The New Hampshire primary has begun with 17 voters, 7 Republican and 10 Democrat, and the results are in. John McCain won the Republican vote with 4 votes, Mitt Romney had 2, and Rudy Giuliani had 1 vote. For the Democrats, Barack Obama dominated with 7 votes, John Edwards had 2 votes, and Bill Richardson had 1. Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee were shutout and received zero votes.
It's a fun tradition there in Dixville Notch (and a few other New Hampshire towns that have the same kind of event happening tonight) which was famously featured in a fouth season episode of The West Wing (there the New Hampshire town was known as "Hartsfields Landing, named after Hart's Location, another town holding a midnight primary) though it probably isn't indicative of much (I believe Wes Clark won in 2004) but it's unique and gives the media something meaningless to talk about and blog about (like this post) until the real results come in.
As for predications for tomorrow (or later today I should say), I think Obama beats Clinton by 7, Edwards by 12. I'll also take McCain over Romney by 4, with Huckabee in third and Ron Paul beating out Rudy for 4th. And I'll also predict a 7-point Obama victory will be spun by the national media as a loss and the start of Hillary Clinton's national comeback, but we'll see how that goes.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Barack Obama Wins Dixville Notch, New Hampshire
Digg!
Reddit
Del.Icio.Us
Stumble
Posted by
Scott Warheit
at
12:08 AM
1 comments
Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, Current Events, Politics
Monday, January 7, 2008
A Repeat of 1992 in New Hampshire? An Obama Surge in South Carolina?
Some good news and some better news for Barack Obama today, with just over 12-hours to go before polls open in New Hampshire. Though, as a natural worrier, I think there may be a problem with expectations being raised as high as they are, but as MSNBC's Chuck Todd talked about on Hardball tonight, at the moment, high expectations are of no concern to the surging Obama campaign.
First in New Hampshire, Obama, in almost every poll, has opened up a double digit lead on Hillary Clinton after being behind before his victory in Iowa. CNN has him up 12, Marist 8, Rasmussen 10, CBS 7, and USA Today 13. And Obama got a bit of continuing good news in two late afternoon poll releases, which surveyed South Carolina for the first time since Obama's Iowa win. Rasmussen has Obama up 12 and SurveyUSA has a more dramatic 20 point Obama lead. With a large African American population in South Carolina, and Obama proving to black American that he can win in states like Iowa and New Hampshire which have populations which are over 95% white, such a surge was not unexpected, but such a dramatic move has to have Hillary Clinton thinking seriously about skipping the state entirely, conceding it to Obama, and instead focus on February 5, where over 20 states have their primaries, and where Clinton will either overtake Obama's momentum or be swallowed up in it. Not only that, but Obama is dead-even in a Gallup national poll where Obama has been perpetually behind by double-digits, even as he drew near in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina
Politico.com has a great story up this afternoon about Clinton trying to re-organize her campaign to focus on February 5th, and talks about plans of hers to go negative on Obama and focus on states which only allow Democrats to vote in the primaries, thus preventing Obama's momentum with independents from carrying him to victory. Clinton, especially if she loses in double-figures in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, not only has to take in to account her dreams of being the first woman President, but she should take into account what's best for the Democratic Party. Obama is bringing people together, is bringing voters into the Democratic Party who may never have voted for a Democrat before, or whom may vacillate between the parties, and to win the general election, especially against somebody like John McCain (who appeals to Democrats and Independents) that's going to be crucial. If Hillary goes guns-blazing against Obama in an effort to win the nomination, at best for her, she wins but scares off all those independent voters (and certainly any Republicans Obama would bring in) and is able to win the nomination, but only on the backs of registered Democrats, ensuring a loss in November (and there's the risk she alienates African American voters, without whom any Democratic Presidential bid is doomed. At worst for her, she still fails to derail Obama's momentum, but damages him to such an extent, he can't win in November.
There is a real chance, a real, legitimate chance, that Obama is a once in a generation candidate who can bring the country together and once that momentum gets going, and it brings in Republicans, and Independents, that the wave keeps going, and he cruises to a victory in the general election. And if that happens, that not just wins the Democrats the White House, but it likely helps Democrats pick up seats in the House and maybe even get to 60 votes in the Senate, and thus, beyond threat of a Republican filibuster. Does Hillary Clinton really want to risk that for the party she and her husband have worked their entire adult lives for? Especially when there's no guarantee she's going to be successful even if she does unload on Obama in the coming weeks.
