It’s time: Predictions
posted at 2:03 pm on January 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Billy Jeff’s made his so we’ll take that as our cue. I was set this morning to pick the Glacier in an upset, partly to be a contrarian and partly because I’m still traumatized by the Clintonian aura of invincibility from the 90s. But everything’s breaking against her — the polls, the independents, even the buzz inside the Fox News green room, all of which raises the slim yet real possibility of an earth-shattering, too-much-to-hope-for semi-landslide flameout. I simply won’t believe that a Clinton could do that badly in a Democratic race until I see it happen, so let’s call it Obama, then Hillary within seven points, then Silky a close third.
I’ll be the contrarian on the Republican side and pick Mitt. Not because I really think he’s going to win, but because after reading crap like this for the past month, I can’t quite digest the idea that Iowa’s actually going to pull the trigger on Huck. Romney, then Huck within six, then … McCain, and then Fred.
I leave you with Mitt, responding to another one of those nasty attacks that the Huckabee camp fortunately doesn’t engage in.
Update: Low turnout — bad for Huck, good for Mitt and Fred?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
>
Why not Iowa? I can just see some Hillary supporter counting heads with comments like “Oh Zeke you’re so big you count as two votes for Clinton.” ;-0
highhopes on January 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Mitt 42%
Huck 22%
McCain 13%
Fred 9%
Paul 8%
Rudy 5%
Hunter 1%
:-)
Actually, I figure Huck to win, Mitt below his polls, McCain in third and Fred below 10%.
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
It all depends on which party wins the White House. If it’s a Republican, the 2012 campaign begins immediately. If it’s a Dem, look for the Drive-Bys to lose all interest in electoral politics until Summer 2012, unless there’s a juicy Republican scandal to exploit.
The never-ending campaign has always been only about defeating victorious Republicans.
Kensington on January 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Is it just me or did the lefty Jane Flemming get botox injections in her lips? Shes on Fox now and I can start getting past her rhetoric.
broker1 on January 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
The cold will keep some of Hill’s elderly supporters home, so Obama wins.
For the GOP, Fred will dominate! …the 2nd tier.
jgapinoy on January 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
highhopes, a National Primary isn’t what’s going to bring about a “sane energy policy.”
Personally, I think that having 50 individual primaries forces each candidate for the Oval Office to remember that our nation is made up of 50 very different states. We all have different issues that are key to our part of the world and it forces them to get to nearly all of them.
It’s all about picking a nominee and the person that’s right for California might not be the same person who the people of Maine think is right for them.
Besides, if the weirdos like Paul, Kucinich and Gravel want to run—why shouldn’t they? I’d never vote for any of them, but that’s the beautiful thing about our democracy: anyone who wants to run, can. The state contests do an outstanding job of weeding these people out and (in most cases) they don’t do a lot of “harm.”
There’s nothing wrong with the State Primary/Caucus system, IMO.
ConBlog_NH on January 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
AP,
I think you made some good predictions.
We’ll see what happens tonight.
terryannonline on January 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Hey where’s Bryan and Michelle’s predictions?
terryannonline on January 3, 2008 at 3:50 PM
The biggest problem I have with it, as it stands now, is that there is so much weight put on who will do well…in Iowa. And New Hampshire. There’s always so much talk as to who will have to drop out of the race, simply because one or two states don’t bode well for a particular candidate, who might have done well in other states down the road.
JetBoy on January 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM
That makes one of you. Actually, I’d prefer a series of duels. Pistols at 30 paces.
pistolero on January 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Heh. Irony alert.
As opposed to “Hey, I’ve got this negative ad that I’m not going to show because I’m so pure…you guys wanna see it?”
Slublog on January 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
And I suppose pandering to the ethanol lobby does?
pistolero on January 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
LMAO
ConBlog_NH on January 3, 2008 at 3:56 PM
That’s the only prediction that I’d be willing to put any money on.
