ChrisWeigant.com

My New Hampshire Picks

[ Posted Monday, February 8th, 2016 – 17:18 UTC ]

It is time once again to peer deeply into my somewhat-foggy crystal ball, and attempt to pick the winners of tomorrow night's New Hampshire primary. Before I get to that, though, some old business needs to be brought up. First, we have some very recent old business and then some truly ancient business, so bear with me.

So far this year, I'm not doing very well in the prediction business. Last week I boldly made my Iowa predictions, but they didn't turn out so hot. I had Bernie Sanders narrowly defeating Hillary Clinton, and I had the GOP lineup as: (1) Trump, (2) Cruz, (3) Rubio. Counting the Democratic race as only one pick (with only two candidates, being right about the order shouldn't count as two picks, whether right or wrong), I only got one right out of four. So my stats look pretty dismal here at the beginning:

Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 0 for 1 -- 0%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 1 for 3 -- 33%
Total overall correct picks: 1 for 4 -- 25%.

To be blunt, that record is nothing to brag about. Being an eternal optimist, however, means I believe it'll get better over time, as we get deeper into the primary calendar. Which brings up my full record, which I really should have looked up last time (but was too lazy to do), for my initial pick-the-primaries column. The previous presidential race featured a sitting president, so there was only one party to predict. Here's how it turned out for me, when primary season came to an end:

[Final 2012 Primary Pick Stats]
Total correct 2012 Republican picks: 41 for 60 -- 68%.

I did a little better back in 2008, when there were two exciting races to follow:

[Final 2008 Primary Pick Stats]
Total correct 2008 Democratic picks: 43 for 60 -- 72%
Total correct 2008 Republican picks: 37 for 50 -- 74%
Total overall correct picks: 80 for 110 -- 73%.

Of the final two picks I made in that article, I got only one correct (South Dakota went for Clinton). I post these results because I think political prognosticators should be held to the same standard as those who predict sporting contests for a living -- your full record of how accurate your predictions are should always be publicly available, in other words. But that's enough old business, let's get on with making educated guesses about tomorrow night.

 

Democrats

I'm going to start with the Democrats, because it is a much easier call -- unless the polls have been wildly inaccurate all along (which is always a real possibility, especially in New Hampshire). The only real question is how big a margin Bernie Sanders will win by.

Bernie's been polling anywhere from 15 to over 25 points ahead of Hillary, but my guess is that the result is going to be closer than expected. My gut tells me Bernie will get at least a double-digit margin, so I'm going to say he wins by 12 percent. Hillary will (no doubt) attempt to spin this as a victory (for beating expectations), in the same way Bernie tried to spin Iowa as a victory. Then it'll be on to Nevada and South Carolina, where the strength of minority voters' support for Clinton will be tested. Bernie will have the momentum heading out of New Hampshire, so late shifts in the next two contests are possible, but not in any way guaranteed.

 

Republicans

The Republican field is in disarray -- and that's putting it politely. Up until Saturday night, the conventional wisdom held that Donald Trump would likely win, followed by either Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or possibly by Rubio then Cruz. Then Rubio had a rather spectacular meltdown at the debate, where he hilariously tried to answer the charge that he was just repeating a memorized talking point -- by repeating the same memorized talking point, over and over again. Hoo boy. Time for the Rubiobot to get a software upgrade, obviously!

Now things are completely up in the air. Rubio lost his momentum, and could be headed back downwards. Trump didn't seem to take any major hits during the debate, but his stock also seems to be sliding a bit with Granite State voters.

There is an intense fight going on between Rubio and "the governors" -- Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie. While Christie was the one to savage Rubio onstage at the debate, he doesn't seem to have benefited from the takedown much at all. Even before the debate, his poll numbers were around half what Bush and Kasich were getting. This doesn't seem to have changed much. Likewise, even after a decent debate performance, Bush doesn't seem to be gaining support with the public.

John Kasich, however, seems poised to have a very good night. Kasich doesn't seem to have the negatives that Bush and Christie do among New Hampshire Republicans, and Kasich has devoted almost his entire campaign effort to winning New Hampshire -- which means a lot of town halls and personal contact with the voters. Kasich tried the "out-campaign everyone on the ground" strategy, and it might just pay off in a big way for him. If voters who had been leaning towards Rubio are now having major second thoughts, Kasich is in the best position to pick them up.

My biggest question is how Kasich does against Rubio. Will Marco hold on to enough voters to place second, or will he slip back to third? Cruz is also somewhat of a dark horse, as he's at a respectable second or third in many polls, but doesn't seem likely to appeal to undecided voters in New Hampshire (who are known for being much more pragmatic than emotional about their presidential choices).

