My predictions for winner appear in bold. I feel most confident about Heath Ledger getting the Best Supporting Actor win and Anne Hathaway getting the Best Actress win, and I feel pretty confident about Mickey Rourke getting Best Actor, though Sean Penn could pull that one out. Best Picture is a little trickier – if Hollywood is feeling like showing off its progressiveness, it might pick Milk, and there’s always a decent chance it just goes by default with the most epic and conventional nominee, and this year that looks like Benjamin Button. But I think Slumdog has the most enthusiasm around it, so I’m going with that. Everything else is pretty much a guess.

BEST PICTURE

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost/Nixon

Milk

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

BEST DIRECTOR

David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon)

Gus Van Sant (Milk)

Stephen Daldry (The Reader)

Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Richard Jenkins (The Visitor)

Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon)

Sean Penn (Milk)

Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler)

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)

Angelina Jolie (Changeling)

Melissa Leo (Frozen River)

Meryl Streep (Doubt)

Kate Winslet (The Reader)

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Josh Brolin (Milk)

Robert Downey, Jr. (Tropic Thunder)

Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt)

Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Amy Adams (Doubt)

Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)

Viola Davis (Doubt)

Taraji P. Henson (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler)

BEST SCREENPLAY (ADAPTED)

Eric Roth (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)

John Patrick Shanley (Doubt)

Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon)

David Hare (The Reader)

Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire)

BEST SCREENPLAY (ORIGINAL)

Courtney Hunt (Frozen River)

Mike Leigh (Happy-Go-Lucky)

Martin McDonagh (In Bruges)

Dustin Lance Black (Milk)

Andrew Stanton & Jim Reardon (Wall-E)

2) Obama wont rush dont ask dont tell.  This will be pushed back out of the beginning of the agenda.  While Obama might be catching some hell from the gay community about dont ask dont tell, he’s way to smart to let this derail his first 100 days the way it derailed Clintons.  Too much political capital.

3) Stimulus will pass with broad bipartisan support, and many republicans will later regret their vote as they run low on popular ways to distinguish their record from Dems.

4) A few months stories will break about the ultimate policy pragmatist Rahm sparring with Congressional leaders about what to push when, he’ll be pushing to keep things centrist and post-partisan a while longer.

5) Michelle Obama will dazzle us all with her poise and grace.  By the end of 2009, she will have a higher approval rating than even the Barackstar.

6) Neither Cuomo nor Kennedy will be the next Senator from NY.

7) Dow will be above 10,000 by July, but will dip below 7,900 again before April.

8) Jaybandit and I are having a weight loss contest, I will win.

?

* * *

We’re currently working on putting together a spreadsheet complete with our predictions for election night (swing states, Senate races, etc.), which we will likely have up after the weekend, but I wanted to throw up some post-election predictions for the transition. This forces me to give away one of my election night predictions: Obama will win. Shocking, I know. There’s been a decent amount of chatter about who he will appoint to key positions in the White House and the Cabinet, and I’m gonna lay down my predictions for a few of them right now. Because I know absolutely nothing about what I’m talking about, where there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus, I’m pretty much just picking the person I’d like to see. This can also serve as an open thread for everybody’s post-election predictions, and if you’re not contributing to the election predictions, feel free to discuss that as well.

Chief of Staff: Tom Daschle

This seemed to be the easiest call of them all for a while, until the last couple days, when some reports came out of Rahm Emanuel being approached for the job. My hunch is that Emanuel’s got a pretty good job as is, and could some day be Speaker, and his reputed personality seems somewhat at odds with Obama’s, so I find this an unlikely pick. I’m sticking with the conventional wisdom that it’ll be Daschle, and I hope I’m right – I’ve always liked him, and even moreso since he started helping out Obama as much as he has.

Press Secretary: Robert Gibbs

He could also potentially be Communications Director, but he’s quite good on TV answering questions, so I’m guessing they’re going to put him behind the podium.

Secretary of State: Greg Craig

I really have no idea on this one. John Kerry’s been getting a lot of talk for this position, but I just can’t seem to get myself behind that. I would be happy if former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake got appointed for this position, but I’ve read he’s not particularly interested in getting back into government, and if he is it might be as Director of National Intelligence. So I’m going with this guy, Craig, who I’ve read is in contention but know next to nothing about except that he’s a lawyer who has represented some high profile clients and worked under Madeleine Albright for a while. This will be an interesting one to see how it turns out.

