More Predictions Revisited

|

In the spirit of Maoist self-criticism my comrade is offering up for the good of the workers' revolution, I now revisit my own predictions for the 2004 election:

"All this talk about another popular/electoral split is a lot of hooey. People are gearing up to fight the last war, and they're going to be disappointed. Whoever gets the electoral vote will also get at least the popular plurality."
—October 27, 2004

"Bush Is A Lock"
—June 15, 2004

Those are all the public predictions I can remember making. Privately, however, I did voice my suspicions that Michael Badnarik would not win the presidency.

NEXT: Criticism/Self-Criticism Session

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hee! Oh, that made me laugh a lot. Thank you for the cheer.

  2. Badnarik didn’t win?

  3. Badnarik lost.

    I’ve been disenfranchised.

  4. I was intimidated!

  5. Tim, it’s a black day in San Francisco, no? All my liberal friends (they are legion…this is San Francisco, after all) are in mourning. I can’t even walk down the street without seeing the zombie stares and puffy eyes from 2am Ohio Watches.

    I, too, predicted Bush the Short would win, although that certainly doesn’t make me feel any better (or make me more popular with my grieving buddies). I guess I just don’t live in a fantasy world where the nation’s ugly conservative tug to the right doesn’t exist. So sad. We won’t get smaller government. And the normative moralists will be more noticeable, louder, as they trounce on the rights of those of us who want them to just go away.

    On the bright side…only four more years until the next election! 🙂

  6. And what happens then, Andrew? The return of the Clintonistas?

  7. And what happens then, Andrew?? The return of the Clintonistas?

    Yep, the GWB win saves Hillary’s presidential hopes. A Kerry/Edwards win would have put her out to pasture.

  8. My prediction, that the volume of email through my inbox would fall 30% from what it’s been for the last few months, seems to be holding.

  9. I say, to hell with 2008, California ought to just leave the union now. What the hell do we get from letting crappy rectangular states kick us around?

  10. 2008 will be Edwards/Obama.

    And yes, the nation will continue to pat itself on the back to death.

  11. “California ought to just leave the union now.”

    Hear, hear. I don’t think you’ll get any argument from either side of the political spectrum on that one.

  12. Oh, yeah? Well, we’ll just cut off your . . . uh, movies — yeah, and your television shows!!

  13. “Yep, the GWB win saves Hillary’s presidential hopes.”

    Oh for Christ’s sake, no! Not a Hillary vs. Arnold ’08!

    Wait a second, Arnold would never carry the same southern constituency who voted in a Senator that said un-wed mothers shouldn’t be allowed to teach in public schools.

    Does carrying California make up for that?

  14. Jose,

    That’s a form of limited immigration I can live with…if it means the rectangular states are more difficult to get into. How about an Ariel Sharon wall with a little door in it so we can get to Reno on weekends?

  15. Crusader Rabbit:

    And what happens then, Andrew? The return of the Clintonistas?

    That is EXACTLY what happens. Hillary runs in 2008, and with Dick Cheny not seeking, nor accepting the nomination for president, that leaves the republican party adrift, making Hillary a shoe-in for president. And if there were ever a candidate that made me say things like “I’m leaving the country if [candidate] wins”, she’d be one.

    Paul

  16. Oh for Christ’s sake, no! Not a Hillary vs. Arnold ’08!

    Well, at least half of it’s true. Arnold can’t run- he’s not a natural citizen. So, perhaps Hillary vs. Giuliani? Hmm, I’m honestly trying to figure out WHO’s in the republicans is going to take on Hillary.

    Paul

  17. >Well, at least half of it’s true. Arnold can’t run- he’s not
    >a natural citizen.

    (Yes, steriods DO cook your balls, but he’s somehow managing
    to continue bangin’ Maria — a Kennedy!!!) Anyhoo…

    They might be able to amend the Constitution in 4 years —
    especially with 3-4 new justices…
    Not-Daniel

  18. The square states will most likely provide weapons, logistical and intelligence support to the Mexican army that conducts the Reconquista of the California Republic.

    That is a revanchist scheme we can all support.

    As for Mrs. Clinton, if the Dimmycrats think they can win with her in 2008, they are welcome to try. I wish they wouldn’t, though, as it might be better for all concerned if the Republicans did not control the government through 2012.

    No little door for Andrew, he will be strip searched at McCarran like all the other undesirables.

  19. “that leaves the republican party adrift, making Hillary a shoe-in for president.”

    uh… that’s an… interesting opinion. I think the Republican nomination in 2008 will be damned interesting, at the very least. You’ve probably got Guiliani and McCain in there, both socially moderate(to liberal even) Republicans, and then probably your Orrin Hatch no-hoper types, a couple of scattered governors, and maybe… Jeb Bush (horror!). There’s even a couple people in there I might want to vote for.

    And given how the Clinton/McAuliffe wing of the Democratic party has failed for eight years, I think Hillary is far from a shoo-in for the nomination, let alone the presidency.

  20. California would just build de-salinization plants and get their water from the ocean. They also have a large enough economy to build as many power plants as they want.

  21. Coat hangers for sale!! Who needs coathangers??

  22. Reading all the predictions about who the Republicans will run in ’08, I’m glad that neither New Hampshire nor Iowa are in the South.

    …Gimmie a break, I’m lookin’ for a bright side!

  23. The square states will most likely provide weapons, logistical and intelligence support to the Mexican army that conducts the Reconquista of the California Republic.

    Have you been talking to Lonewacko?

  24. Thoreau,

    No, I have not talked to Lonewacko.

    The idea of California seceding is asinine. When the idea is mentioned, I enjoy considering just how stupid things would get if it ever happened.