The one positive for Clinton, and the one caveat for an Obama coronation, is the fear I mentioned at the top of this post, and that's expectations. As Chris Matthews constantly talks about on Hardball, in 1992, Bill Clinton, after blowing a double-digit lead before the New Hampshire Primary, clawed back, and still lost by 8-points. Yet, he went out, gave what amounted to a victory speech, and called himself the "Comeback Kid." The moniker stuck, and Clinton, despite the convincing loss, was able to turn around his campaign. Tonight, Obama has, by most accounts, a double digit lead on Hillary Clinton. Chuck Todd on tonight's Hardball said the feeling he gets, from talking to campaign aides and other media members, is that Obama's lead may be even greater than the polls indicate (remember, before Iowa, most showed Obama with a small lead, or tied with Clinton and John Edwards, and then he went on to win by 9-points). So, if the media, at worst, expects Obama to win by double-digits, he almost has to do so, or the story isn't Obama's two-state victory, in two states he was trailing in a week ago, it's going to be "Comeback Kid: Part II." If Clinton is able to narrow the gap to four, five, maybe even six points, that's a big victory for her, despite her previous lead. And, Hillary Clinton getting emotional this afternoon at a campaign event will help her, and make her more human and relatable (two qualities she has not shown a lot of recently) and may draw undicded voters (especially women) her way.
Expectations are a funny thing, and when the media gets in their head that a candidate better win by a certain margin, and you fall short, it's a loss, even if an Obama victory in New Hampshire would otherwise be considered a huge victory. Now, all the polls, and pundits, and prognastications see a big Obama victory, and don't see him having a problem meeting (or perhaps beating) those expectations. But, if he doesn't, even if he wins, I think Clinton's comeback will be the story. Now, if Obama does win by 10, 12 points, then Clinton, despite her current plan to go all out for Super Tuesday on February 5th, must think really hard about what's best for not just her and her husband, but what's best for the Democratic Party. And if the Obama wave continues to grow, she may not be able to stop it, and it may not be in the best interest of Democrats (much less the country) for her to try.
Digg!
Reddit
Del.Icio.Us
Stumble
Posted by
Scott Warheit
at
5:20 PM
0
comments
Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, Current Events, Politics
Friday, January 4, 2008
San Francisco Linebacker Patrick Willis Wins Rookie of the Year Award -- Of Course He Does
Sometimes, when it comes to the NFL Draft, I'll be the first to admit, I get it wrong. In 2005, for example, I was yelling as loud as anyone into my television that the Detroit Lions needed to draft USC wide receiver Mike Williams. Even though the Lions had drafted wide receivers the previous two seasons, Charles Rogers was looking like a bust and Williams, had he been eligible for the 2004 draft, likely would have been the #1 pick because of his incredible amount of pure talent. With three cornerbacks (another position of need) taken in the first 8-picks ahead of the Lions I was ecstatic when the Lions passed on Texas linebacker Derrick Johnson and selected Williams. Oops. We all saw how that turned out, as Williams never was willing to work to develop his immense base-talent and Johnson, on the other hand, has turned into a good and solid (if unspectacular) linebacker for Kansas City.
Last year though, I pleaded with the Lions to pass on the top wide receiver in the draft, Calvin Johnson, and this time take the linebacker, Ole Miss's Patrick Willis. (I even titled the post "2007 NFL Draft Preview aka Why the Detroit Lions Shouldn't Draft Calvin Johnson")
Despite Johnson's immense talent, and incredible potential, I think it would be a huge mistake to draft him if, as expected, Tampa Bay and Atlanta are fighting over themselves to draft Johnson, and the Lions are offered numerous second round draft picks to move down. And this feeling has nothing to do with the fact that the Lions have taken three wide receivers in the past four years in the Top 10 of the NFL Draft, with two of those picks, Charles Rogers and Mike Williams, being huge disasters. The Lions can't look back. They should only look forward. The draft picks they made in the past are a sunk cost. They can't go back. If the team needs a wide receiver (and their pursuit of Kevin Curtis this off-season shows that the team believes that they do) and Johnson is as good as everyone says (and there's little doubt that he's going to be a star) then the Lions should not let the fact that they have constantly drafted wide receivers in the first round stop them.