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates

This is not really what I’d like to see, but there seems to be a general consensus that Gates will stay on to oversee the transition out of Iraq. That’s okay, I guess, as long as he gets outta there fairly soon.

Deputy Secretary of Defense: Richard Danzig

This is the only deputy I’ll predict, because it’s the only one that really matters if in fact Robert Gates is only going to be SecDef for a transitional period. If so, whoever is named deputy will likely be whoever Obama ultimately wants to be SecDef after Gates. Danzig has been Obama’s senior national security adviser. Don’t know much about him, but seems like a smart, capable guy, and Obama has been quite good on national security over the course of the campaign, so I’m pulling for him.

Attorney General: Janet Napolitano

This is a tough one. Napolitano has been discussed, as has Rep. Artur Davis, as has former deputy AG and 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, as have several others. I’ve heard Obama likes Napolitano a lot, but she could be appointed to a bunch of different positions, including Homeland Security and Education. Also, Obama may want to appoint the first black AG in history, which would point toward Davis (another possibility for this is Eric Holder). I think Napolitano deserves one of the bigger positions, though, and feel like it would be sort of a waste to give somebody a less important cabinet position who could end up picking up a seat for the Democrats in the Senate if she ran in 2010. So I’m hoping she gets this spot or nothing.

Treasury Secretary: Tim Geithner

There had been some talk of Paulson staying on for a transition, but nobody (including Republicans) seems to be very happy with him, so that’s looking less likely. Instead, former Treasury Secretary under Clinton Lawrence Summers and President of the New York’s Federal Reserve Tim Geithner seem to be the two names that keep coming up for this position. The smart money is probably on Summers, but I’m going to go with the dark horse on this one for no particular reason. [UPDATE: See the profile of Geithner and Summers linked to in the "We're Reading" section in the sidebar.]

National Security Adviser: Susan Rice

I love Susan Rice. She’s Obama’s foreign policy adviser, and she’s very sharp. I’d kind of like to see her get the nod for Secretary of State, but she might not be quite at that level just yet. Thus, I think she will be put on the same track as another black female Rice you may have heard of by the name of Condoleezza. Condi was National Security Adviser for Bush’s first term, then replaced Colin Powell at State, and I’m thinking that could be the same path this time around.

US Trade Representative: Daniel Tarullo

I have no reason to put this prediction up except that Tarullo was my Transnational Law professor last year and he was fantastic, and I’ve read in more than one place that he might get the nod for USTR. This would be personally exciting to me, but probably nobody else cares.

First we have a set of predictions for various swing states, close senate races, the IL house race between Mark Kirk and Dan Seals, and Proposition 8 in California, which would eliminate the right to same-sex marriage in that state (”Yes” means banning marriage; “No” means keeping it). Note that for the Georgia senate race, if neither candidate there gets over 50%, it goes to a run-off election, but we here are just predicting who gets a larger share of the vote. Also, don’t worry if some of these names are unfamiliar – some of these people haven’t posted in ages or never at all, but we wanted to open up the doors to as many people as possible, because it’s fun. Ladies and gentlemen, the predictions (click to enlarge):

Next we have a set of exact predictions for the electoral college divide, the popular vote spread, the Senate divide (counting Lieberman and Sanders as Democrats), and the number of House seats Democrats pick up:

Finally, we opened up the floor to any random predictions people want to make, including who Obama’s replacement will be in the Senate should he win:

Brian

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Tom

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Other predictions: Economic actions by Obama administration significantly increase economic problems. End of the present-day GOP as we know it.

Amanda Palazzo

Obama’s replacement: Lisa Madigan

Billy

Obama’s replacement: Rod Blagojevich

Joshua

Obama’s replacement: Lisa Madigan

Other predictions: Treasury secretary announced within week after election. Blagojevich does not finish this term. Obama appoints at least two sitting Republican senators to his administration. If any states are too close to call, it will be Indiana or Missouri.

Ragnar

Obama’s replacement: Lisa Madigan

Bambenek

Obama’s replacement: Rod Blagojevich

Other predictions: Fitzgerald is “moved” if Obama wins. ACORN charges dropped. Obama will make no substantial policy movements, but will look to solidify power via the fairness doctrine, “reform” of the census, election law, etc. Blagojevich walks because Fitzgerald is moved.

