The Shotgun Blog
Monday, December 31, 2007
Well, now we get to see just how bad I am at predicting elections . . .
Based on the latest poll I have seen (which also is the must trustworthy, IMHO, because it's Mason-Dixon), here's how I see the Iowa caucuses shaking out (I go into more detail, including my very hazy ideas for what this means in New Hampshire, here):
- John Edwards
- Hillary Clinton
- Barack Obama
- I don't care
- They don't care
- You won't care
- Dennis Kucinich
- Mike Gravel
- Mike Huckabee
- Mitt Romney
- Fred Thompson
- John McCain
- Ron Paul
- Rudy Giuliani
- Duncan Hunter
- Alan Keyes
Now, you'll probably noticed I switched the order a bit on the Republican side. I did that mainly because of the evangelical Christian voters, who tend to be more loyal and show up more often that the rest of the GOP electorate. They usually add an unseen (and un-polled) boost to their preferred candidates. I'm guessing they'll be enough to push Huckabee into first (but not by much) and Paul into fifth.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iowa predictions:
D. J. ~
I think Romney will pull this out. Huckabee has been revealed of late as being another Jimmy Carter, and even the evangelists do not care to be fooled twice.
Posted by: obc | 2007-12-31 12:25:22 PM
If I was voting in Iowa I would choose Fred Thompson.
Romney reminds me of Canada's Paul Martin, sort of full of shit.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-12-31 12:54:41 PM
I agree, obc, Huckabee is Carteresque, but the Republicans weren't fooled by him. This is their first conjob.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2007-12-31 12:57:33 PM
Romney would appoint so many mormans to key positions that they'd never get rid of them all.
Huckabee would ban evolution from school curriculim.
Either of these guys would gaurantee a democratic victory.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-31 1:01:22 PM
To avoid a democratic president, the GOP has to go with Giuliani, Thompson, or McCain.
To avoid a catastrophe for Canada, the democrats better select Obama or Clinton.
To have a chance, the democrats need to select Obama or Edwards.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2007-12-31 1:19:47 PM
"I don't care
They don't care
You won't care"
Are these predictions, or verb conjugations? Haha.
Posted by: Cory Schreyer | 2007-12-31 1:39:11 PM
Pretty accurate assessment.
Poor old McCain was too badly damaged by Bush's swift boat adds a few years back. That leaves Giuliani.
Edwards will win the democratic nomination because he looks like an American president. No other reason. The only thing they have on him is that he's rich, and that never really hurt a politician.
I think Edwards will be president. Or not.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-31 2:14:56 PM
"I think Edwards will be president. Or not."
I'll go with the "or not".
MSM is still ignoring the allegations with Rielle Hunter, perhaps because she has changed her story since October.
However, the bloggers seem to think there might be something there.
It would be interesting to have a DNA test on the child. That could certainly be completed before next November...
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-12-31 2:37:40 PM
Don't worry everyone - President Clinton will save us all!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-12-31 2:50:45 PM
Affairs don't damage polititians very much, as long as it's not with a gay hooker. The sympathy factor will cancel the anger toward Edwards.
Clinton wasn't able to save John Kerry. His popularity doesn't transfer very well.
Posted by: dp | 2007-12-31 3:34:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.