    As to my musing about a Reconquista, there is no reason that the last, real, multi-national empire – the USA – will remain a unitary state forever, or that our neighbors wouldn’t carve us up like Poland if the Union did break up. If we had conquered the eastern part of Canada during the War of 1812 (or later, see http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html) who’s to say we wouldn’t have the problem of the Quebecoises, or illegals from Alberta. Then again, Alberta’s pretty rich, so maybe our French would be sneaking into the rump of Canada. Who knows.

    Crap, I’m boring myself.

  25. “California would just build de-salinization plants and get their water from the ocean.”

    Do you have any idea how bad desal plants are for the environment. The waste product is a high concentration brine that is hard to dispose of safely.

    The foregoing is only partly tongue-in-cheek.

  26. I’ll say it now, so I can be all cool and cutting edge: Bill Owens for President in ’08 for the GOP. He’s actually a pretty decent fellow, fiscally. I’m not sure how socially conservative he is.

  27. Um, well, the Mexicans would be welcome to try to conquer us, but seriously, Mexico? They’re not a whole hell of a lot better off than they were when they lost us to begin with. As to the power and water situation, I imagine there are market-based solutions for all of that. In return, we’d save billions in tax revenues that are currently squandered on various projects in poor red states, and further, a Californian state would be free of imperial ambitions, saving us an ungodly amount in military expenses. (In fairness, our government would probably just turn around and squander the money themselves, but there’s a reason we elect a Republican every so often…) I mean, really, why not? Pettiness aside, what would we lose?

  28. “They might be able to amend the Constitution in 4 years — especially with 3-4 new justices…”

    This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court would “interpret” its way out of the bar on natural citizens from running for president without a formal amendment? The Supreme Court isn’t quite that brazen. Otherwise, I don’t see how the makeup of the Supreme Court would be relevant.

  29. Hmm, Dubya has scrupulously avoided putting anyone in his cabinet who could even win a primary, let alone a general election… Anybody want to start taking wagers on the probability that he’ll annoint Jeb Bush as his successor?

  30. AC,

    If the RC saves all that money on an Army, how would they resist the Ejercito Mexicano?

    It’ll be just like the Croation reconquest of Krajina in 1995.

    It’s unlikely but not impossible. Especially after the remaining 49 send all their mercenaries to help (see http://www.mpri.com/).

    Viva la Reconquista!

  31. “. . . As to the power and water situation, I imagine there are market-based solutions for all of that. . .”

    Heh, “market-based” and “California” don’t seem to be concepts that go well together.

    And Jason Bourne, there’s no way in Hell that the enviro-wacko’s are going to allow new power plants, these people seem to think that a return to a pre-industrial society would be a *good* thing.

  32. I think Hillary is far from a shoo-in for the nomination, let alone the presidency.

    Brian:

    Gee, I hope you’re right. But I’m guessing on past performance to predict future results (yeah, I know, never do that with your money). The Clintons have NEVER failed to surprise and surpass expectations. Yes, I know that Bill never got more than 50% of the vote- and yes, I agree that despite what Dems would have us think, that is a significant factor in the longer term. Yes, Hillary, while EXTREMELY popular with the Dem party faithful has high negatives with a lot of voters- ie, not much apathy with Hill, you either love her, or hate her.

    However, I do admit that I’m trying to ignore the Jeb Bush angle. The Bush family is now as big (bigger, maybe) a political dynasty as the Kennedy’s ever were. So Jeb might be a strong Repub nominee. But Jeb aside, I don’t see a strong Repub frontrunner in 2008. I never believed Hillary would win in New York. Last laugh was on me. I never believed Hillary would run for President. No, she hasn’t declared a candidacy yet, but the reality is stronger than ever, and it’s looking like the last laugh will again, be on me.

  33. I’m sorry to be tiresome, but you all overlook the obvious: Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Theodore Anthony Nugent in 2008. Seriously.

  34. Oh, yeah? Well, we’ll just cut off your . . . uh, movies I hear that some excellent porn is produced in Scandinavia. — yeah, and your television shows!! We are libertarians here. All our favorite science fiction shows are made in Canada, and our policy-wonk-talking-head-fests come from NY & DC. You got nothin’.

    Is it just me, or does Fabius sound like he’s living in a Ron Goulart novel?

    Kevin

  35. The Dems will remain adrift until Barack is ready to run. Anyone who thinks Hilary can win the Presidency is just talking nonsense, although I do think she’ll win the nomination.

    McCain will be the Republican nominee, and president in 2008, if he doesn’t get old in the interim. The war on terror will still be an issue. (If the American people could have gone back and rerun 2000 with foreknowledge of 9/11, and Bush’s retreat from his small government promises, does anyone doubt that McCain would have beaten all comers by 20 points?) And a deficit hawk will look even better by 2008.

  36. Kevin,

    Never heard of him but I did read a friend’s copies of American Flagg and Judge Dredd when I was at university. (Not that I wouldn’t have bought comic books, I just didn’t have the disposable income.)

    Now those are some dystopia’s I can understand.

    Considering the very little I know of the whole of recorded history, the trends of the last 300 years are so positive (compared to the rest of the chronicle of oppression, massacres, bloodletting, etc.) that I just can’t get too wound up about the ephemera of current events.

  37. I’ve got one for you guys – Cheney resigns the vice-presidency in 2006 for health reasons, and is replaced by a plausible presidential candidate. Probably not Jeb, but I haven’t come up with an alternative yet. Any other ideas?

  38. Agammamon,

    California is currently building some very large natural-gas fired plants right now (indeed, one or two have probably come on-line since the so-called power crisis). So, you are proven wrong right there. Do keep up with current events.

    Heh, “market-based” and “California” don’t seem to be concepts that go well together.

    Yes, California only makes up what, 1/8th of the U.S. economy; nothing market-based there at all; no sort of economic success there.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.