Gordon the Gnome

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Other predictions: Lieberman will continue to caucus with the Democrats. Obama appoints at least two sitting Republicans from either the House or Senate to his administration.

Melissa

Obama’s replacement: Lisa Madigan

Brandon

Obama’s replacement: no prediction

Other predictions: Obama will run his administration on sunshine and puppy dogs and there will be sorrow no more.

Buck

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Other predictions: Act of domestic terrorism within the first two years of Obama’s administration.

Stubear

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Other predictions: Out and out sweep for the Democrats. Veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Total repudiation of the Republicans and neoconservative policies.

Diogenes the Dog

Obama’s replacement: Tammy Duckworth

Chris

Obama’s replacement: Lisa Madigan

Jon Monteith

Obama’s replacement: Jesse Jackson, Jr.

For the record, that’s 6 predictions for Jesse Jackson, Jr.; 5 for Lisa Madigan; 2 for Rod Blagojevich; and 1 for Tammy Duckworth.

* * *

So there you have it. We’re going to be scoring the first two sets of predictions once the results have all come in, and we’ll announce the results in a couple days. In the meantime, consider this an open thread to make your own predictions, make fun of ours, tell any Election Day stories you might have, or comment on the results as they come in. Enjoy!

Most people I told this to either laughed at me or told me to “put my money where my mouth was.” That was rather hard to do as a guy just starting out, making a comfortable amount of money but not nearly enough to justify placing a bet by short selling an index.

There has been a lot of articles written about how the current economic environment came to pass, most of which were highly colored by the author’s political predilection. If you were a liberal you screamed about lack of governmental oversight, despite the fact that it was democrats who prevented the creation of new oversight organizations for Fannie and Freddie in the name of protecting “affordable mortgages.” If you were a conservative, you explained that the fundamentals were sound and we needed more tax cuts, although empirical evidence suggests that the tax cuts did not pay for themselves and conservatives failed to match those tax cuts with spending cuts as promised, exacerbating the debt level.

This current environment was born in the 1980s, after the last significant economic crisis, and was cultivated during the 90s during our economic apex. It is the curse of Gordon Gekko coming to settle accounts now. For far too long, both government and citizens have abandoned fiscal responsibility in exchange for shiny objects. So long as the economy kept rolling, no one wanted to look behind the curtain.

The current bailout is the bastard child of Keynsian economics, which allowed us our justification of deficit spending, and the Chicago School, which tells us the Fed is evil and government should get out of the way. The bailout in, its entirety, is meant to prevent another depression and uses the lessons we learned in the last. Keynes taught us that a government should deficit spend to protect jobs, so we are doing that. And Friedman taught us that the government’s influence during the depression contracted credit market which exacerbated it, so instead the government is acting to expand those markets. Combine that with talk of punitive measures as opposed to considering effective preventative regulations, and you have a typical heavy handed governmental instrument trying to regulate the economy.

So as a result, we have this abomination of a bailout. I cannot really blame the government for it, as the people’s demand for safety and desire for punishment of the perceived guilty is insatiable. As a republic, it is Congress’ job to give the people what they want. However, it is a Hail Mary pass in the dark. Who knows if it will work?

The crisis has been good for disabusing popular conceptions, at least if one pays attention. There is one notion in particular that people need to be disabused of: that the world economy, particularly China, has moved beyond the United States. While China has been talking a big game about “not helping out the US,” at least one fifth of their currency reserves are denominated in Fannie and Freddie Mac bonds. That was probably an oopsie on their part. All of Asia’s and Europe’s markets took a big hit and it appears that their own banks are facing large burdens, so Europe is beginning to push its own bailouts. In my own mind, it probably represents the first true, significant economic test for the Euro. We are already seeing the Euro drop precipitously against the dollar, and according to the geniuses on CNBC it should drop further. This is due to missteps by the European Central Bank which is exacerbating the crisis in the EU zone, and hurting Asia. As a result, despite the crisis in the US, it is the dollar that is becoming the global safe haven.

As a result of this high priced government intervention, the majority of the big ticket presidential campaign promises are probably not going to happen, at least not in the near future. No matter who is elected, look for stiff cuts in spending.

Now that I have provided the whiff of brimstone, here comes the glimpse of light.

