Miami Dolphins: Todd Gurley vs Melvin Gordon vs Joe Philbin

The Miami Dolphins enter the 2015 NFL Draft with several areas of need and the fourteenth pick in the first round. Never thought I’d say this, but I’d like the Dolphins to take a running back in the first round of the draft. Little point in taking a stretch receiver when your QB can’t hit the long ball anyway. They need a guard and tight end, but neither is worth a first round pick. If a stud cornerback falls to them, they’ll have to take him. But short of that, I want Todd Gurley.

He’s a once in a generation running back, and he can give the Dolphins offense the kind of additional dynamic that Lynch gives the Seahawks. Pair up Gurley with Lamar Miller, who’s good but only for about fifteen carries a game, and you’ve got the best running back tandem in the league.

The trouble: Gurley is coming off an injury which might make him limited for the first half of the season. The Dolphins head coach is in a win-or-get-fired season, and if he gets off to a slow start, he could be gone before Gurley even sees the field. So if the Dolphins GM is leaning toward taking a running back, I wouldn’t be surprised if the coach tries to steer him toward the less dynamic but ready-to-play-week-one Melvin Gordon.

It’s why a team should never keep a head coach around who hasn’t accomplished anything and is one more bad year away from getting fired. That coach invariably pushes the organization toward making short term moves that mortgage the future in the hopes of remaining employed for one more season. And now the fact that the Miami Dolphins failed to fire Joe Philbin after three failed seasons means that not only is 2015 already potentially a lost season, they may also lose out on Todd Gurley for the next ten years as a result.

The great Apple Watch hoax: does the large Sport Edition even exist?

The Apple Watch launched today, or at least Apple is claiming as much. But those who placed a preorder for the large Sport Edition are crying foul and claiming otherwise, as even those who placed their order just seconds after started taking orders are being told that their watch won’t arrive for another month or more. That means Apple took orders for the large Sport at a time when it had manufactured zero units, and presumably knew it would still have zero inventory on “launch” day, meaning that the model is more or less a hoax. It’s the latest gaffe in a long lone of Apple Watch launch mistakes this month. But will it end up hurting the product’s popularity.

The public has been drawn to the Apple Watch because it offers a feature set sophisticated and refined enough to make competing smartwatches look like geek tinker toys. One million people placed preorders within a six hour period, ensuring that Apple will become the first tech vendor to launch a mainstream-successful wearable computing product. But problems immediately surfaced, not with the product itself, but with how the launch was handled.

Those who wanted to place a preorder were required to do so without being able to visit an Apple Store first to get a fitting and find out whether the large or small model would fit them better, and were left to guess when they placed their orders. They were then encouraged to come into the store after the fact so they could try on a demo unit of the watch they had already ordered, so they could find out whether it happened to fit them. But for those who had guessed wrong, changing their order would have pushed them further back into the queue, forcing them to wait an extra month or more.

Now it turns out that while the small Apple Watch model appears to be shipping in quantity today, literally zero of the large Apple Watch, or at least zero of the large Sport Edition, have shipped – and according to ongoing estimates, none will until the second half of May. That means those who guessed “large” when placing their preorder will have to wait another month or more, whereas if they had guessed “small” instead they could have received their order today. Apple did nothing to inform those ordering the large model that it would show up a month later than the small model.

Apple has launched products in the past where one of more of the variants was available in more limited quantities than the other. But in instances where it knew it would have literally zero inventory of a particular model to offer, they made this information clear in advance. In this instance Apple more or less pretended to have all Watch variants launch on the same day. So even as those who stayed up until three in the morning to be the first to place an online preorder are stuck waiting until May or even June to receive theirs, even as those who placed their (small model) order the next day are receiving theirs now. Of course all of this could have been avoided if Apple had allowed for in-store try-ons before opening up online preorders.

The fiasco is enough to force Apple to reevaluate every aspect of its product launches, from preorders, to in-store visits, to inventory levels, to what defines a “launch” date. In the end, the Apple Watch is such a strong product that it should succeed regardless of how much of a Seinfeldian fiasco this launch has almost inexplicably turned into. But for now, one of the most exciting new products in the Jobs-Cook era has been treated to easily the most bungled launch of the Jobs-Cook era.

Hillary Clinton 2016: can Elizabeth Warren win Democratic nomination?

Some liberal voters are upset that Hillary Clinton’s built in popularity is preventing their preferred candidate from having a shot at the democratic party nomination. So from Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders on down, let’s take a look at how each of the other democrats would fare in both the primary and in the 2016 general election if Hillary weren’t running:

Elizabeth Warren: she has enough support to potentially win the party nomination. But from there, because she refuses to accept corporate campaign donations, her budget for the general election would be a small fraction of her republican opponent. That means as much as ninety percent of national television ads would be for the republican candidate, and because so many low-information moderates make their decision based on what they hear on TV, there is a very real chance, even a probability, that Elizabeth Warren – perhaps the most worthy presidential candidate of our era – would lose to the worthless republican. She appears to be aware of this, which is why her remarks about a potential presidential campaign seem to suggest that she wouldn’t run even if Hillary weren’t running.

Joe Biden: as the sitting Vice President, he could also win the nomination. No one in politics has done more over the past thirty years to stand up for the rights of the working class. But most voters don’t know that, they just know him as an awkward guy who sometimes misspeaks in comical ways. The media would paint the race as Biden the Buffoon against Jeb PaulCruz the Jerk, leaving moderate voters with no idea who to vote for, again creating a very strong chance the republican would win.
Bernie Sanders: he refers to himself as a “socialist” regularly, and therefore even if he somehow won the democratic party nomination, he would lose the general election by a landslide.

Julian Castro, Cory Booker, etc: These are the young up and comers in the democratic party who lack national experience and have little national name recognition. While each of them could make a strong candidate in 2024, it’s unlikely any of them could even get past Biden in the 2016 primary.

Even though the 2016 republican roster might be the worst crop of presidential candidates ever put forth by any major party in our nation’s history (and a lot of republican voters would reluctantly agree with this), there are a number of reasons why the democrats could have a hard time winning this election, from the way the supreme court has structured campaign finance to favor corporate conservative candidates, to the fact that there’s a significant generational gap right now in the democratic party – there’s a reason why everyone on this list is either too young or too old to make for an ideal candidate. It’s the kind of perfect storm that comes along once a generation and gives the significantly worse candidate a strong chance of winning the general election.

In other words, if Hillary Clinton weren’t running, there is probably a less then fifty percent chance that the democrat would win in 2016. Whereas with Hillary in the race, the odds are overwhelming that she wins and continues to carry the democrat and liberal agenda forward. I know some liberals want to fantasize about what a wide open democratic primary would be like. But the reality is that it would probably result in a loss. As much as some liberals wish Hillary weren’t running, conservatives really wish she weren’t running.