With all of that said, Johnson would not be the worst decision the Lions could make tomorrow (cough, Leon Hall, cough), and I'm not sold on Gaines Adams, the defensive end the Lions seem to be focused on if they don't draft Johnson. There are a lot of questions about Adams work ethic and football IQ, and Mississippi's Patrick Willis and LSU's LaRon Landry have no such question marks and both could step in and start at key positions which are hard to fill (middle linebacker and safety). So between Johnson and Adams, I would like to see the Lions take Johnson, even if technically, defensive end is a bigger "need" for the Lions. But, with the potential for a trade down, and Willis or Landry sitting on the board at #8, or even Adams on the board at #4 with additional second round picks in the wings, the Lions have to take that trade, no matter how much of a star they think Johnson may become.
So, while I may have been wrong in 2004, I can say I was right in 2007 as Willis, who is going to the Pro Bowl in his first season, was named Rookie of the Year today. And while I was impressed with Calvin Johnson this year (despite his late season drops and lack of concentration) and think he will be a special player, Willis already is a special player. Imagine him in the defensive backfield with Ernie Sims, crushing opposing offenses. And not only that, but the Lions would have earned a number of additional draft picks with their selection of Willis because it would have involved a trade-down.
Just another missed opportunity to add to the list of the Millen-regime.
Digg!
Reddit
Del.Icio.Us
Stumble
Posted by
Scott Warheit
at
4:53 PM
0
comments
Labels: 2007 NFL Draft, Detroit Lions, Football, Professional Football, Sports
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Barack Obama Wins Iowa With a Message of Hope
With the votes almost all counted, and the speeches given and the Democratic field winnowed (Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have already dropped out as has Mike Gravel) it is a huge night not just for Barack Obama, but for America. As Obama said in his fantastic victory speech, tonight was a night about hope and a vision for the future. A vision for a united America. One that Obama can bring together and Clinton can't.
If you look at the raw numbers, it's amazing. Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by 9-points, and Edwards by 8 (a 38-30-29 victory). As much as was made about it being a three-way race, Obama didn't just win, he won in as much of a blowout as you were going to see tonight. The turnout was well north of 230,000, almost doubling the 2004 caucuses, and a lot of that was because of Obama's appeal to independent voters and Republicans. And that appeal goes central to electability, and how Obama is the most electable Democratic candidate because he doesn't just get the Democratic support, he expands the Democratic Party and gets support from all walks of life, all ideologies. And according to MSNBC's exit and entrance polls, he won with women too.
It's certainly not over. Saturday night's debate in New Hampshire is crucial, and a stumble in New Hampshire restarts the ballgame, but Obama has incredible momentum and he gave an incredible speech at the right time. He waited perfectly for the 11:00 news to start, and I imagine he got his speech on a lot of local newscasts. And he was on his game, giving a speech which matched his performance from Iowa's Jefferson-Jackson dinner, and perhaps the best speech of his campaign and political life (though many will be partial to the 2004 Democratic Convention speech). He hit all the right notes, talked about bringing America together (nodding toward his electability), and talked about the challenges we face that we can only slay if we work together, and that's what Obama can do: Bring the United States together. And now he has proof to back that up, as he helped bring out a record turnout in Iowa, up almost 90% over 2004, and included a large number of independents and even Republicans.
Last note, you have to give an incredible amount of credit to Mike Huckabee. He was outspent nearly 20-1 and still won by almost double-digits. And he gave what I thought was one of the best speeches I have heard in a long, long time when he discussed his victory. He is a very formidable candidate, not just in the Republican race the rest of the way, but next November as well. He's an amazing communicator, politician, and orator. Him winning Iowa is no fluke.
And neither was Obama's victory and if he follows it up with another knockout blow in five-days in New Hampshire, there may be nothing the Clinton campaign can do to stop Obama because the country wants so badly to come together and to move past the divisiveness of the past. Iowa took that step tonight (with their nominations of both Obama and Huckabee). It's time for the rest of the country to do the same.
Digg!
Reddit
Del.Icio.Us
Stumble
Posted by
Scott Warheit
at
11:32 PM
4
comments
Labels: 2008 Presidential Election, Current Events, Politics