We have learned from prior economic recessions and the Depression. One of the major issues that contributed to the Depression was run on the banks because people feared their money wouldn’t be available and currency concerns based on a fear of a sudden revaluing of the dollar in comparison to gold. By insuring deposits and decoupling the dollar from gold, the risk of a run has significantly decreased. Further, during the Depression the US and other nations closed off their trade to bolster national production. We now know that this does not work and will not make the same mistake twice. Granted this allows us to make a whole new range of mistakes, but you have to start from somewhere.

This is going to be harsh, but it is highly unlikely we are going to have soup lines on every corner and I don’t plan on practicing my sales pitch for pencils. While McCain’s “fundamentals” comment lacked sophistication and nuance, it was not entirely wrong. The same infrastructure and work force from the 1990s is still in place now, and in some respects it is even better. Our workforce and infrastructure will prevent us from toppling into a third world economy, as some have direly predicted.

While many believe that this crisis, combined with the Iraq War, and the American decline in influence (whatever the hell that means), represents the beginning of the fall of the United States, I do not believe that is necessarily the case. As noted in the Globe and Mail by Marcus Gee, this is hardly the worst of times for the United States. We have bounced back from worse. You think Iraq and the market is bad? Mainland China going communist was bad. Korea was bad. Vietnam was worse. Having run away inflation and unemployment at the same time was mind boggling.

That being said, it is not a sure thing. Absent significant steps to change the underlying issues that caused the problem, excessive debt on all level and poor regulation, we are just setting ourselves up for another comparable economic downturn in two decades. While a business cycle is a necessary evil, it can at least be mitigated to some extent by taking simple, common sense steps. If these issues are not addressed, all the bailouts in the world will not help.

Edwards will endorse HRC

Everyone pretty much knows this by now. As much as it is now easy to hate Edwards, he still does matter. Not as much as Gore, contrary to what Edwards said on Colbert, but nearly as much because of how important North Carolina will be. A timely Edwards endorsement will give HRC a substantial bump. Commentators are correctly noting that Edwards was not favored to win NC before he dropped out, and his presence on the ticket didn’t propel Kerry to victory in NC in 2004. Fair points. But this primary is different than both of those races, because of who the undecided voters are. The undecided voters are moderate ‘Reagan democrats’ and working class white males. Edwards does well with these demographics.

Edwards alone won’t be enough to propel HRC to victory in NC. Even with a victory in PA, the margin should still favor Obama in the high single digits. It seems HRC will need something more- an Iran attack, or another Wright-Ayers montage- to close the gap in NC.

McCain will pick Romney as VP

McCain’s campaign manager works for a company owned by Mark fucking Penn. When HRC wins the general, hopefully you will all understand the manipulation.

Romney’s ascension to the McCain ticket will be of great value for HRC, and be a lot of trouble for Obama. First off, Romney will paint the west red, locking up a large number of Obama’s western states up for the Republicans. Colorado is the most important of the swing states in contention between an Obama ticket and McCain ticket. It will also help put Arizona out of Obama’s grasp. The nation might not follow Utah, but much of the West actually does, as Mormonism is exploding in some neighboring states.

Romney is an attack dog, who is all-of-the-sudden a media darling, certain to get preferential treatment. Poppy Bush and Karl Rove have made it clear to McCain that Romney is their guy– and of course, both Bush and Rove want HRC in the White House.

As HRC said herself “it took one Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, it will take another Clinton to clean up after the second.” Poppy and Rove need some pardons and some cover ups, and it worked before. Also…Poppy and Rove ain’t so hot on giving up Gitmo, Iraq, NSA surveillance, etc.

Party Split: 60 % Democrat, 40% Republican

When conducting polls, a polling company must ensure that its sample is random. It is rather contradictory to ensure the randomness of anything, because of course this means subjecting the sample set to a number of criteria, which if the sample set does not pass, it is rejected as an insufficiently random sample. Therefore a filter operates negatively to select only certain samples as “random.”

What is meant by “random.” Statistical randomness means conformity to the ‘normal curve’ distribution within a %5 margin of error. So a sample set of voters will be tested on a number of parameters; party, age, gender: and the sample will be rejected if the data regarding party split, age, and gender is not ‘randomly distributed along the normal curve.’

Normally it is a simple matter to determine what the normal distribution of age, gender, and party split are: one simply uses US Census information about national averages over the past five years. This is what all the major polls do, and it is standard operating procedure.

