| |
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Fearless Super Bowl Prediction:
New England by 10. Brady establishes himself as the kid with the chance to be the greatest ever.
Understand, there is a tendency to interpret the past to reveal the present. For example when Green Bay played Denver in the Super Bowl after the 1997 season, the past would indicate that the Packers would win. They were 3-0 in Super Bowls, the Broncos were 0-4. They had a young QB who had won a Super Bowl already against an old QB who had lost multiple Super Bowls. All the indicators said Green Bay, but the Broncos won.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
My comment about Macho Liberals earlier brings something amusing to mind. Democrats are getting increasingly angry about being told that they have to nominate a Southerner if they want to win the White House. After JFK in 1960, Northern Democrats have gone 0-4 (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale Dukakis), while Southern Democrats have gone 4 (Johnson, Carter 1976, Clinton 1992 and Clinton 1996) and 2 (Carter 1980 and Gore 2000). If you buy the argument that the Republicans stole the election in 2000 you're an idiot, but you'd also make it 5-1 for Southern Democrats.
But of course liberals are tired of hearing about this because the most liberal candidates do not live in the South. And because there is a natural antipathy in the party towards Southern White Males. It is quite obvious that members of this demographic have deserted the Democrats in droves over the last few decades. And the irony is that because they are relatively rare, they have significant value, much like Republican blacks. The amusing part is that folks have been trained by political correctness to hate Southern White Males.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Well, my predictions for New Hamster were not as bad as Iowa. I got the order basically right. However, Dean did not have the closing kick that Zogby seemed to be showing on Monday, and thus despite finishing second did not get the comeback mantle. Yesterdays results do show the problems with relying on leaked exit polls. Dean was even shown as squeaking out a win by the LA Times.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Zogby editorializing? Here's his take on why Kerry's leading Dean in his latest polling:
But in the final analysis, New Hampshire voters have decided to nominate a possible president instead of sending an angry message.
Get it? John Kerry is a possible president, Howard Dean is an angry messenger.
The National Review is reporting early exit polls: Kerry 36, Dean 31, Edwards 12, Clark 12. Not sure how well those numbers will hold up. After all, it is possible that Dean supporters are voting early and that Edwards and Clark fans will be voting later. But if it holds, both Kerry and Dean will claim the "comeback" mantle. Clark would be out, Edwards would be in trouble. Apparently Joe-mentum has fizzled; no reports of Lieberman's polling.
Macho Liberals?
Al Franken body-slammed a protester at a Dean rally to the ground according to the NY Post. I'll confess to being a little conflicted over this one; on the one hand, the protester was a LaRouchie and I think those folks could benefit from a few more body slams (especially if they land on their head).
On the other hand, Franken's stated purpose for the slam was "I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down." Hmmm, or being slammed to the ground? Plus, Franken says "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," which I don't doubt. The question is whether he would have done it to a Dean supporter at a Bush rally.
But the incident does highlight something that I've noticed lately: Macho Liberals. A few days ago I was talking to a liberal friend and I made a comment about Dick Cheney. The guy's response was "He's such a pussy!" This was a little bit surprising to me as a) I had not heard that comment previously about Cheney and b) I had not heard anybody over the age of about 25 (my friend is pushing 40) refer to another man as a pussy before.
When I thought about it, Macho Liberals are everywhere. Franken has been challenging conservatives to fistfights for awhile now, including Rich Lowry of the National Review. Joe Biden memorably told Bush not to bomb the Taliban from the sky, but to go "mano-a-mano". Wes Clark talks about President Bush "prancing around on the deck of an aircraft carrier", a dig that appears to be just a tad homophobic.
Is it possible that it's caused by white men feeling like they are an endangered species among Democrats?
Republicans for Dean? Hugh Hewitt did a bit for his blog last week about what Dean should do to get over the "I Have a Scream" speech. Today Andrew Sullivan wades in with a fisking of a Washington Post article about the Deans by Ann Gerhart.
Of course, they are helping out Dean for the same reason why I registered with Dean's Blog for America. We want to keep the Vermonster alive so he can continue to amuse us, possibly win the Democrats' nomination, and go down in flames to President Bush in the general election. Note particularly that Andrew exhorts Dean to continue to be amusing:
No, it's not. We all love a candidate who's a little bit nutty. Everyone has their moments. Dean's scream was hilarious and it was temporarily damaging. But take another look-see. The polls in New Hampshire are turning around a little. Dean's authenticity, his rage, his cojones got him where he is today--still the guy with the most money and some of the most passionate support. If Dean is to last, he shouldn't give up his fire.
Hmmm, sounds like the Dean campaign is already getting set to write off New Hampshire. Got an e-mail today from Joe Trippi:
"The way to win the nomination is to get a majority of the more than 4,300 delegates to the Democratic convention. Iowa and New Hampshire combined decide only 77 of those delegates."
True enough as far as it goes. But I thought the message was that Dean is making a comeback? The problem may be the latest Zogby poll which shows Dean losing by about 13 points.
