Anyone venturing predictions on the outcome tomorrow? I’m still looking over the last polls, but I’ll post something later. If any one of you bloggers wants to stack your predictions against mine, I’d be happy to wager a $25 donation to the winner’s Republican candidate of choice (that is, the loser has to make a donation to the winner’s candidate).
(Curt – if you don’t like the idea of this kind of wager getting made on this blog, just delete this or just post a reply telling me to knock it off. No one would be winning money, other than the candidates…).
But it isn’t about what you’d *like* to see – it’s about what you *think* you’ll see. And I wouldn’t be sending *you* $25, I’d be donating to your candidate (Rudy?) and forwarding the confirmation email if your prediction was more accurate than mine.
Screw Rudy! I want the dough! And since when did you get to establish arbitary rules? You’re already discredited for failing to pledge to back the nominee.
No one in their right mind is going to make a prediction on the Iowa Caucus. It’s a circus.
Heh. Well, it wasn’t an entirely arbitrary choice on my part – arranging cash money bets is probably more of a legal gray area than doing obligations to donate, though I’m no legal expert. And I didn’t want to turn the comments into some sort of election betting clearinghouse – we already have Intrade and others for that. So I’ll have to decline the cash wager.
No one in their right mind is going to make a prediction on the Iowa Caucus. It’s a circus.
Yes, the low average turnout makes variations in turnout play a huge role, and that in turn makes the polling a poorer guide to the outcome than it would be in other states. Not to mention the Dems’ public groupings and second-choice weirdness…
I have nothing against the Iowa process. It’s more for the hard nosed political types who actually do the work, so why shouldn’t they get to make the choice of which candidate to work for.
But especially on the Dem side where they trade back and forth… it’s a zoo
I am actually not that clued in on the D side of things; those numbers are guesses. The R numbers are based on some voter turnout models I put together, combined with polling data from pollster.
As an interesting experiment, OTB is participating in a cross-blog Iowa Caucus live chat. Comments entered in the window below will appear simultaneously on several other sits, including The Palmetto Scoop, Flopping Aces, Mike’s America and Midnight…
My total error on the R side: 18%.
Someone who had just used the last-5-poll average from pollster would have had a total error of only 13%, and gotten the order right as well, unlike me. I’m lucky no one took me up on my offer .
Nice guys finished first last night:
Obama and Huckabee
Of the two of them, Obama won (more votes, better speech, much more momentum garnered, and bigger victory over opponents).
If Obama wins NH, then we’re likely to see Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd bail….most of their supporters will go to Obama, and that means Hildo is done.
Much as I like Huck, Obama’s speech last night was amazing.
Doubt it Scott. Obama will be tougher to beat then Hillary but he gives us plenty of ammunition himself to beat him and ride the Republican to the White House. Almost sounds like your a Obama guy?
Easy for you to say Scott: You bailed and went to dinner… I was surprised we didn’t get spammed by Ron Paulers and there was only one really foul idiot who said some really VILE things for hours. I tried to remind folks to hit the MUTE function, as there was no way to ban the fool.
I wish there was a chat that we could OWN and bounce out morons like that.
But this is fairly new technology. Hasn’t been fully developed.
“Doubt it Scott. Obama will be tougher to beat then Hillary but he gives us plenty of ammunition himself to beat him and ride the Republican to the White House. Almost sounds like your a Obama guy?”
I could be very content with an Obama vs many of the poor Republican candidates. Remember, my voting record is much more D than R. I like Huck, Fred, and McCain, but can’t stand Romney. If it comes to a Romney/Obama race…I go D again (though there’s NO FRIGGIN WAY I’m voting D for Congress again NOT A CHANCE!)
As much as I like seeing the nice guys of the campaigns (Huck and O) win last night, I really liked seeing the Clinton’s getting taken to the woodshed last night. She’d be a lot easier to beat for Republicans, but I prefer a race to see who offers the most promise of hope, change, and optimism. She’d come into office inherently divisive, and if any Republican beat her, he’d come in almost equally as divisive as it’d have to be a hard and ugly campaign.
