Republican nominee Mike Huckabee will outpoll Democratic nominee Bill Richardson 51%-47% in the November 2008 Presidential election.
I meant Obama, not Richardson, of course. It was just a typo.
"What an idiot!" you say, "Don't you know that the Clintons will stop at nothing to get back to the White House? Richardson and Huckabee? You don't know anything about the election!" And you're right. I don't. I'm not even sure where Huckabee is from. I think it's that state, you know, the one you drive through to get to that other state.
Mere details ...
And I punctured the college football convention wisdom of the time:
Now, here are some more predictions. USC will not finish #1 in college football this season.
I had a strong hunch SC would lose to 41-point underdog Stanford. I guess I should have put that in my post, but I didn't want to bore you with a lot of trivia.
Instead, Rutgers will bring the national title home to Delaware. (Or maybe to Connecticut, depending on where, precisely, Rutgers is located. Assuming it's located somewhere. Maybe it's like the DeVry Institute and is located everywhere. But I digress.)
Rutgers did win, didn't they? Or maybe Cal won, they were off to that 6-0 start and ranked #2. Whatever happened to them? To be honest, I kind of lost track after Central Southern Florida reached #2. Maybe nobody won.
For lots more of my predictions, see here.
More seriously, in case you missed it, here's my 12/25/07 review in the Washington Times of Shelby Steele's book about Obama, The Bound Man, in which I write:
"Indeed, Mr. Obama has a plausible shot at riding strong early showings in virtually all-white Iowa and New Hampshire to the nomination."
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
11 comments:
Glad I bet on Stanford that game,not that I expected they might win. I just woke my wife up cackling up hearing Obama say how he would do the same for national health care that he did for Illinois.
Reportedly, Obama won the vote among (white) women in Iowa, defeating Hillary. The ladies do love him.
Tommy's correct. One Fox News entrance or exit poll last night showed Obama getting 35% of the female vote, Clinton getting 30%.
Besides handing Hil a loss last night, it should puncture the feminist assumption that Hillary would clean up the women's vote in the general election.
-Vanilla Thunder
Or alternatively, the caucus goers hate Hillary. People had to stand publicly for their candidates. Hillary is not called the Glacier for nothing.
And there was little participation. Only a tiny minority of the state's registered Dems actually voted in the caucuses. No secret ballot, a few hours in the evening only.
Obama is likely to win the nomination however based on who Dems are: mostly wealthy white elitists concerned with status. The kind of people Larry David makes fun of in Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Huck is not going further than Iowa. He has too many negatives like Iowa winners Pat Buchanon, and Pat Robertson.
Hillary has the money and the machine behind her but her negative charisma is costing her big time.
To boost her appeal, she has muted her personality, transformed herself into a cooperative political "moderate" and even tried on some bonhomie media fakery like her recent spooky "laugh". Still, her fundamentally unpleasant personality only stands in greater contrast against the inoffensive bland image she sports like accessorizing a pink Mohawk with a pant suit. At least back when she was shrill she was believable, passionate and with some life form semblance.
Similarly, Guillani fundamentally comes across like a creepy little dirt bag - especially once you put his Mr. Burns-like image next to a few basic facts about his background. Again, he has significant money and machines behind him but is not anyone I'd want in my family or running Springfield’s nuclear power plant.
It will be interesting to see if the money/machine interests can overcome the fundamental wrongness of these two reptilian candidates. Maybe the money driving our modern political machines can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. It has managed to give voters virtually no choice among most leading candidates on the two biggest issues where strong public will is being thwarted (immigration control and the Iraq War) both in 2006 and 2008.
"Evil Neocon said...
Obama is likely to win the nomination however based on who Dems are: mostly wealthy white elitists concerned with status. The kind of people Larry David makes fun of in Curb Your Enthusiasm."
I don't think it's true that ALL democrats are wealthy elitists. There are after all millions of them. I happen to know several democrats who are neither wealthy nor elitist. They're just nice, decent people. However, they believe in all that "it would be nice if everyone were nice, let's work together to solve all the world's problems" sort of stuff which is what the democratic party (and increasingly, I might add, the republican party) traffics in.
I agree with you that the stand-up, in-person nature nature of the caucuses may have had a lot to do with the decision. The voters (those who bothered to show up anyway) had to caucus with actual human representatives of the various campaigns. You can imagine the engaging, charming sort of personality that a true-blue Hillary! supporter would have.