But for this election cycle, five year averages for party split data are wildly inaccurate compared to all other proxy measures of the party split parameter. Since 2005, the United States has undergone a wild, historic, record smashing explosion of the left, while the Republicans have receded badly. There are many reasons to suspect that the party split data from 2003 and 2004 is irrelevant and inconsistent with the current state of political affairs.

Consider: the democrats are crushing the Republicans in fundraising, more than 2-to-1, the primary turnout for democrats has shattered every record, beating Republicans 2-to-1 (even back when both nominations were contested, and open primaries for both parties were held at the same time), democrats are dominating the advertising cycle, spending more than 2-to-1, and receiving a similar percentage of media coverage.

In Congress, Democrats are expected to make huge gains, climbing to 60 Senators and overwhelming the house. Besides Louisiana, the Republicans are unlikely to pick up a congressional seat anywhere in the country. Thats not hyperbole, that is the consensus projections at present.

Once the Democrats have chosen a nominee, and once Gore brings both his popularity and global warming initiative into the fold: we are looking at a 1964 type landslide.

Florida and Michigan

Both States will be seated, as Obama now readily concedes. The Credentials Committee is chaired by 3 close friends of the Clintons. Simply because they voted to strip the delegates before, does not mean that they will vote to strip the delegates again. The reason for this seemingly contradictory logic, is because when the first vote took place [in the Rules Committee, not the Credentials Committee which had not yet been formed], there was a great deal of discussion about how the delegates would only be stripped leading up to the convention, and would not [by this vote] by stripped at the convention. At the time of the first vote, the DNC people knew perfectly well that the Credentials Committee would be in charge of how to handle the delegate situation should it really matter: which could only happen if the race was very close and going to convention.

It should be noted, that senior persons in the parties and government knew all along that both Florida and Michigan would be seated, as did both the Obama and Clinton camps. Everyone anticipated a convention as early as January, and at that point the Michigan and Florida fate had already been sealed.

The delegates will be seated, but probably with a %50 penalty akin to what the Republicans did.

The %50 of the delegates seated will also probably be based half on the actual primaries they conducted, and half on the total popular vote of the rest of the primaries and caucuses. Iowa and the 3 other caucuses that do not tally individual voters will probably be accounted for with some sort of proxy. The popular vote from the primaries will likely count in full.

The Nomination will go to Convention

Both the Obama and Clinton camps released projections from before the Iowa Caucus, and it revealed something important: they both anticipated battling long through February 5 and into April. Both camps had projections that closely matched what has happened, and infact both camps had projected 11 straight for Obama in February.

Some in the media commented on these projections when they were released, which was right before March 4^th. Most of the media continued promoting the lie that “no one saw this coming,” and that HRC had underestimated Obama.

Similarly, the media promotes the lie that the party leaders are going to step in and force a superdelegate vote or a “convention-before-the-convention” in July. That is not going to happen.

Conventions were designed for issues for Florida and Michigan. Or more likely, the Florida and Michigan issue was designed for a convention. If you think HRC is going to forfeit Michigan and Florida…and in doing so forfeit her claim to the popular vote which will critical depend on how Florida and Michigan are counted…then you are in for an unpleasant re-aquantance with who the Clintons are.

Furthermore, it has been obvious for some time that the superdelegates who have not yet sided with Obama are, largely, holding out for Clinton. Pelosi, Richardson and Dean have called repeatedly, and now Dean has nearly demanded, that superdelegates pick sides to wrap the nomination up. Obama currently leads in everything, even counting Michigan and Florida: delegates, states, and the popular vote. If the supers want to hand him the nomination now, they could. It would be over. HRC would have to drop out, because it would be over, Obama could have the 2025. She would have no chance to run up vote totals in the remaining States in order to de-ligitimize Obama: instead the party would rally to their nominee.

HRC’s only chance to win the popular vote, is if the superdelegate remain undecided even after being demanded to chose by Dean. They will remain undecided.

I was wrong to say Obama currently leads in everything. He still trails in superdelegates, and that should conspicuously stand out to observers. What the hell are they waiting for.

HRC will win the Popular Vote

Of course this won’t be determined officially until the Convention. The Florida and Michigan primary votes will count in full toward the national popular vote. There is absolutely no reason to not count the votes. Only the delegates were ever sanctioned: the DNC never sanctioned the vote, nor rendered it invalid by their own laws and regulations. The DNC currently recognizes the Florida and Michigan votes, as Dean told legislators from Michigan when the topic was discussed. There is no reason this will change, and infact, it would be illegal to not count the votes. No party official ever said that the vote would not count, regardless of how many Clinton people were trying to get black people to not vote in Michigan (unless of course that fraud can be proven).

