[ Posted Monday, January 7th, 2008 – 15:17 UTC ]
On the Democratic side, I had Edwards out front by at least 4-5 points, and Obama narrowly squeaking out second from Hillary (essentially a tie for second). Well, I got the names wrong but predicted the race dynamics pretty well. That's my story and I'm sticking to it....
Total for Democratic picks so far: 1 for 3 (I correctly put Hillary in third, at least).
On the Republican side, I did a little better. I had Huckabee by five to ten points, followed by Romney and then McCain far back in third. I almost swept this one, but in the end Thompson edged out McCain for the third place spot. I still called the margins of victory pretty accurately, though, so I feel good about that.
Total for Republican picks so far: 2 for 3.
Total overall picks: 3 for 6.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, January 4th, 2008 – 17:15 UTC ]
Well, it looks like I owe some young folks an apology. To the youth of Iowa: Sorry!
I've been predicting for a while now that counting on "new voters" is a mistake for the campaigns, because they just never actually show up on election day. Whoops! Democrats in Iowa turned out to the caucuses in droves -- almost doubling the previous attendance records. And an enormous amount of them were young people and other first-timers, who mostly voted for Obama.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 – 12:48 UTC ]
Tomorrow's Iowa caucuses are certainly reaping a bumper crop of blather in the news. Pundits everywhere are weighing in on every aspect of both the Democratic and Republican race to the nomination. But I've noticed something -- in all the verbiage spewed about what is or is not going to happen tomorrow, there are very few willing to actually call the results of the race. Language is hedged, scenarios are spun out as "what if" speculation, but not a whole lot of people are willing to stand up and say "this is how I think it'll turn out."
Which is a shame. If political writers (both professional and amateur) aren't willing to run the risk of being wrong (and looking foolish), then what are they in the prognostication business for anyway? After all, every two-bit local news sportscaster is willing to tell you his picks for the outcome of each week's football games, why shouldn't our national political press be just as willing to do the same?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, December 28th, 2007 – 14:55 UTC ]
OK, here we go with Part 2 of my annual McLaughlin Awards. Last week's column covered the first half of these awards.
Unfortunately (as of this writing) the transcript for last week's McLaughlin Group is not yet available on their website, so you'll have to check it later to compare how I did with the actual McLaughlin Group themselves.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, December 27th, 2007 – 17:22 UTC ]
While predicting the future of the Democratic Party is usually a futile exercise due to the inherent "herding cats" nature of the party, predicting the future of the Republican Party is usually pretty easy to do. So easy, it's boring. Which is why I normally shy away from the subject.
But 2008 is going to be a watershed year for the Republican Party, because they seem to be having their own set of factionalist problems. Which means the fortunes of the GOP will be a lot more interesting than usual next year.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, December 21st, 2007 – 14:41 UTC ]
For those of you who have been reading this column long enough, you may remember a fun set of columns (Part 1 and Part 2) I wrote last year, giving my picks for the annual tongue-in-cheek awards handed out by the McLaughlin Group television show.
Because I had so much fun doing it last year, I present for your amusement, agreement, and/or rage my selections for this year's awards. This is a two-week event, so check back here next Friday for Part 2.
As always when this column hands out awards, our eminent jury consists of me, my wife, and our cat (who breaks ties with her vote). So I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, December 20th, 2007 – 12:57 UTC ]
Like Christmas poinsettias popping up all over, articles are starting to appear in not only the blogosphere but also the mainstream news with a common theme: what if we've been wrong all along? What if the "inevitable" candidates don't win the nomination of the Democratic and/or Republican parties? What if they're not even the "second-place" candidates we picked? What if (gasp!) the people of Iowa and the rest of the early primary states don't give us Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, or Romney?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 – 15:31 UTC ]
For all the Democrats in Washington who still wonder why Congress' approval ratings are lower than President Bush's, I offer up Exhibit A -- caving on SCHIP. Giving the Republicans such a stupendous political Christmas present is possibly the stupidest thing I have seen Democrats in Congress do this year.
And that's saying a lot.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, December 18th, 2007 – 16:07 UTC ]
This just in from the campaign trail: more proof that Republicans just "don't get it" about the concerns of ordinary Americans over health care.
Mike Huckabee is getting a lot of media attention these days because of his dramatic rise in the Iowa polls. But I was personally stunned last night to see him say the following (from PBS' "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer"):
If you think that Medicare is expensive now, wait until 10,000 aging hippies a day find out they can get free drugs. Then, it's really going to get expensive in a hurry.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, December 17th, 2007 – 15:06 UTC ]
[Warning: these all have absolutely no basis in reality, and are all merely the product of an overactive imagination. I am not a psychic nor do I pretend to be one. So there.]
Read Complete Article »
