Predictions
Continuing my informal series of blog posts beginning with “P”, here are a few predictions for the coming year:
1. Domestic politics:
i. Not because I really expect it but because I think it’s plausible, I predict that the 2008 Presidential Election will be: McCain-Huckabee versus Obama-Webb.
As I say: in neither case is this the most-likely outcome. The most likely outcome is Romney vs Clinton – and getting more likely by the day. But that’s a boring prediction.
So I’ll make some contingent predictions and some other predictions about the 2008 elections in the US:
ii. My VP picks for McCain and Obama are so blindingly obvious that I can’t imagine either candidate choosing anybody else. It’s less obvious who Clinton and Romney should – or would – pick. So I’ll predict that if they get their respective nominations, Clinton will pick Richardson and Romney will pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
iii. If McCain is still in the race after New Hampshire, then when Thompson drops out he will endorse McCain.
iv. If McCain is still in the race after South Carolina, then Arnold Schwarzenegger will endorse him.
v. Bill Richardson will drop out after losing Iowa and endorse Clinton.
vi. Edwards will drop out after losing South Carolina, and will endorse whoever is clearly winning at that point (and if it’s still up in the air, he won’t endorse).
vii. Rudy Giuliani will not drop out until it’s become embarrassing.
viii. Al Gore will not endorse Hillary Clinton, except in the general election.
ix. Ron Paul will get double-digits in New Hampshire, which will be his strongest showing for the campaign in any major contest. He will not run as an independent.
x. Neither will Michael Bloomberg.
xi. Enough with the Presidential race already! That’s ten items! Let’s look at the Senate. The Democrats will pick up Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia, and the next Senate will contain two Senators named “Udall.”
2. We are only forced to suffer through a Presidential contest every four years. But we have to suffer through the Oscar process every year. So:
i. I boldly predict that “No Country for Old Men” will win Best Picture. This is based on absolutely nothing – I have not seen the film and know virtually nothing about it. But since I haven’t seen any of the other films that will be nominated, I’m not biased.
Futhermore:
ii. Best Director will go to Joe Wright for “Atonement,” another film I haven’t seen. The Coens will get a nomination, but not the award.
iii. Best Actor will go to Daniel Day Lewis for “There Will be Blood” – yet another film I haven’t seen, but unlike the previously mentioned two films, this one I’d like to see. Denzel Washington also gets nominated, for “American Gangster,” and Viggo Mortensen, for “Eastern Promises,” and I’m not sure who else.
iv. Best Actress goes to Keira Knightley for “Atonement,” because, you know, that’s the way things work. Going in to the nominations, people are talking about how lousy the field is for women this year. When the nominations come out, though, people will be talking about what an interesting bunch of nominees it is – Amy Adams for “Enchanted,” Ellen Page, for “Juno,” Laura Linney, for “Savages” – and then they’ll give the statuette to Keira Knightley, for “Atonement.” Because, you know, that’s the way things work.
v. In spite of appearing in every single movie this year, and hence running the risk of splitting his natural vote, Philip Seymour Hoffman will still win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for “Charlie Wilson’s War.” Because that’s what great actors do: they support; stars star. Unless you’re Daniel Day Lewis.
vi. In like vein, Cate Blanchett, who doesn’t even got nominated for “Elizabeth II: This Time It’s Personal” – probably because the title confused people who thought they were going to see Helen Mirren – gets the Oscar for playing Bob Dylan in certain parts of “I’m Not There.” Rumors that she will play the former President as a young dog in parts the upcoming “Where’s The Rest of Me?” could not be confirmed at press time.
vii. Diablo Cody will refuse to accept the award for Best Original Screenplay (for “Juno”) in solidarity with the striking writers.
viii. In non-Oscar movie news, “Ender’s Game” will still be wandering homeless through the streets of Hollywood. There will be no sign of a Ringworld movie either, but that doesn’t matter, because World of Ptavvs, Dream Park and The Mote In God’s Eye would all make better films.
3. Economy and Markets predictions:
i. The major domestic equity indices will be down on the year. They will still outperform the Asian indices, which will be weighed down by the unravelling of the Chinese bubble. But they will underperform the major European indices in local currency and dollar terms.
ii. The dollar will spend the year debating whether to weaken or strengthen, having a volatile but ultimately inconclusive year.
iii. The housing market nationally will trough out in the third quarter, but will flatline from there for quite a while, so that won’t be the end of mortgage defaults.
iv. None of the major monoline insurers (MBIA, Ambac, FSA, FGIC, Security Capital) will go out of business, though most if not all will have to raise new capital. Nonetheless, at least one new monoline will be launched (presumably by Berkshire).
v. Brazil will be one of the few emerging markets to have a good 2007 and a good 2008.
vi. Slowing growth in Asia and the United States will keep oil prices generally below $100/barrel, but geopolitical factors and refining capacity tightness will keep it above $75/barrel.
