- The situation in Pakistan will get worse before it gets better. But by the end of the year, it will get better.
- The Democratic-controlled Congress will achieve even less in 2008 than it did in 2007.
- The Democratic nominee will campaign on a platform that includes a threat that "choice" will be brought to an end by the Republican nominee, even though the GOP will nominate someone who refuses to make such a promise.
- The Holy Father will disappoint many conservatives by taking no major disciplinary actions against any prelate, no matter how much they may seem to deserve it.
- The Holy Father will alarm many liberals by appointing more bishops like John Nienstedt.
- There will be a successful terrorist attack in the United States in 2008. Many Republicans will blame Democrats, and many Democrats will blame President Bush. Of course, it will be the terrorists who are really to blame.
- The Democratic Party will nominate Senator Clinton for president, who will in turn name Governor Richardson as her choice for vice president.
- The Republican Party will nominate Governor Romney for president, and he will choose Senator Brownback to be his running mate.
- Hillary Clinton will not be elected President of the United States.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Preview of 2008
Herewith, my third annual predicitons post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's pretty good. I'm just about 100% in agreement, though I am not sure about the terrorist attack in the US - at least, I hope that one doesn't pan out.
I don't know about #2. Is it even possible for them to do less?
As for Vice-presidential picks. The GOP certainly has not had a history of picking vice-presidents from people currently running in the primaries for the role. Though in recent years the Democrats have done this so Richardson is a least a possibility.
Considering that Sen. Brownback endorsed John McCain I consider it very unlikely the Gov. Romney would make him his pick. Though I would feel much better about a Romney presidency with the good Senator as vice-president.
I also think the Democrats are running much less publicly as being pro-choice. They might highlight this in some venues and give a wink and a nod here and there - but they are equivocating on this issue even more than usual.
I watched one clip of Obama being asked about this and the logical pretzel he was tying himself up with was pretty weird. And of course Hillary is in her husband's camp of saying abortion should be rare.
Paul, on #6, it's certainly not wishful thinking, but I question whether we can hold these guys off 100% indefinitely. I hope I'm wrong. The prior two years I've predicted no successful terrorist attacks on US soil and been right. But think they're really itching to hit us here again.
Jeff, my reasoning on Brownback is simply that Romney needs better pro-life credibility than he has. He has more money than anyone else, and that counts for a lot. But he can't win without an energized pro-life base, and he can't get that without a good pro-life choice for VP. And I'm pretty sure it won't be Huckabee.
On the Dem side, Lieberman is the only VP nominee I can think of in the last 20 years who hadn't run for president.
And you'll hear them play the "choice" card when they start getting scared. When the national defense issues and the fiscal policy issues don't go their way, they'll play the "choice is a risk" card -- along with the "burning black churches" card, to energize their base and make the undecideds think about something else.
I voted for Romney once before.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I pray that your eight prediction is incorrect.
Right on number nine.
Post a Comment