guidelines for the future, and that is the truth that journalists should report. And perhaps journalists should spend less time on meaningless election punditry and more time focusing attention on the far more important story that meaningful Wall Street reform is stalled in Congress.