I forgot to post my Florida predictions, which turned out to be perfectly accurate. Guiliani (or 9ui11ani) is done. It seems the early voting allowed him to pull off a third place finish against Huckabee, but that wasn't good enough. He'll endorse McCain tomorrow. Hillary won Florida, but it's not clear that she will get any delegates from it. But I don't think it will matter. Obama will do well enough on Super Tuesday to hang in the race, but not well enough to overcome his deficit in super delegates. Hillary will win the nomination without needing the Michigan and Florida delegates. On the Republican side, two things can happen. One is that Huckabee eventually drops out and gives his delegates to McCain to avoid a brokered convention. The other is that Huckabee stays in and forces a brokered convention. Under that circumstance, I'd give even odds to McCain, Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Either way, I think Huckabee is now the favorite for the VP slot. He is also, strangely, the candidate with the most power in the GOP race. As punishment for my failure to predict Florida, I will do a state by state prediction of Super Tuesday. But, for now, I'll predict the final: it will be McCain vs Clinton in the presidential election, and Clinton will win. Give credit to where it's due, the Clintons know how to win. They lost one election when they were young, and have won every election since then. They know how to beat McCain (it's the economy, stupid), and they will do it.
Update: This is pretty funny (from the National Review):
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgwNjIxZDA0MjM4YzkyMWE1ZTZmMDcwOGIxNGZiYzg=
Feel the schadenfreude.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Man, I hate that word, schadenfreude. It's almost like some blogger made a bet with another blogger that he could interject some pompous, underused term that only college professors and writers for the Atlantic occasionally coined, and turn it into an overused term that no one could resist planting in any online political conversation. Well dude, you WON.
Don't mind me. Nothing to see here. Carry on.
Pete
Hi Tom,
That last comment isn't directed at you, I could see how it could be interpreted that way. Good call on the elections.
Pete
Edwards is out! Holy crap, I'm really disappointed. Not that he had a chance to win the nomination, but I took great comfort in voting for the candidate I believed in the most in next week's primary.
Now, I have a decision to make. I'm leaning towards Clinton right now. When I described Obama as a lightweight, I didn't mean to denigrate him completely. But when you look at his economic stimulus plan, or health care plans, or thoughts on foreign policy, well, he pales in comparison to Clinton.
However, I want to sweep away the old regimes of an endless Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. I'm completely up in the air.
Boy, Thursday's debate just got a whole lot more interesting. I'm voting for whomever, IMHO, wins the night.
On another note, it's damn good to see Guliani have his ass handed to him. Exit stage right, scumbag.
But...
There are close ties between "America's Mayor" and McCain. The Rudinator will be endorsing him this week.
McCain/Guliani? Could it happen?
Pete: I'm with you on the overuse of schadenfreude (and disappointed at the corresponding underuse of the Sanskrit word 'mudita'). But some words are simply appropriate and have no viable synonyms, so you have to use them. But as a point of balance, I will say I'm feeling some mudita for Obama.
Dave: I'd agree with you that Obama doesn't have the detailed policy plans that Clinton has. But she's a wonk with an uberwonk husband. Not surprising she'd have the details worked out. While the devil may really be in the details, those details will be worked out in the House-Senate conference. And anything can happen there, so I'm not sure the details are really that important. Reagan governed effectively (not to be confused with competently) without knowing the details. Although JFK did not do the same, so maybe there is an argument for knowing the details. In the end, I think Clinton would be better at LBJ-style intimidation to get things done, while Obama would be better at consensus- building. I think history has shown that intimidation is more effective, but also more divisive. In the end, I think either would be fine, but they would be very different in style.
McCain-Guiliani?
No way. I would offer as my prime evidence the fact that the guys at the National Review are pushing it. Being the most untethered to reality of the media world, they offer the most excellent counter- predictions. They are nearly perfectly wrong all the time. From a probability perspective, it's actually quite impressive. You might think they live on another planet. If they are pushing it, it won't happen.
But from a reality-based perspective, I'd say Guiliani doesn't bring anything to the table. He doesn't win an extra state, and he knows as little about economic issues as McCain. What McCain needs is to shore up his weakness on the economy (he's fine on foreign policy- wrong, but fine). He needs Mike Bloomberg. Or he can try (unsuccessfully, I believe) to shore up the evangelical base by picking Huckabee. I think he'll try to get someone acceptable to Wall Street. But Wall Street is a lot more Democratic than it used to be, so that may not be enough. In the end, it doesn't matter. He won't be president. He may not even be the candidate.
McCain is by no means a sure thing. It's very likely that he'll get his ass handed to him by Huckabee in the south next Tues.
I agree, Guliani is politcally finished. If the republicans are smart, they will reach out to someone with economic chops to fill out the ticket. But what they always tend to do is reach out to the base, which could mean Huckabee or Thompson.
I think Huckabee could have a strong showing on Tuesday. The Times has him polling well in the south.
And I want a reason to vote Obama. I'm so sick of the Clinton politcal machine, and their heavy-handed political manuverings. Hillary abandoned SC and left Clinton there as an attack dog.
I want to be an idealist, and look towards consensus building rather than the politics of intimidation. That means Obama over Clinton.
But I'm still undecided. If neither candidate sways me tonight, or over the weekend, I may very well still cast my primary vote for Edwards. I'd rather not do that, but I vowed in the primary at least, I vote for the candidate I believed in most.
"And I want a reason to vote Obama"
Don't we all. My reason is a weak one: he might be able to bring some kind of consensus to the table. But as Krugman pointed out, the republicans aren't really in to the consensus thing. The moderates have left the Republican party, so who are you going to work with? The Clintons are cynical enough to find some people to work with. So maybe they would be more effective. But they sure will piss some people off in the process.
I guess I look at it more from an international perspective. One thing is for sure, everyone outside the US is happy to see bush leave. They are okay with Clinton because they love her husband. But most people I talked to want to see Obama as president. The fact is is that they like Americans and want to see America as a positive force in the world. They see Obama as providing legitimacy to the American Dream. America has been noticeably far behind in electing minorities to public office, and that has made many brown skinned people question how egalitarian we really are. Obama would would immediately change that. Many people would be willing to once again accept the sincerity of the United States. From the world's perspective, Obama is the man they want.
That said, I will disclose a particular problem I have with Hillary. Her health care program involves a mandate for me to buy insurance. It also involves a mandated coverage that will surely be dropped in the House- Senate conference. And Hillary won't do a damn thing to stop that change. So I will be forced to buy insurance that won't cover me for my most likely health problems (pre- existing conditions). I know I can get more cost- effective treatment in Thailand, but that won't be covered under anyone's plan. So essentially, I will be paying ALL of my medical expenses AND have to buy insurance that won't cover ANY of them. I'd be willing to change my position if Hillary would guarantee that coverage would actually be guaranteed. But that won't happen.
Tom, I'll give you a call over the weekend. I'm sure we'll speak on Sunday anyway. But what did you think of the debate? I left off thinking that the nation would be very lucky to have either of these people as President. But Hillary clearly won the night.
She's also the better speaker. I'm still undecided though. Do we want change, or do we want to be secure, going with the known commodity?
I'll continue this in a real post
Post a Comment