One thing I’m really hoping to see this weekend when she attacks O is for him to reply with something like, “When historians discuss the turn of the century American Presidents, if their list is Bush, Clinton, Clinton Bush, Bush, Clinton….then they will be describing a period of stalemate and partisan divide in American politics rather than change. I bring that change.” Any Republican could use the line against her as well (maybe Rudy has), but Oh I’d love to see it said to her face.
17% For Ron Paul?
Maybe 1.7%
Not a chance, Paul should drop out now!
Easy to be right after the results are in! Maybe if you’d commented before the event (like Mike’s America) I’d have to take it a little harder. And if my 17% was overoptimistic, it’s still closer to the actual result than 1.7%…
And Paul isn’t going to drop. Not now, not after Super Tuesday, not after the last vote is counted. You’ll have to put up with him until the convention.
“Scott….Obama with NO experience and a very liberal view in politics and national security vs. Fred, Rudy, or McCain. Your telling me you would still vote D?”
I’d go for Fred or McCain over Obama, but Rudy…I dunno. Not so sure on him. A McCain/Thompson ticket would nail it. If they united now, made that arrangement, and made it public, they’d surge away with it immediately. It’s exactly what the Republicans are looking for I think.
btw, Obama’s foreign policy experience…great subject. I don’t think he needs it. He could pick Joe L as VP, or Biden, or Clark, or some other retired general. There’s a lot of Democrats who know the truth about planet Earth not being a civilized place-they just haven’t been able to speak about it publicly for fear of upsetting the apple cart. Once at the controls an Obama admin would have the same problem as Reid/Pelosi did after taking Congress: accountability. Difference is (imo) Obama’d have the support to do things. So when a war comes around, and it does for every President, he’ll have to sell it instead of ranting against it as has been the left’s policy for the past 40yrs. When US forces stay in Iraq-he’ll have to sell it. If they leave, and it collapses, he’ll have to sell the third invasion. He’ll have to sell the left on airstrikes on Iran, or military action in support of his relatives in Kenya. In other words, if a Dem is elected, I think it guts the anti-war left, and re-introduces the world to UNITED States of America. Imo, nothing scared the world more than the thought of a UNITED States of America ready to fight terror and tyranny anywhere in the world at any cost on the night of September 11th 2001. When this country is united, we can put men on the moon! That power is immeasurable.
Can Fred unite the country and quell the nutroots left’s looniest?
Can McCain?
Can Rudy?
Can Romney?
In 2000, George W Bush won my vote because I liked his foreign policy team. It convinced me that his lack of foreign policy experience could guide him to stand up as needed rather than run and procrastinate wars (thus making them more costly in blood and treasure). I was right, but if he hadn’t had Cheney and been talking about Powell etc., I’d have flipped a coin like most people did in 2000.
In 2004, I George Bush was my 5th choice for President with all others being Democrats. I even liked Kerry until he declared his candidacy and began the infamous Kerry dance on war positions not even a month later (this bumped him completely off my list btw).
It’s strange. I mean, I’m definitely a social and fiscal conservative, and I agree with Republican foreign policy, but I think the only way to accomplish that foreign policy is to elect a Democrat President-thus disarming or degrading the internal anti-war element in the US. If O makes a good VP or has a good foreign policy team, yeah, I’d go for him. I’m at least liberal (“open-minded”) enough to consider that. How many liberals are open-minded (ie “liberal”) enough to consider a Republican? Methinks they are few if any.
Difference is (imo) Obama’d have the support to do things.
Your joking right? Support of whom? Not the right that’s for sure, and the left will not be getting a clear majority in both houses either. So no idea where your getting that.
So when a war comes around, and it does for every President, he’ll have to sell it instead of ranting against it as has been the left’s policy for the past 40yrs.
He will just avoid it as every Democrat has for the last 30 years. It will not be any different. The man has no experience, no leadership experience, nothing to fall back on except those who he hires who will roughshod over him. I mean listen to his speech last night. It was empty, except for change this and change that.
if a Dem is elected, I think it guts the anti-war left, and re-introduces the world to UNITED States of America. Imo, nothing scared the world more than the thought of a UNITED States of America ready to fight terror and tyranny anywhere in the world at any cost on the night of September 11th 2001.
