Even though I did a pretty good job guessing at the outcome of the 2010 elections, I’m a policy wonk, not a political hack, so take these predictions with a bucket of salt.
Especially since I’m predicting Ron Paul will win even though the intrade.com betting shows a Romney victory, and I cited those betting markets in 2010 when predicting that Scott Brown would win the special election for Ted Kennedy’s seat by a 51-48 margin (actual results: 51.8-47.1).
So here’s my prediction, along with a few thoughts on each candidate.
Paul (23 percent)
Ron Paul’s gotten a lot of flak for having some unsavory supporters, and that will probably hurt him, but he benefits from being an anti-politician. And he appeals to all the Republicans who want less government. Simply stated, what you see is what you get – even when it’s something crazy such as being against the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Santorum (22 percent)
I’m mystified by Santorum’s rise in the polls, which I think is happening solely because he’s not Mitt Romney and voters have somewhat soured on the other supposedly conservative candidates. But I want to stress the “supposedly” in the previous sentence. The former Pennsylvania Senator is not a fiscal conservative, having supported all the wasteful spending of the Bush years. If he does well, Mitt Romney will be very happy since Santorum will split the anti-Mitt vote for a longer period of time.
Romney (22 percent)
The former Massachusetts Governor tries to be all things to all people, which means he routinely does the wrong thing on policy (i.e., his refusal to reject the value-added tax, his less-than-stellar record on healthcare, his weakness on Social Security reform, his anemic list of proposed budget savings, and his reprehensible support for ethanol subsidies). But he has a base of support among people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans. For what it’s worth, I’ve already predicted that he wins the nomination and loses to Obama in November.
Perry (14 percent)
The Texas economy gives Perry a strong talking point, but he did not do well in the debates. Moreover, some Americans are probably reluctant to trust another folksy Texas GOP Governor after what happened during the Bush years. He still has a chance of winning the nomination if he can survive ’til South Carolina and consolidate the anti-Mitt vote.
Gingrich (12 percent)
The former Speaker of the House enjoyed a meteoric rise because of his debate performances, but the other candidates then ganged up and reminded voters of Newt’s various sins – such as criticizing the Ryan budget, climbing into bed (or at least onto a couch) with Nancy Pelosi to advance global warming hysteria, and supporting ethanol handouts. Heck, I remember having a bitter argument with Newt back in 2003 about Bush’s terrible prescription drug entitlement.
Bachmann (5 percent)
Congresswoman Bachmann had her moment of glory last summer when she won the Ames straw poll. She’ll be out of the race after today’s results.
Huntsman (2 percent)
He is putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket, so his last-place performance won’t surprise anyone. As a general observation, I’m surprised he’s not pushing his rather attractive tax reform plan.
P.S. I’m also surprised that Gary Johnson didn’t attract more support. And I’m baffled that the GOP establishment kept him out of the debates. That decision drove the former New Mexico Governor to bolt for the Libertarian Party. I suspect he will do surprisingly well, assuming Romney is the GOP nominee.
[…] Even though my 2012 predictions for the Iowa Caucus were less than stellar, some folks have emailed to ask what I think will happen […]
[…] Even though my 2012 predictions for the Iowa Caucus were less than stellar, some folks have emailed to ask what I think will happen […]
[…] of you have asked for my New Hampshire predictions. I’m not sure why anyone would care after my Iowa predictions were such a bust. But I respond to market demand, so here you […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] the Value-Added Tax, and America’s European Future 0 Translatorvar ackuna_src = "en";My Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] type="text/javascript">');document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,47,83,67,82,73,80,84,62)); My Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
Dan Mitchell said about Ron Paul:
Simply stated, what you see is what you get – even when it’s something crazy such as being against the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Reading this I think perhaps I am not the only one that thinks Mr. Paul foreign policy is foolish.
[…] Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted […]
The question is Dan, are you putting money on your predictions on InTrade?
Being against assassination is not crazy. What makes us so much better than terrorists if we behave like that? With our vast military, why could we not bring Bin Laden back to face trial?
Besides, don’t you think it was just a little “fishy” the way that whole thing went down.
Yes, he would have worked with the Pakistani government, we would have found Osama gone when we arrived.
I like the idea of a Ron Paul as president, we would finally have the “CHANGE” Obama promised the American people.
Good luck RP. Maybe we’ll see a Paul-Johnson ticket in 2012.
For what its worth, Paul was not against killing Osama, he was against assassinating a target without working with the government in charge of the area the target was found in. He would have worked with the Pakistani Government to arrest the individual and bring him to justice in courts. In relation to the rest of your article, I agree, Ron Paul will win the Iowa Caucus, which I’m personally hoping will alleviate peoples fears that he is “/quote ‘un-electable’ /unquote”.