Monday, January 26, 2004
As noted by Hugh Hewitt late last week, Dean has hit the trampoline; all the polls now confirm that he's gaining support (or, more accurately, regaining support). This probably hurts Kerry most of all; he does not want to be one of two Northeasterners competing in the South and Midwest. It helps Edwards, as Clark's apparent melt-down means that he will be the only Southerner left standing, especially if he can slip ahead of the general tomorrow.
My prediction is that Kerry wins New Hampshire, Dean comes in second, close enough to claim the comeback kid mantle. Edwards finishes third, Clark finishes out of the money and folds his tent. Joe Lieberman's not going anywhere.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Undeterred by my prior failure in prognostication, here is a bold prediction:
Two years from now people will think that Howard Dean's yelp cost him the nomination. In fact, he had probably lost it earlier. Let's remember, he got flattened in the Iowa Caucuses before the "Eeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaahhhh!" ever came out of his mouth.
This is something that Bill James, the baseball analyst, has commented about in the past. Over time, events that were memorable tend to be remembered as events that were significant. I don't think Dean's yelp was all that significant. It confirmed he was swirling around the political toilet, but the voters in Iowa had already pushed the handle.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Wow, pretty bad prediction there; if you reverse the order I had them in you'd be a lot closer--Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt and Dean would have been close. Obviously the dynamic I described did not occur; probably because Kerry and Edwards' people were viable in more precincts than anticipated. In defense of myself, I note that both Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved, who get paid to observe the political scene, both thought that Dean would finish first.
What does this mean for the future? My guess is it makes New Hampshire almost a must-win for Dean. Gephardt is fini, Kerry and Edwards get a breath of life. The interesting question is what does it do to Clark? His rationale was that he was the un-Dean, but the two candidates with great hair seem to have stolen his thunder.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Fearless Iowa Prediction:
Dean, Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry. Dean wins by a few percentage points over Gephardt. The 15% rule makes for some interesting dynamics. Suppose you're an Edwards supporter and your fellow Edwards partisans at the local caucus are less than 15% of the group, then you are required to pick a second candidate. Obviously you don't want to go for Dean. But voting for someone else means axiomatically that you are helping your own guy finish third. So the question is whom do you want to finish ahead of you? Obviously the answer is Gephardt. He's poorly positioned (3% RCP Average) to do anything in New Hampshire, so any momentum he might get by finishing first is going to be stalled next week. They don't want Kerry because he's got the bucks and the potential to improve his standing in New Hampshire.
Kerry's backers make the same calculation--no to Dean, no to Edwards. Gephardt they can explain away winning or finishing second. Indeed, some pundits think even a close second finish will doom Gephardt.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Does Richard Cohen sound like a giddy schoolgirl in his latest piece on Wes Clark?
He is a "duty, honor, country" guy -- the West Point mantra he recites constantly. His themes are patriotism and leadership, and his credentials are unimpeachable. He was wounded in Vietnam. He rose to command NATO and made war in the Balkans. Four invisible stars glitter from his shoulders.
You can tell everybody's enjoying writing about the horse race again now that Dean appears to have pulled up lame. And I'll admit that most of Cohen's points are reasonable. But Clark at this point is a complete unknown, who has shown at least the possibility of being a loose cannon.
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Jonathon Chait makes a good observation about Howard Dean:
Dean is winning in large part because the other candidates are handicapped by having made a realistic appraisal of what they have to do to remain viable against Bush. Dean, by escaping into political fantasy, is free to run as if there were no tension between winning over Democratic partisans and winning over people who like Bush.
Exactly. In the last series of Survivor, there was a character who called himself Johnny Fairplay, who devised a very interesting method of getting himself to the finals. He decided to be as obnoxious and as big a jerk as possible, on the theory that nobody would consider him a threat to win the vote of the jury, and therefore they would be happy to have him be the other finalist. He freely admitted that he didn't know how he was going to win once he got to the finals, but even the second place finisher would get $100,000.
That's Howard's campaign strategy. He knew he was a longshot to even get the nomination, so he figured why not go for broke? He'd at least get the nomination of the Democrats, even if there was no way he'd end up getting elected in the general election.
In the end, it didn't work for Johnny Fairplay. The lady who won the last immunity challenge decided to vote him off (thereby costing herself $900.000, as the woman she took to the finals with her ended up winning the jury vote.
Monday, January 12, 2004
The WaPo editorial assessing John Edwards includes this curious observation:
He disappointed us by voting against the $87 billion for military and reconstruction funding, but he has been speaking since before the onset of hostilities about the importance of planning for the postwar period. "The real test for America will come after Saddam is gone," Mr. Edwards said last February. "Will we make the commitment to help build a peaceful, democratic, post-Saddam Iraq?"
Why "but"? It should be obvious that when you lead with a negative ("He disappointed us...") and then throw in "but" it's something that offsets that negative. In this case he didn't vote for the $87 billion for military and reconstruction funding but he did talk a good game back in February. To that I would add, but he did not make the commitment to help build a peaceful, democratic post-Saddam Iraq.
|
|