Um, Scott. The left has avoided those situations for decades but you think an Obama will now all of sudden send troops in when a threat is perceived?
Come on bro….please tell me your joking.
Won’t happen. If Obama is elected you can count on more capitulation to fanatical Islam until another 9/11 occurs. Worse yet, if another 9/11 does occur a Dem in office will do nothing except send in missiles and fighter jets ala Bosnia. With a Dem in charge we really are a paper tiger and Barack Hussein Obama will not send troops into a Muslim nation after seeing what it did to popularity of Bush.
Can Fred unite the country and quell the nutroots left’s looniest?
Can McCain?
Can Rudy?
Can Romney?
Nope, and Obama cannot unite the nation either.
but I think the only way to accomplish that foreign policy is to elect a Democrat President-thus disarming or degrading the internal anti-war element in the US.
The anti-war left will love Obama because he will do what they want…nothing.
There is not one Democrat strong enough on foreign policy and to protect this nation other then Lieberman.
Anyone venturing predictions on the outcome tomorrow? I’m still looking over the last polls, but I’ll post something later. If any one of you bloggers wants to stack your predictions against mine, I’d be happy to wager a $25 donation to the winner’s Republican candidate of choice (that is, the loser has to make a donation to the winner’s candidate).
(Curt – if you don’t like the idea of this kind of wager getting made on this blog, just delete this or just post a reply telling me to knock it off. No one would be winning money, other than the candidates…).
Why don’t you just save me the trouble and mail me the $25 now.
What I’d like to see:
Iowa: Dems 1. Obama, 2. Edwards 3. Clinton
Rep: 1. Romney 2. Huckabee behind by at least 5% 3. Fred
That way the Independents will stay out of the GOP race to help the Hill witch and leave McCain weaker.
But it isn’t about what you’d *like* to see – it’s about what you *think* you’ll see. And I wouldn’t be sending *you* $25, I’d be donating to your candidate (Rudy?) and forwarding the confirmation email if your prediction was more accurate than mine.
Screw Rudy! I want the dough! And since when did you get to establish arbitary rules? You’re already discredited for failing to pledge to back the nominee.
No one in their right mind is going to make a prediction on the Iowa Caucus. It’s a circus.
Heh. Well, it wasn’t an entirely arbitrary choice on my part – arranging cash money bets is probably more of a legal gray area than doing obligations to donate, though I’m no legal expert. And I didn’t want to turn the comments into some sort of election betting clearinghouse – we already have Intrade and others for that. So I’ll have to decline the cash wager.
No one in their right mind is going to make a prediction on the Iowa Caucus. It’s a circus.
Yes, the low average turnout makes variations in turnout play a huge role, and that in turn makes the polling a poorer guide to the outcome than it would be in other states. Not to mention the Dems’ public groupings and second-choice weirdness…
I have nothing against the Iowa process. It’s more for the hard nosed political types who actually do the work, so why shouldn’t they get to make the choice of which candidate to work for.
But especially on the Dem side where they trade back and forth… it’s a zoo
I’m okay with the wager BB. Long day at work today and have to be in before the sunrises tomorrow so I will try to check in when I can.
Predictions:
Republicans -
Huckabee: 32%
Romney : 26%
Paul : 17%
Thompson: 12%
McCain : 8%
Giuliani: 5%
Democrats -
Obama : 40%
Clinton : 32%
Edwards : 22%
Richardson 6%
I am actually not that clued in on the D side of things; those numbers are guesses. The R numbers are based on some voter turnout models I put together, combined with polling data from pollster.
bbartlog: Did you forget the decimal point in the RP number?
Ron Paul 17%….wow…maybe if the caucus was electronic
I’m with Mike
“Iowa: Dems 1. Obama, 2. Edwards 3. Clinton”
BUT…I’m not so re the Republicans.
I think that’ll be Huckabee, Fred, McCain (c’mon, if someone else can dream that Ron Paul gets 17%, I can dream that Romney gets cleaned out in Iowa).
Oh come on Scott! If you’re going to dream about the GOP result why not: 1. Fred, 2. Rudy 3. Romney?
“Oh come on Scott! If you’re going to dream about the GOP result why not: 1. Fred, 2. Rudy 3. Romney?”