The order of not only the top three finishers but the top six will be important tomorrow night, because even if the totals are very close (I could see third through sixth place being in a very tight range) it is going to be important who manages to beat the others -- because after New Hampshire both the Republican establishment and the big GOP donors are going to be clamoring for several candidates to exit the race, to "clear the field" for who gets the honor of taking on both Trump and Cruz. So placing fourth is a big deal over placing fifth or sixth -- something that normally not many people would care about.

I went largely with the polls in my Iowa picks, and that didn't turn out so well, so this time around I'm going on nothing more than guessing who has the last-minute momentum, and how big that momentum will be.

I think Trump's going to win the night. If he doesn't, then his campaign will be in real trouble (since they will be seen as not being able to turn out actual voters when it counts). But I think he'll carry the night, even if he doesn't get as big a margin as the polls now show. For second place, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict Kasich beats expectations. I think he'll pick up a lot of the last-minute undecideds as well as siphoning votes away from Rubio.

Third place is a tough one to pick. I could either see Cruz or Rubio making it (or possibly even Bush), but for no real concrete reason I'm going to pick Rubio. I think Cruz isn't all that appealing to average New Hampshire Republicans, so I don't see him getting a last-minute surge, but I also think that the Republicans he does appeal to are likely pretty solid in their choice and won't have last-minute doubts. Rubio's last-minute momentum is heading backwards at the moment -- and last-minute shifts often get bigger on the day of the election. So the smarter pick would probably be Cruz for third place, but I think Rubio will be able to hang on to enough voters to outperform Cruz tomorrow night.

Without a whole lot of confidence, I'm placing my bets on (1) Trump, (2) Kasich, (3) Rubio on the Republican side. My Democratic pick is a lot easier, because no matter what the margin turns out to be, I think Bernie Sanders easily beats Hillary Clinton. Those are my picks -- if you disagree, then please share yours in the comments.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

33 Comments on “My New Hampshire Picks”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    I hope you're wrong about Kasich! I'd rather see Bush squeak ahead of him.

    Seems like Trump's momentum is losing a bit of steam -- maybe it's just that other things have been going on (Super Bowl, etc.). But he doesn't seem to be all over the news quite so much. Not that he won't still win NH though. It would be nice if the novelty would wear off because he's just so tiresome to hear about…

    I got a call tonight from the local Dem party inviting me to an event to watch Thursday's debate and the volunteer said they were just trying to drum up general enthusiasm for the election. Not sure what to make of that. For political junkies this campaign season thus far has been notable for how unusual and unpredictable it's been. But for normal folks? Not sure they've noticed as yet.

  2. [2] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    It appears that the NY Magazine has been listening to Michale:


    There are three reasons, in descending order of obviousness, for a liberal to earnestly and patriotically support a Trump Republican nomination. The first, of course, is that he would almost certainly lose...

    Second, a Trump nomination might upend his party. The GOP is a machine that harnesses ethno-nationalistic fear...to win elections and then, once in office, caters to its wealthy donor base. As its voting base has lost college-­educated voters and gained blue-collar whites, the fissure between the means by which Republicans attain power and the ends they pursue once they have it has widened.

    The third reason to prefer a Trump nomination: If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a Marco Rubio or a Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.

    Full article at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html.

    Not convinced those are same reasons Michale has in mind though...

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    in the same way Bernie tried to spin Iowa as a victory.

    Oh, there wasn't any "TRY" about it. :D Bernie won the Iowa popular vote.. This is so close to a fact to BE a fact..

    Now, I am on record as stating that the popular vote don't mean dick... But ya'all are ALSO on record as saying that the popular vote IS relevant...

    So, Bernie won Iowa...

    RD,

    Not convinced those are same reasons Michale has in mind though...

    heh... I am not convinced that Trump is a sure lose in the General. My main reason for believing this is that whoever the Dem nominee is, they will be extremely wounded. Hillary by the indictment hanging over her head and Sanders by the "socialist" label...

    My secondary reason for believing this is that those who are saying it have been spectacularly and consistently WRONG about Trump for almost a year now..

    Why would they suddenly start being right??

    I honestly believe that a Trump POTUS-ency won't be as bad as people might think.. They can say what you want about Trump, laugh and ridicule him to hell and back.. But it simply CANNOT be denied that Trump is a successful businessman... He knows HOW to win...

    That's a factor that has been sorely missing from our President of the last 7 years...

    If Trump is smart, he will elevate his SecDef to almost Co-President status and let him/her deal with the Commander In Chief duties and concentrate on what Trump is best at... Or, better yet, choose a VP with a strong National Security and Defense background who can run the CinC duties...

    I think Trump WILL be that smart.. Despite the ego and arrogance, he appears to be smart enough to realize (at least in private) that he doesn't know it all and will surround himself with people who will make up for his deficiencies..

    I just can't see him being as successful as he has been without this ability..