So with the Michigan and Florida in the mix, HRC would trail by about 300,000. HRC will probably concede a vote count for Iowa and the 3 other caucuses, even though the count will have to be estimated since those states do not keep exact figures of how many individuals participated in their caucus. Such a likely concession would bump Obama’s lead back up to about 350,000.

A 10% victory in PA will bring that lead down to zero. Four million voters are expected in the Pennsylvania primary, a historic showing that HRC will argue was a “national primary.” She’s wrong, of course, PA is a rather quirky state of Germans and small towners, but the effect of Pennsylvania will greatly change the nature of the national popular vote race.

With the national popular vote evened up, or close to it, HRC will put forward the popular vote argument and the battle lines will become clear. Obama only has a chance in three remaining primaries: NC, Indiana, and Oregon. He should win two, but he needs all three, and he needs big wins.

The Edwards endorsement will hurt him in NC, but he should have enough to win big. Nearly 2M voters are expected in NC, and perhaps even more will rally to Obama if they realize he is in trouble. A 10% margin of victory should net Obama 200,000 +.

But that same day, Obama needs to win Indiana. He doesn’t need to win it big, but he does need to win it. Indiana is expected to have a large turnout as well, certainly over a million voters. Despite two recent polls, HRC is expected to win Indiana. The only polls that show Obama doing well, are those with a very high percentage of ‘undecideds’. As with the superdelegates, most of the undecideds are against Obama, and only undecided of whether to support Clinton, McCain, or not to vote. The exit polls of all the recent primaries have demonstrated this, as the late breaking vote goes to Clinton regularly.

West Virginia will not be kind to Obama. If he fails to win Indiana, his NC lead will be whipped out by the combination of WV and Indiana. Similarly, Kentucky will not be kind to Obama. Obama must run up a huge victory in Oregon and the two other northwest States to balance out Kentucky.

Some may suggest that Obama will compete in Puerto Rico, but that is a fantasy. The Clintons are wildly popular in Puerto Rico, and they now have friends running the powerful party structures in the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico’s recent switch from a caucus to a primary is horrible news for Obama, and if the “you shouldn’t change the rules half way through the race” argument is used, it should be used to contest the Puerto Rico primary: not the Florida and Michigan primaries, which as I have said before, are legally valid.

Even without further damage to Obama from political developments– a near certain conflict with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, and further character assassination– HRC is projected to win the popular vote, as a number of commentators have already observed.

A Crazy Convention will nominate HRC

It is hard to imagine what the narrative will be at this point, but if I know one thing, it is that the establishment does not like to give up its ownership of empires.

For example, in 1968, the most obvious comparison to this year, Bobby was leading a revolution of young voters quite akin to Obamarama. Bobby opposed the Vietnam war, and wanted to shake up Washington with a new kind of politics. Not only did the establishment gun down Bobby, but then they insighted violence with agent provocateurs at the Chicago Convention, and gave the world President Richard Nixon. After the liberals had scared the establishment with JFK and Bobby, the establishment struck back with Nixon and Kent State. Nixon immediately put Bush Sr. in the White House, quickly promoted to head of CIA. And that’s pretty much where we have been ever since…with the brief theatre of fake liberals Carter and Clinton.

In 2000, Bush stole the election with the cooperation of the establishment. In 2004, Bush stole it again. The systematic manipulation of the election through corporations like American Intelligence Group, ChoicePoint, and Diebold is blatant. Choicepoint was 95% incorrect when identifying suspected felons, and supplemental ballots were oftentimes not distributed in violation of standard operation procedure.

To think that the establishment will just roll over and watch Obamarama shut down Gitmo, prosecute criminals in the Bush administration, leave Iraq, repeal Bush’s executive orders, talk with Iran, and all the much wilder things he has said in the more distant past (pursuing reparations, decriminalizing marijuanna, releasing non-violent drug offenders), is insane.

Many youngsters who have no experience in real politics think that this nomination process has been historically contentious. That is a misunderstanding. The democratic nomination process has been mild compared to contests of similar length and importance. Bush treated McCain mush worse. Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy were slandered way more. Ditto McGovern, not to mention JFK and Bobby.