I’d be more than content with that…except that you’ve included Romney. I’d go for Barack before I go for Mitt.
Iowa Caucus Live Chat
As an interesting experiment, OTB is participating in a cross-blog Iowa Caucus live chat. Comments entered in the window below will appear simultaneously on several other sits, including The Palmetto Scoop, Flopping Aces, Mike’s America and Midnight…
Hey, put me on that Fred endorsement list!
- Always bet on Fred!
My total error on the R side: 18%.
.
Someone who had just used the last-5-poll average from pollster would have had a total error of only 13%, and gotten the order right as well, unlike me. I’m lucky no one took me up on my offer
Nice guys finished first last night:
Obama and Huckabee
Of the two of them, Obama won (more votes, better speech, much more momentum garnered, and bigger victory over opponents).
If Obama wins NH, then we’re likely to see Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd bail….most of their supporters will go to Obama, and that means Hildo is done.
Much as I like Huck, Obama’s speech last night was amazing.
Biden and Dodd already bailed, pretty much immediately after the results came in.
17% for Ron Paul bbartlog????
“Biden and Dodd already bailed, pretty much immediately after the results came in.”
* riding support increase (even a small one) from Iowa victory
* Add Biden supporters
* Add Dodd supporters
= Obama takes Hillary in NH
Obama takes Hillary in Iowa and NH=he takes S Carolina
If he takes all three…it’s game over for Dems. They take Obama to the WH.
Doubt it Scott. Obama will be tougher to beat then Hillary but he gives us plenty of ammunition himself to beat him and ride the Republican to the White House. Almost sounds like your a Obama guy?
So how did the chat go last night. Was only able to check in occasionally due to work.
I definitely say do it again!
Easy for you to say Scott: You bailed and went to dinner… I was surprised we didn’t get spammed by Ron Paulers and there was only one really foul idiot who said some really VILE things for hours. I tried to remind folks to hit the MUTE function, as there was no way to ban the fool.
I wish there was a chat that we could OWN and bounce out morons like that.
But this is fairly new technology. Hasn’t been fully developed.
“Doubt it Scott. Obama will be tougher to beat then Hillary but he gives us plenty of ammunition himself to beat him and ride the Republican to the White House. Almost sounds like your a Obama guy?”
I could be very content with an Obama vs many of the poor Republican candidates. Remember, my voting record is much more D than R. I like Huck, Fred, and McCain, but can’t stand Romney. If it comes to a Romney/Obama race…I go D again (though there’s NO FRIGGIN WAY I’m voting D for Congress again NOT A CHANCE!)
As much as I like seeing the nice guys of the campaigns (Huck and O) win last night, I really liked seeing the Clinton’s getting taken to the woodshed last night. She’d be a lot easier to beat for Republicans, but I prefer a race to see who offers the most promise of hope, change, and optimism. She’d come into office inherently divisive, and if any Republican beat her, he’d come in almost equally as divisive as it’d have to be a hard and ugly campaign.
One thing I’m really hoping to see this weekend when she attacks O is for him to reply with something like, “When historians discuss the turn of the century American Presidents, if their list is Bush, Clinton, Clinton Bush, Bush, Clinton….then they will be describing a period of stalemate and partisan divide in American politics rather than change. I bring that change.” Any Republican could use the line against her as well (maybe Rudy has), but Oh I’d love to see it said to her face.
That was fun, the chat went well
I say deffinately do it again!!
I havent taken mine down yet, there’s still people in there lol
17% For Ron Paul?
Maybe 1.7%
Not a chance, Paul should drop out now!
Scott….Obama with NO experience and a very liberal view in politics and national security vs. Fred, Rudy, or McCain.
Your telling me you would still vote D?
17% For Ron Paul?
Maybe 1.7%
Not a chance, Paul should drop out now!
Easy to be right after the results are in! Maybe if you’d commented before the event (like Mike’s America) I’d have to take it a little harder. And if my 17% was overoptimistic, it’s still closer to the actual result than 1.7%…
And Paul isn’t going to drop. Not now, not after Super Tuesday, not after the last vote is counted. You’ll have to put up with him until the convention.