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    You might be on to something in your predictions, CW... :D

    http://www.unionleader.com/Kasich-Sanders-win-early-voting-in-Dixville

    Kasich had a ... er... "strong" showing.. :D heh

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/nh/Dem

    I think that THAT is how it's going to remain in New Hampshire..

    Bernie will win by a 2-1 margin or close to it..

    In other words, Bernie is going to DECIMATE the Clinton "juggernaut"...

    Hillary Clinton's campaign is the 1980's Soviet Red Army...

    FEEL DA BERN!!! :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    While Trump and Sanders smell victory, Hillary Clinton contemplates humilation
    Hillary Clinton is running on one issue: Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, very few Americans like Hillary Clinton.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12147434/Hillary-Clinton-is-fighting-for-her-political-life-in-New-Hampshire.html

    OUCH.....

    "And the ref takes a point away!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR, LIAR (A movie about Hillary Clinton) :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i thought liar liar was about a guy who was magically rendered unable to lie, and (subtext) how lying is such a fundamental necessity to function in modern day society. being a politician is about lying artfully, and in a way that enables the best results for one's constituents. in the movies the truth can be funny, but in real life it can also be ugly. relative to the lies of last five presidents, hillary's lies seem pretty minor - or at worst, par for the course.

    "Do you like my new dress?"

    "What ever takes the focus off your head."

    ~liar, liar

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    , but in real life it can also be ugly. relative to the lies of last five presidents, hillary's lies seem pretty minor

    Perhaps...

    But Presidents "lie" for 4 years, 8 years...

    Hillary has been lying CONSTANTLY for almost half a century...

    In short, from all available evidence, it appears that Hillary doesn't know HOW to tell the truth..

    Her first instinct is to lie...

    That's what is so sad about her...

    Michale..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Do you like my new dress?"

    "What ever takes the focus off your head."

    "What's it gonna be??"
    "A pockmark eventually!!!"

    :D

    "You have bad breath caused by gingivitis. You couldn't get a porn star off. Your hairpiece looks like something that was killed crossing the highway. I don't know whether to comb it or scrape it off with a shovel and bury it in lyme. Loser! Idiot! Wimp! Degenerate!!! SLUT!!!!"

    :D

    Ahhhh the memories... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    @rdnewman[2]

    Interesting article. I think the comparison of a Trump presidency to the Arnie governorship is a bit is a stretch - the most militant organization Arnie had to deal with was the Teachers' and Nurses' unions, so the potential for a oopsie that causes 100,000's of deaths before Trump grows up is much greater. Also, Arnie had eight years to learn - it is very likely that a President Trump would face a nomination challenge from his own party in 2020.

    Also, everybody would laugh at us. Even more than in 2004 when we re-elected idiot boy.

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump and Sanders get the gold, the only question is if either underperforms the polls. Silver and bronze among the Republicans is a tough call: Kasich or Rubio? Anybody else in the 2 and 3 positions would surprise me. Momentum says Kasich.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, everybody would laugh at us.

    A helluva lot less than our enemies are laughing at us now...

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    A helluva lot less than our enemies are laughing at us now...

    Yeah, I can hear Bin Laden laughing - but there also seems to be a lot of gurgling as well - do you think he is OK down at the bottom of the Indian Ocean ;)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but EVERYONE can hear Putin laughing.. And the Ayatollahs and the Republican Guard laughing..

    Hell, Kim Un was laughing his ass off as he launched another missile..

    And there was Obama, acting like a Brit Bobby..

    STOP!!!! Or I'll say 'stop' again!!

    :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, Obama Bin Laden is "gurgling" thanx to the enhanced interrogation techniques implemented by George Bush...

    This is documented fact, from the lips of Obama's SecDef..

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Clinton said in her paid speeches
    Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3zhJiHXWQ

    Well, now we know why Hillary won't release the transcripts of her Goldman-Sachs speeches..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie's first mistake..

    Bernie Sanders to Huddle With Al Sharpton
    Is the controversial activist and MSNBC host feeling the Bern? Or is he telling Hillary Clinton not to take his endorsement for granted?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-to-huddle-with-al-sharpton.html

    This can only end badly for Bernie....

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand...

    If Bernie has to kow-tow to the biggest racist and hate-monger on the planet to insure that Hillary does NOT get the nomination??

    I guess I am down with that..

    The ends justifies the means and all that...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record, Obama Bin Laden is "gurgling" thanx to the enhanced interrogation techniques implemented by George Bush...

    Yer welcome... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TS,

    Did you see that the politico gambler wrote another article this week? He likes his Terd Cruz bets.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh

    Team Clinton is castigating Bernie because he ALSO gave "paid speeches"..

    Why yes he did...

    In 2014, Sanders made $1850 in paid speeches and gave it all to charity... In that same year, Clinton made $21 million in speeches.. And kept it all....

    Clinton is a joke...

    FEEL THE BERN....

