by Frank James
A quick guided tour of some of the morning's most important, most interesting, or both, Washington-related stories.
Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic New Hampshire Primary, reviving her campaign, upending the polls which forecast her losing badly and apparently stopping the momentum of Sen. Barack Obama who won the Iowa caucuses only days before.
Sen. John McCain won the Republican New Hamphire Primary, a reprise of his 2000 victory which resurrected a campaign many experts had given up for dead last year and handing Mitt Romney a defeat in a state neighboring Massachusetts where Romney had been governor.
While the polls done of New Hampshire voters accurately captured the state of the Republican presidential race in the Granite State, their marked inaccuracy on the Democratic side is likely to refuel a debate over the how accurate polls can be in political races that pit an African-American against a white candidate.
Clinton's victory suggested that the race for the Democratic nomination would be a pitched fight that may or may not end on Super Tuesday when 22 states will hold their primaries.
McCain's win further confused the situation on the Republican side, raising not only his hopes but those of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, who has pinned his fortunes on Super Tuesday and Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who believes he can win in the all-important southern states. Meanwhile, Romney must win Michigan to keep his hopes alive.
As the economy continues to give off worrisome signs, President Bush is considering an economic stimulus package of tax cuts that would provide rebates to individuals and tax breaks to businesses in an effort to stave off recession or, if it occurs, ensure that it's a brief one.
President Bush arrived in the Middle East with both sides in the decades-old dispute between Israel and the Palestinians stuck a familiar pattern of recriminations that made it appear highly unlikely that Bush's visit would result in any meaningful progress.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The media is already blaming--not themselves, but the voters--for their New Hampshire debacle.
A summary of the last minute NH polls:
American Res. Group 01/06 - 01/07 Obama 40 Clinton 31 Obama +9.0
Reuters/C-Span/Zogby 01/05 - 01/07 Obama 42 Clinton 29 Obama +13.0
Rasmussen 01/05 - 01/07 Obama 37 Clinton 30 Obama +7.0
CNN/WMUR/UNH 01/05 - 01/06 Obama 39 Clinton 30 Obama +9.0
Marist 01/05 - 01/06 Obama 36 Clinton 28 Obama +8.0
CBS News 01/05 - 01/06 Obama 35 Clinton 28 Obama +7.0
Clueless reporters passing along worthless polls as news.
And they'll keep doing it. Just watch.
Posted by: Bruce | January 9, 2008 8:57 AM
Clueless reporters passing along worthless polls as news.
And they'll keep doing it. Just watch.
Posted by: Bruce | January 9, 2008 8:57 AM
YOU DO THE SAME THING. All you ever do is attack the media, post poll results, tell us how many times a Democrat has be talked about and Republicans have been overlooked, or tell us what party the sources wife voted for or donated money to. What is wrong with you?
Posted by: jethro | January 9, 2008 11:15 AM
British pollster Stephen Shakespeare has an explanation for the latest polling fiasco. Essentially, he thinks that the pro-Obama media buzz influenced people when they were polled:
"Those who claim to be voters but subsequently don’t vote are likely to know less and think less about political issues. When asked questions, their answers are more likely to reflect media buzz. If they don’t really have their own thoughts about an issue, but want to avoid saying ‘don’t know’ because they consider that to reflect badly on them, then they are likely to repeat whatever they happened to pick up around them.
My view therefore is that the media – indeed, the wider public buzz - has a stronger influence on polls than it has on actual behaviour. You will tend to see a ‘mean reversion’ (that is, a return to norms) as the froth settles down, and potentially a strong anti-reaction when reality hits, itself creating new froth."
The American media will, I predict, ignore Mr. Shakespeare.
Posted by: bruce | January 9, 2008 12:05 PM
bruce,
First of all, why are you lower case bruce now?
Second, what party does Mr. Shakespeare's wife belong to?
Posted by: jethro | January 9, 2008 1:55 PM
A British pollster, how cute bruce! I'm still waiting to hear from by Aboriginal accountant to rebut Mr. Shakespeare's wobbly conclusions.
Posted by: janet | January 9, 2008 1:57 PM
The media is already blaming--not themselves, but the voters--for their New Hampshire debacle.
bruce--N.H. is not a debacle,Iraq is a debacle. N.H. was a no harm, no foul situation. Nobody died as a result.
Question; since you claim to have destroyed the credibility of all the media for now and forever more, would you please post a link to your website so we can get the only reliable news on the planet?
Posted by: dt | January 9, 2008 3:55 PM