10% is still impressive. I had no idea there were so many 20 year olds in Iowa still living in their parent’s basement.
But perhaps now, bbartlog, you’ll realize how overstated, and overoptimitic and unrealistic a Ron Paul candidacy is.
You going to wait until he announces he’s dumping the GOP AGAIN (see 1988) and running as an Independent before you realize you’ve been had?
“Scott….Obama with NO experience and a very liberal view in politics and national security vs. Fred, Rudy, or McCain. Your telling me you would still vote D?”
I’d go for Fred or McCain over Obama, but Rudy…I dunno. Not so sure on him. A McCain/Thompson ticket would nail it. If they united now, made that arrangement, and made it public, they’d surge away with it immediately. It’s exactly what the Republicans are looking for I think.
btw, Obama’s foreign policy experience…great subject. I don’t think he needs it. He could pick Joe L as VP, or Biden, or Clark, or some other retired general. There’s a lot of Democrats who know the truth about planet Earth not being a civilized place-they just haven’t been able to speak about it publicly for fear of upsetting the apple cart. Once at the controls an Obama admin would have the same problem as Reid/Pelosi did after taking Congress: accountability. Difference is (imo) Obama’d have the support to do things. So when a war comes around, and it does for every President, he’ll have to sell it instead of ranting against it as has been the left’s policy for the past 40yrs. When US forces stay in Iraq-he’ll have to sell it. If they leave, and it collapses, he’ll have to sell the third invasion. He’ll have to sell the left on airstrikes on Iran, or military action in support of his relatives in Kenya. In other words, if a Dem is elected, I think it guts the anti-war left, and re-introduces the world to UNITED States of America. Imo, nothing scared the world more than the thought of a UNITED States of America ready to fight terror and tyranny anywhere in the world at any cost on the night of September 11th 2001. When this country is united, we can put men on the moon! That power is immeasurable.
Can Fred unite the country and quell the nutroots left’s looniest?
Can McCain?
Can Rudy?
Can Romney?
In 2000, George W Bush won my vote because I liked his foreign policy team. It convinced me that his lack of foreign policy experience could guide him to stand up as needed rather than run and procrastinate wars (thus making them more costly in blood and treasure). I was right, but if he hadn’t had Cheney and been talking about Powell etc., I’d have flipped a coin like most people did in 2000.
In 2004, I George Bush was my 5th choice for President with all others being Democrats. I even liked Kerry until he declared his candidacy and began the infamous Kerry dance on war positions not even a month later (this bumped him completely off my list btw).
It’s strange. I mean, I’m definitely a social and fiscal conservative, and I agree with Republican foreign policy, but I think the only way to accomplish that foreign policy is to elect a Democrat President-thus disarming or degrading the internal anti-war element in the US. If O makes a good VP or has a good foreign policy team, yeah, I’d go for him. I’m at least liberal (“open-minded”) enough to consider that. How many liberals are open-minded (ie “liberal”) enough to consider a Republican? Methinks they are few if any.
Your joking right? Support of whom? Not the right that’s for sure, and the left will not be getting a clear majority in both houses either. So no idea where your getting that.
He will just avoid it as every Democrat has for the last 30 years. It will not be any different. The man has no experience, no leadership experience, nothing to fall back on except those who he hires who will roughshod over him. I mean listen to his speech last night. It was empty, except for change this and change that.
Um, Scott. The left has avoided those situations for decades but you think an Obama will now all of sudden send troops in when a threat is perceived?
Come on bro….please tell me your joking.
Won’t happen. If Obama is elected you can count on more capitulation to fanatical Islam until another 9/11 occurs. Worse yet, if another 9/11 does occur a Dem in office will do nothing except send in missiles and fighter jets ala Bosnia. With a Dem in charge we really are a paper tiger and Barack Hussein Obama will not send troops into a Muslim nation after seeing what it did to popularity of Bush.
Nope, and Obama cannot unite the nation either.
The anti-war left will love Obama because he will do what they want…nothing.
There is not one Democrat strong enough on foreign policy and to protect this nation other then Lieberman.
Nope, not drunk or high. I stand by what I said. Remember, the nutroots are not thrilled with O.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/01/democratic_voters_to_nutroots.asp