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula [1] -

    Your guess is as good as mine for who comes in where in the GOP NH race!

    rdnewman [2] -

    You talking about cross-party mischief in the primary? I'm just starting to deal with comments for the past few days, so I guess I'll see the Michale reference later...

    Michale [3] -

    Bernie won the popular vote in IA? Say what? There are no accurate numbers, so how did you come to this conclusion?

    Michale [4] -

    I heard none other than Hugh Hewlett (sp?) on Charlie Rose last night -- a conservative radio host -- make the same three GOP picks as I did. Don't know if we're going to be right or not, but at least others have seen the same indications...

    Hey, I'm interested. Here's a question for you. If the worst GOP candidate from the pack -- in YOUR opinion -- won the nomination, and Bernie was the Dem candidate, would you ever consider voting for him? Just curious, I won't hold you to it later, I promise...

    Michale [16] -

    Yeah, I saw that article too. I think this could be a growing issue for her. It'll be interesting to see how she handles it, because it kind of seems like a lose-lose scenario. She releases the transcripts, then she's got to defend her comments. She doesn't release the transcripts, then the chorus of "what's she hiding?" grows louder. We'll see how it plays out.

    Note to everyone: today's column is up. It's really nothing more than an open thread to discuss tonight's NH results, so everyone can join in.

    :-)

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Bernie won the popular vote in IA? Say what? There are no accurate numbers, so how did you come to this conclusion?

    Logical inference...

    FACT #1
    The Iowa State Democrat Party released vote totals during the 2008 Caucus

    FACT #2
    The head of the Iowa State Democrat Party is in the bag for Hillary Clinton

    If the popular vote favored Clinton, the totals would have been released...

    The fact that the numbers AREN'T being released makes it a pretty safe bet that they favor Bernie...

    Hey, I'm interested. Here's a question for you. If the worst GOP candidate from the pack -- in YOUR opinion -- won the nomination, and Bernie was the Dem candidate, would you ever consider voting for him? Just curious, I won't hold you to it later, I promise...

    Probably not... Because even the worse GOP candidate is better than ANY Democrat candidate...

    But, I can promise you this.. I will support Bernie for the Dem Candidate with my dying breath!!! :D

    Yeah, I saw that article too. I think this could be a growing issue for her. It'll be interesting to see how she handles it, because it kind of seems like a lose-lose scenario. She releases the transcripts, then she's got to defend her comments. She doesn't release the transcripts, then the chorus of "what's she hiding?" grows louder. We'll see how it plays out.

    Yea, Hillary is in the classic ROCK/HARD PLACE scenario... She is damned if she does and she is damned if she doesn't...

    According to reports from those that were there, if the transcripts ARE released, they will be very VERY damning...

    So, you can bet that they WON'T be released.. And that may hurt Clinton JUST as bad...

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie won the popular vote in IA? Say what? There are no accurate numbers, so how did you come to this conclusion?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/09/iowa-democrats-stonewalling-on-vote-totals-but-have-released-past-numbers.html

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The polls were right! A democratic socialist and moose. o' lean-y got the nods. All in all, that makes NH sort of moderate, except hardly anybody is actually in the center. Bimodal? Bipolar?

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @ts [25]

    moose. o' lean-y? is that sorta like hetty leary or frank o'francis?

    JL

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahh!! I get it now!!!! :D

    Mussolini... :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Cut me some slack..

    It too me YEARS to realize that the Movie NAME "Galaxy Quest" was a simple take-off of "STAR TREK"... :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    TheStig wrote:

    nypoet22 - 26

    Two key elements: 1) Make plenty of linguini, throw it against the wall and only use what sticks. 2) A hearty, dare I say authoritarian, Brown Shirt Sauce.

    M -27,28

    Trump's got the jaw, he's got the strut, all he lacks is a balcony. In the end I think he'll get hung up by partisan politics.

  30. [30] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JFC-20 Thanx for the alert, I have now. Politico Gambler probably holds contracts on just about every candidate by now. The pro is always looking for fish buying too high or selling too cheap. The fish just go by their gut...and get gutted by guys like the Gambler.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's got the jaw, he's got the strut, all he lacks is a balcony. In the end I think he'll get hung up by partisan politics.

    If we're going with a house-parts analogy, then reality clearly shows that all Trump lacks is a ceiling.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    TheStig and nypoet22 -

    Funniest character name in a book I ever came across was in a Robert Anton Wilson trilogy -- "Justin Case".

    Heh.

    Michale -

    A favorite in comments after NH results was quoting the scene from Young Frankenstein where Igor says he got the brain from someone called something like "Abby Normal."

    :-)

    TheStig [29] -

    OK, I could almost hear the "ba-dum-DUM" drum roll during "...get hung up by..."

    Heh.

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the end I think he'll get hung up by partisan politics.

    Another day, another TRUMP IS TOAST prediction.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.