LegendHasIt on January 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
It’s all about the money. Even if someone finishes two or three, if they don’t have the funds to go on, they’re done.
Look at Mitt. He could finish last in NH, Iowa and Michigan and still go on and on via his own pocketbook. Same for Hillary.
You don’t have to be smart or popular. You gotta be rich or be a damn good fundraiser.
BacaDog on January 3, 2008 at 3:57 PM
However, having a name that everyone recognizes doesn’t hurt either.
terryannonline on January 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
But that’s not exactly true, is it? Super Tuesday forces the issue and not all states are created equal when the candidates strategize how best to spend their time campaigning.
One last thought. I have no problem with the nutjobs running. I DO have a problem with the nutjobs taking up limited time during the real debates when 1) they haven’t a chance of winning and 2) they know they haven’t a chance of winning so they make stupid comments that is (usually) based on the single issue that has put them on the campaign trail.
I would suggest the electoral college does a much better job of reminding candidates that each state matters. Left to the liberals, our nations leaders would be decided by residents of NYC, LA, and San Francisco (translation screw flyover country).
highhopes on January 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Heh. True, but it also can work against you. I mean, there are plenty of folks who have a gag reflex just from the mention of the name Clinton.
BacaDog on January 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Believe me, as someone who was raised here in NH and has lived here for most of my life (including now), the MSM are the ones who put the weight on who does well and not the people of NH (or IA, likely). No matter who goes first, they’re going to get the focus in coverage and their results will carry weight.
With regards to NH, we go first for two reasons: tradition and the advantage we have as a small state–candidates have to press a lot of flesh and personally meet a lot of people and there are few states they can do that in.
However, more and more people say “it’s gotta be the money.” While I’m sure that’s true on some level, the majority of people who cast votes here couldn’t care less about it. (No, really.) Sure the dollars dropped in local hospitality and WMUR are big, but the people who go to the town hall meetings and to the polls get to meet these people in more than just handshakes after a stump speech.
You just can’t do that in California, Florida or Texas.
ConBlog_NH on January 3, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Couldn’t have said it better.
Your predictions on numbers I agree with verbatim.
.
.
Video clip of Mitt’s response to Rollins’s teeth smashing comment:
“Don’t touch the hair”.
Priceless.
Mcguyver on January 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Talk to the media and pundits about it. They create the buzz and expectations. The whole procedure just provides something for people to argue about every 4 years. Iowa isn’t determining the president, but if voters are silly enough to give it any more weight than primaries in their own states, it tells us a bit about why people vote. Follow the issues or follow the leader? The lemmings creed. And, if candidates have to drop out after Iowa because they are short of funds, that is their own fault for poor planning, not that of the Iowa voters
a capella on January 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Exactly.
ConBlog_NH on January 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I’ll go Edwards winning with a surprising margin of victory since wackos do well in Iowa, followed by Obama and then Clinton, with Obama and Clinton very close. For the Pubs, going with Huck, Mitt, McCain, then Thompson.
RW Wacko on January 3, 2008 at 4:22 PM
So stop saying it already, dammit!
TexasDan on January 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM
A poll taken today in Philadelphia was very sobering.
Will the results of the Iowa caucus influence your vote in the general election.
Yes 3%
No 97%
sonnyspats1 on January 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Well, they are Eagles fans.
BacaDog on January 3, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Why “far better?” What’s wrong with Arkansas?
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 4:29 PM
If the MSM voted in Iowa ……
Democrat: Clinton
Republican: Huckabee
Since they don’t …..
Democrat: Edwards
Republican: Romney
fogw on January 3, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Monica, is that you?
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Hayooooo!!!!
askheaves on January 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Had to do it.
fourstringfuror on January 3, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Dunno about Bryan, but Michelle said she’s “not a gambling woman.
steveegg on January 3, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Here goes, putting my prognostication on the line. I now regret not warming up using this season’s football pools.
