Okay, since when was leading in New Hampshire after being slightly behind in Iowa considered a ‘comeback’ that keeps you from political death?
The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post and Fox News are all portraying Hillary’s lead in New Hampshire, with most districts reporting, as a shocking “comeback.” The Washington Post is the boldest, calling Hillary and McCain “two of the most remarkable political comebacks in modern political history.” And the lead of one NY Times story: “New Hampshire kept Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton alive.”
Though McCain’s numbers have soared in New Hampshire over the past few months, I don’t think winning this state has somehow defined modern political history; maybe if he’s president in a year. As for Hillary vs. Obama, it was only, I dunno, 10 hours ago that The New York Times’ political blog called Obama’s entire candidacy “improbable.”
As Slate points out, what the newspapers are trying to say is: Polls — gasp! — can be wrong. But reporters treat them as hard facts anyways.
Besides, as of 10:31 p.m. here in Chicago, they haven’t even finished counting the votes yet. (We remember 2000? Right?) In any case, New Hampshire and Iowa combined represent roughly 2 percent of the delegates at stake for the Democratic nomination, and about 2.5 percent for the Republicans.
I know some reporters live for election year. But this coverage is kind of ridiculous.