Disclaimer: I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Is the Hillary Clinton "victory" in New Hampshire, the upset, the comeback, the surprise, the shock, the stunning victory that the press is making it out to be, or is it a clear indication how wrong pre-primary polls, pundits, headline writers and "journalists" are?
My guess is the latter. Before Obama's "victory" in Iowa, he was well behind in those pre-primary polls in New Hampshire. Early this week, those polls gave him a huge bounce in poll numbers. Those numbers were a fiction.
Let's not forget that up until Iowa, Clinton was expected to do very well in New Hampshire. Better in fact than she did. How does that make her win a "stunning victory?"
So should the headlines read:
Pre-vote Polls in Primary Dead Wrong
Pundits Wipe Egg from Face
Obama Surges, But Clinton Squeaks Out Win
Journalists Agree, Polls Are Not News
McCain Wins, As Expected
The lessons of New Hampshire should be the lessons of the last three Presidential elections:
- The 24-hour news cycle has created a class of TV journalist who has too much time to fill with meaningless blather
- Polls should not be treated as fact, or as news
- Journalists should stick to fact in campaign reporting, and forget opinion
- Most pundits are wrong at least half of the time
- Too much news is not a good thing
- Journalists are not doing a very good job
Here's what Tom Brokaw had to say.