Gore, Kerry, and Clinton were all Bush tools not worthy to mention (more on Gore in a bit). Threats to the Prescott Bush dynasty, that has ruled since JFK was shot, are met with extreme obstacles.

Obama has not yet overcome those obstacles.

Al Gore will endorse HRC after the Convention

Or at the Convention. There is a lie that the MSM spreads, that Gore and the Clintons had a falling out. They say that either Gore chaffed at HRC’s audacity, or that he was upset with Bill for not supporting him the right way leading up to the 2000 election. Of course the reality is that Bill was not very popular at the time, and Gore’s advisors, including Wolfson and the Clintons themselves, had carefully crafted his distance from Bill.

Gore used this ‘distancing’ to remain ‘neutral’ in the run up to the 2008 presidential campaign. Gore has never been neutral, not in 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004. He is not neutral now. But in order to win a Noble Prize in the best light possible, he had to ‘depoliticize’ himself. Of course this process of de-politicization has only worked in the eyes of the young: who are oftentimes completely uncritical of the global warming movement. Many older Republicans see Gore as he is: a highly partisan, Clinton crony, who is pushing a well-financed propaganda campaign for the European neo-liberals. These Republicans are not subjected to the same comprehensive propaganda that the young are: especially since the global warming propaganda is heavily academic. Those who refuse to acknowledge that the (Bush led) CIA infiltrates American Universities, will also refuse to acknowledge that global warming campaigns are propaganda. But it suffices to name who leads the international global warming initiatives: Maurice Strong, Etienne Davignon, David de Rothschild, as well as General Electric, General Motors, Ford, British Petrolium, Lehman Brothers, and Dupont (Climate Action Partnership).

Unfortunately, Americans are very gullible, and without examining the science or knowing how to interpret linear regressions, they are anxious for a global carbon tax or a cap and trade system that will allow global body, possibly under the auspicies of the WTO, to regulate global carbon consumption.

Even if such a global body were completely staffed by Obamas and Kennedies, the group itself would be targeted for capture by the Bush/Rockefeller people, and the resulting control would ruin our prospects for increased liberty. Global carbon control is a nightmare. The only reasonable comparison is OPEC, which has obviously been a great detrimental to world wealth.

Obama will accept the VP

The media has constantly hyped up the conflict between Obama and the Clintons, when it is actually fairly mild. Bill mentioned the name “Jesse Jackson,” an excellent and very real candidate in 1986 by the way, and the media wants us to believe there was a huge racial flap. Obviously, the race issue was going to run its course somehow. Similarly, the name Hussein Obama, in conjuncture with growing up in a Muslim country, automatically inspired the secret Muslim rumors. Those were issues certain to emerge, and they were dealt with in a relatively mature fashion by all parties and the electorate.

Don’t get me wrong, the Clintons are scum. They were involved in Iran Contra, the genocide in Kosovo, the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Haiti, and pander to the Bilderbergers. But if you think that the worst thing the Clintons will do is encourage rumors about his name, or race bait, or comment on his verbal slip ups and associations; then you are underestimating how awful the Clintons are, how awful the Bush people who need cover ups and pardons are, how awful the fake democrats are, and how important this election is to the establishment.

The media will constantly play up the idea that the party is in danger of being divided. It will cite the polls that show McCain close in the general, using 5 year party split data. This will build a narrative that Obama needs to accept the VP in order to save the Democrats and ensure a public mandate for change in 2008.

He will lose some die hard supporters that hate HRC, but his legend will only be further augmented by “saving the party” in accepting the VP.

As for my thoughts — I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I’m not sure if it’s enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:

Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.

Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.

My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we’ve pretty much picked Obama, we’ve waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we’re just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary’s been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama’s solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign’s complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that’s a big part of my rationale for Ohio.

If I’m wrong, here’s my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn’t be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.

Assuming I’m wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn’t land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.

It’s a moment we should all savor, given how rare it is for both parties’ nominations to be so unpredictable, thus doubling the extent to which we can all make fools of ourselves. We’ve done this before with the 2006 midterm elections, so we should all know how it works: everybody who cares to participate (and I hope that is all of you) post a comment predicting the outcome of the primaries for each party. Be as specific or as general about how that outcome comes about as you want. And of course do it before the results come in from Iowa on January 3rd (though if this post is still up toward the top of the page by then, feel free to come up with new predictions after the Iowa results are in).