On the other hand, as Obama's campaign relies on the votes of whites voting for a black man to show how un-racist they are, the in-person, non-secret balloting of the caucusses works in his favor.
The results in a primary, where there will be a secret ballot, may be different.
Then again, perhaps that simple homsespun son of the plains (by way of Kansas, Kenya, Hawaii, Indonesia, and Harvard) will take the nomination. The democrats finally have a black candidate who (unlike the Rev. Jackson) is not a complete embarassment).
Anybody else notice how hard Fox, CNN, and CNBC are all pumping for Rudy and McCain, glossing over this duo's poor showing in Iowa?
I mean, Ron Paul beat lil' R.G.
Motive: Rudy and John Mc. are the Neocons' preferred Republicans.
That old sow Hillary has NO business running for President.She is a nothing,a nobody,living off her "boyfriend" Bill. People dont like her,dont care about her and dont think she should just be handed the presidency,like she was handed her Senator job,and everything else in life! Her only "vision" is the control-top girdle feminism she wants to shove down Americas throat. For the Girls Club that surrounds her,thats good enough;for most people,it isnt! Thats one reason why an empty suit like Obama is riding so high! But do you replace a president who knowingly does evil and stupid things with a naif who doesnt know what to do...except stick it to the white man????? Folks...we can do better!-Josh
Anybody else notice how hard Fox, CNN, and CNBC are all pumping for Rudy and McCain, glossing over this duo's poor showing in Iowa?
I mean, Ron Paul beat lil' R.G.
Motive: Rudy and John Mc. are the Neocons' preferred Republicans.
I've definitely noticed an upsurge in covert support for McCain, yes. Guiliani, not so much. However, I'm not sure one can attribute that entirely to neoconservative influence.
The MSM are never going to support a candidate they perceive as a fringe candidate like Paul or Kucinich. They simply will not take a candidate seriously unless they believe him to have a reasonable chance of winning, or at least of playing a major spoiler role. The media have no interest in losers except as objects of derision.
McCain's star is on the rise because Romney - and, despite the comment quoted above, Giuliani - are seen as losing momentum. Who's left on the Republican side? Among potential winners, only Huckabee and McCain.
Huckabee presents a problem for all Establishment types, liberal and conservative alike. Liberals don't like him because he's an evangelical Christian who makes no effort to downplay his religion. Conservatives don't think he is electable, partly for the same reason (and partly because, despite what the God squad would have you believe, not all conservatives are Evangelical Christians who yearn to see the United States turned in a theocracy). Ergo: the MSM plump for McCain on the Republican side.
A conservative friend of mine surprised me by saying in a tired tone of voice: "If Obama's elected, all the racial stuff will stop."
Think again. "Racial stuff" didn't stop after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed; instead, whole cities were torched, and the black-on-white crime rate rocketed (massively disproportionate to white-on-black crime).
Nor did peace and racial amity descend like a dove upon South Africa after apartheid was ended; instead, it became a pit of violence, with Johannesburg competing with D.C. for the title of "murder capital of the world" for some time. Johannesburg won and still holds that title (page down).
Concessions by people in the right don't pacify, they inflame.
If Obama is elected, I predict an increase in black racism and race conflict, not a decrease.
Every black in America would regard the election of Obama in one way only: as a victory for the black man and a defeat for weak, evil whitey.
It's too painful, I suppose, for most whites to remember the black reaction to the O.J. verdict. We brush that aside as somehow not really real. We so want to "get along." We hope so desperately. "Hope not fear" is specifically appealed to, over and over - for a reason. What's to fear? We're supposed to know, not be told. (I have, however, heard politically minded blacks whisper excitedly among themselves about "the Judgment Day.")
The defeat of Obama and the election of Ron Paul is the fundamental imperative of the new year, the duty of every America-loving (versus America-as-a-useful-tool-of-Israel's-interests-loving) citizens.
Maybe "all this illegal immigration stuff" will end, too, if we give California and Texas to La Raza. Can't we all get along?
If Obama is elected, I predict an increase in black racism and race conflict, not a decrease.
Not the least from Obama himself, who openly advocates direct government discrimination against my white children in favor of his black children.
Post a Comment