Go, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, NH! Those tiny NH towns have a tradition that everyone votes early, early, early so that their results can be posted first in the nation on Election Day.
They voted at midnight. Obama won by a mile. In Dixville Notch, ("where a loud whoop accompanied the announcement" of the results) 15 Obama votes and 6 McCain. In Hart's Location, 17 O, 10 McC, and two write-in votes for Ron Paul. No votes for Nader, who was on the ballot.
President Bush won the town [Dixville Notch] in a landslide in the past two elections. He captured 73 percent of the vote in 2004 (19 residents picked Bush while six chose Sen. John Kerry), and secured 80 percent of the vote in 2000 (21 votes for Bush, five for Al Gore).
The Manchester Union Leader has the same story but leaves out the "loud whoop". Their pro-McCain editorial is pretty hilarious, see after the fold...
"Vote McCain: For real change" --that's how the conservative Manchester Union Leader tried to climb onto the bandwagon of suddenly noticing Bush's eight years of incompetence -- not mentioning that the same editorialist had backed Bush for President in 2004 as well as 2000.
Here's how the Union Leader editorial "Vote McCain: For real change" tried to spin "change" as a vote for McCain. Because the real problem in DC was not 8 years of Bush, it was the fact that a (minimally) Democratic Congress couldn't clean up the mess in the two years since 2006:
The truth is that the Bush administration has bungled nearly everything it has touched. And Republican leaders in Congress were just as bad. Seeking a "permanent majority," they sold out their principles for power. And look where it got them. Voters booted them two years ago and gave Democrats a chance to do better.
But in the past two years, the Democratic Party has not done better. Congress is even less popular now than when voters cleaned house in 2006. Its approval rating reached historic lows this year. And yet a funny thing is happening. Voters are still venting their frustration at Republicans. Such is the power of America's disappointment in the eminently disappointing President Bush.
So now the Union Leader has joined the rest of us in thinking the Bush team "bungled nearly everything it has touched"? Too bad they didn't realize that in 2004, when they strongly backed Bush. That editorial is now under a paid firewall, but I ponied up $2.50 last night just to read it. Here's what they said then:
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. Bush deserves re-election on Nov. 2 for many reasons, the most important being the need for his continued leadership in the global fight against Islamist terrorism...President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption was an insightful and needed change in American foreign policy after Sept. 11, but his opponent does not believe in it. Resumption of a pre-9/11 mindset in the White House would run the risk of giving cover to terrorists and rogue regimes who seek to aid each other in a war against Western civilization. This is not a risk we want to see America take.
Domestically, President Bush has been disappointing in some areas. He has spent far too much money, deepened federal involvement in education and acted to limit free speech by signing into law an unconstitutional "campaign finance reform" bill. Yet his opponent is for spending vastly larger sums, getting the federal government more deeply involved in education and other local and state matters, and further restricting free speech.
While the President loses points on some domestic issues, he scores big on others. He has the right ideas on taxes, Social Security and health insurance. Without President Bush's tax cuts, the economic downturn that began under President Clinton would have lasted longer and been more pronounced. Sen. John Kerry, readers might remember, voted against those tax cuts...
On Nov. 2, we will vote for President Bush without hesitation. As the rest of the region goes for Sen. Kerry on Election Day, we hope Granite Staters will again display their famous independence by voting for President Bush and reminding the rest of the country that New Hampshire remains the most sensible state in New England.
I don't believe for a minute that the conservative Union Leader has changed its thinking since 2004, but it's funny to see them pandering to an electorate that has turned away with disgust from the craziness that they once endorsed in Washington.