Dems:
Obama – 33%
Clinton – 29%
Edwards – 28%
Reps:
Fred – 100%Romney – 28%
Huck – 23%
Fred – 17%
McCain – 15%
Paul – 6%
Giuliani – 6%
Dusty on January 3, 2008 at 4:56 PM
[sonnyspats1 on January 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM]
I think you mean primaries. Right?
Dusty on January 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Thompson & Edwards
rhuppertz on January 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
In order:
Obama, Edwards, Clinton
Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCandidate, Paul, and Giuliani
All us Fredheads will consider this a win for Fred though, as he will kick massive boo-TAY in the Southern State primaries.
Mojave Mark on January 3, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Errr, people. I don’t think you can ‘finish’ with less than 15% – that’s why they have second choices, isn’t it?
Martin on January 3, 2008 at 6:00 PM
If that Huckacrap wins in Iowa, the whole state should be under quarantine for the next 25 years, at least.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
The thing is that NH (1/8) and MI (1/15) come before SC (1/19).
Southern states are great and I agree, but from now until after Super Tuesday, there will be 8 southern states. AR and MO are two of the 20 states on Super Tues and Huck may still be strong there unless Fred shows really well in MI. Or he needs to nail WY, NV or FL or ME before going into S.T.
He needs more.
It wasn’t like that on the Dem side in 2004. Did they change the rules from 2004 or is the R caucus different?
Dusty on January 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
In a way ‘ol Huckasmuck kind of reminds one of OJ and his “If I had done it, this is how I would have done it” book.
MB4 on January 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Follow the money. Where does it go?(wink)Iowa and NH generate big dollars for the chattering class which now isn’t restricted to the MSM..
a capella on January 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Republicans:
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Fred
Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Edwards
3. Obama
I’m leaving in 15 minutes to vote for Fred. Maybe I can help him do better than my prediction!
Terri on January 3, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I think it is gonna be a Fredalanche!©
1.Fred
2.Mitt
3.Huck
4.Paul
5.hunt
6.Rude
or
1.Mitt
2.Fred
3.Huck
4.Paul
5.hunt
6.Rude
What ever happens, I think Fred is gonna surprise some folks.
TheSitRep on January 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM
*in breathless voice* Godspeed young patriot.
Mojave Mark on January 3, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Has anybody been listening to the reports that Hucks events are overflowing? How does that not translate into a big win in Iowa?
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM
If those rooms all hold a couple dozen, it’s not exactly hard to overflow it.
steveegg on January 3, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Yes. Two mitigating factors (maybe). He peaked already and the last couple days have been stories of Clintonesque behavior. And second, Romney has the superior organization. In events like this I expect it to impact that outcome.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Another thought….perhaps the people coming to the events brought all their kids too?
csdeven on January 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Nah, can’t agree with ya there. If you say “North Dakota” then you’d have to say “South Dakota”, and I think that’s kinda tough to do. There are only 2 pairs of “north/souths” in the country (Carolinas and Dakotas), so I think that’s relatively easy to remember… I’m sticking with Iowa and Nebraska as the most forgettable… I’d say Wyoming too, except that it’s an oddly spelled word so I think it might stand out a little. Then again, growing up here in Vermont I can’t count the times I was asked “what state is that in?” by other kids (some of whom lived in bordering New York state!)
RightWinged on January 3, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Good point, that seems more likely among his core comparatively. Still though, that would leave these crowd reports of 350-500 to be ~250. That’s still 2-3X the 75 they say Fred was pulling.
I don’t know obviously:) but I do remember the straw poll and that Huck ‘encouraged’ his supporters to avail themselves of transport provided by other candidates and Paul didn’t do as well as expected. Subtract the organization Huck borrowed, I think Mitt might edge him out. We’ll see soon enough.
Spirit of 1776 on January 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I bet you hate it when you’re right.
steveegg on January 4, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2