Okay, here’s mine:

The Democrats

For a while I thought (along with everybody else, it seems) that the Republican race was by far the more difficult race to predict, but now I actually feel like the Democratic race is (even as the GOP race is still quite difficult) because of how totally unclear it is how Iowa will come out, and how much potential Iowa’s results have to influence the outcomes of the later states. So while I have what I think is a coherent rationale for my predictions for the GOP race, this one really is pretty much just a total stab in the dark (and is therefore likely the result of more than a little wishful thinking), but it basically relies on the fact that the media seems to really be pulling for Obama and will do him some favors if it gets the opportunity, as follows:

1. Edwards wins the Iowa caucus, with Obama in second and Clinton in third, but all are very close to each other. The media reports Edwards’ victory as a result of his long presence there and his strong organization, but focuses mainly on how much of a blow it is to the Clinton campaign to come in third.
2. Clinton dips further in New Hampshire than she already has, Edwards surges (in part due to his victory in Iowa and also because a lot of the 2nd tier candidates drop out and much of their support goes to him), but not enough to come in more than a stronger-than-expected third place, with Obama pulling ahead of Clinton by between 5 and 10 points. The media reports this as a big victory for Obama, and uses the fact that Edwards almost beat Clinton for second place as a further blow to the Clinton campaign.
3. Clinton wins Nevada, but in an as-expected fashion, thus not boosting her campaign much. Obama second, Edwards third.
4. Obama does much better than expected in South Carolina, even better than whatever the most recent polls show, because a significant portion of the black vote breaks for him after seeing that he has a real shot at winning. Clinton in second. Edwards comes in a fairly distant third and drops out soon after.
5. By February 5th, polls show that a majority of Edwards’ support has gone to Obama, who has already jumped in polls as a result of his strong performance thus far, making him the frontrunner by a small but not insignificant margin. The media continues to go crazy for him, making a big deal out of how Clinton had once seemed inevitable and is now struggling to stay alive. Obama wins the large majority of the February 5th states, and it’s all over. Clinton concedes defeat and Obama wins the nomination.

The Republicans

My fear in this one is that just as I think the media will do its best to boost Obama if it can, it will also do its best to boost McCain, who is, for whatever reason, the media’s wet dream of a candidate, and who is in fact doing some surging right now in some of the early states and in some national polls. However, I don’t think even the media can give McCain what he needs, and I think establishment Republicans will ultimately be more comfortable falling behind Romney as the anti-Huckabee candidate instead of McCain. So I think it will go like this:

1. Huckabee and Romney basically tie for the Iowa caucus, with Romney a point or so ahead of Huckabee. McCain comes in third, followed by Thompson, followed by Ron Paul, followed by Giuliani. The media reports this as a blow to Huckabee, but still portrays him as a surprising out-of-nowhere threat; reports Romney as doing well but being damaged given his long presence and organization there; and pays more attention to McCain’s third place finish than McCain deserves. Giuliani is embarrassed by coming in behind Paul. Nobody cares about Thompson.
2. Romney wins New Hampshire, with McCain a stronger-than-expected second. Giuliani and Huckabee basically tie for third, with Paul close behind them, and Thompson way behind them. The media pays a lot of attention to McCain’s second place finish, but this is still a victory for Romney. Huckabee finishing even with Giuliani keeps him alive.
3. Romney wins Michigan, Huckabee second, McCain third.
4. Romney wins South Carolina, edging out Huckabee, with McCain edging out Thompson for third. This is a clear victory for Romney, and the media finally decides it can’t save McCain. Thompson drops out.
5. Giuliani, badly damaged by a lack of attention up to this point, drops significantly in Florida. He comes in a close second to Romney, with Huckabee right behind in third, and McCain a distant fourth. The media reports this as a severe blow to Giuliani, a surprising victory for Romney.
6. February 5th comes along. Both Huckabee and McCain are in bad financial shape and don’t have the resources to mount strong campaigns. The fanfare over Huckabee has also decreased dramatically over time as people start to realize he doesn’t really know what the hell he’s talking about. Giuliani drops dramatically in national polls, McCain drops, Romney surges. Romney wins a large majority of the February 5th states, Huckabee wins a few but not enough, and the race is over. Romney wins the nomination.