4. Foreign affairs predictions:
i. Neither the United States nor Israel will bomb Iran. The Iranian regime will not fall. There will be no “grand bargain” between the United States and Iran. Iran’s nuclear power plant will not open on schedule.
ii. Pakistan will postpone its elections. Musharraf will be out of power by the end of the year, pushed out by the army. There will be no civil war. Nawaz Sharif will be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan. Not that it will do any good.
iii. Ehud Olmert will, emulating his nemesis, Bibi Netanyahu, shift focus from the Palestinian “track” to the Syrian “track” in 2008, with some initially promising talks, but there will be no signed peace between Israel and Syria in 2008.
iv. The United States will withdraw all troops in 2008 from . . . Saudi Arabia. This entirely symbolic move (there are only 500 troops left there now) will be coordinated with the Saudi government, and will accompany greater rhetorical opposition to the United States’ role in the region and the failure to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestianian Authority. There will be a big summit meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and King Abdullah at which permanent friendship between the two nations will be solemnized, leading all sorts of people to believe that there’s a new axis of evil afoot when, in fact, these two countries hate each other more than they ever did before.
v. There will be no international intervention to save Darfur.
vi. I’ve been predicting for years that the German far-left will do something to try to capture more of the far-right vote. Oscar Lafontaine’s comments a couple of years ago about the threat from foreign workers were, I thought, the beginning of this move. So I’m going to predict it again: the bigger, stronger, more united German far-left will do something to blur the distinction between far-left and far-right, which will get it a lot of bad press but will win it a slightly higher showing in the 2008 regional elections (though all these elections will actually be won by the conservatives – votes for the far left come from either otherwise disaffected voters or voters who would otherwise vote for the Greens or the SPD).
vii. The “Blues” (KMT) will win a decisive victory in the Taiwanese elections. This will be received extremely favorably by Beijing in the run-up to the Olympics. The Olympics will proceed without incident.
viii. Most of the world will continue to forget that North Korea is still out there, doing whatever it is it does.
5. Other.
i. The kindle won’t do well enough to make a profit, but will do well enough to convince Apple to invest in a competing product.
ii. Some kind of social-networking-based pyramid scheme will be a big enough story to prompt public debate.
iii. Gregory Cochran will publish something impressive and controversial.
iv. Grand New Party will do really, really well.
If I think of any other predictions before midnight, I’ll post updates.
Brilliant! I actually do think PSH’s most deserving role is CWW (though he might not actually deserve the award). He took was was at best B+ dialog and gave an A+ sparkle, and his presence made the movie tolerable, even relatively enjoyable much of the time.
— Peter Suderman · Dec 31, 08:45 PM · #
I love Noah’s predictions, and I find every one of them pretty persuasive … except that last one, maybe …
— Reihan · Dec 31, 08:53 PM · #
“My VP picks for McCain and Obama are so blindingly obvious that I can’t imagine either candidate choosing anybody else.”
Obama would be better off with someone with more conventional experience, such as Biden. Webb makes it two first-term Senators on the ticket.
— right · Dec 31, 11:40 PM · #
please stay away from making Oscar picks… DD-L is a sure thing, but anyone within 100 miles of the intersection of Wilshire/SaMo can tell you that Julie Christie will win BActress, Amy Ryan will win BSActress and Javier Bardem will win BSActor….
— petey · Jan 1, 02:24 AM · #
petey: Not only am I on the other side of the continent from you, but I have not seen any of the films I suggested would win an award. (I did see “Away From Her” actually, and Julie Christie is as fabulous as ever, but I thought the film was just OK.) Then again, I’m not a Pakistan expert, nor do I work for a political campaign. That’s the fun of this nonsense, isn’t it?
— Noah Millman · Jan 1, 02:34 AM · #
My God, World of Ptavvs would be a phenomenal movie. Do you really think Mote in God’s Eye would work out, though? So much happens in the book, I can’t see it needing less than an unreasonable 4 hours of screen time without feeling rushed. My personal pick for a Niven film adaptation would be World Out of Time, though Larry Niven’s not-too-firm grasp of biology would need some major updating.
— Nick · Jan 1, 02:36 AM · #
Nick: Well, Mote may be the most serious attempt at a “first contact” story I’ve ever read, which is the main reason I’d love to see it on film. And I do think it could be reduced to fit – there’s a lot of incident that would have to be cut, but if I recall correctly the book is a fairly slow-starter plot-wise, and a movie would (rightly) cut the whole future history backstory down to nearly nothing, so we’d have the complete amount of time needed to tell the main story. But yeah, I think you could do it. It would take 2 1/2 hours, but you could do it. And the CGI nerds would have so much fun.
But you’re right: World of Ptavvs is a more obvious choice. I wonder who has the rights?
— Noah Millman · Jan 1, 03:07 AM · #
right: I don’t agree. Obama doesn’t need someone with a lot of legislative experience as his VP, and he doesn’t need someone who overshadows him. He does need someone who balances the fact that he’s a young black man from Hawaii/Indonesia/Chicago who spent most of his career as an activist and has raised a ton of money from the hedge fund world. Webb complements Obama in all the right ways: he’s got military experience, he’s a former Republican, he’s something of an economic populist, and he wrote a book about his pride in his ornery Scots-Irish (some might say: cracker) heritage. But he doesn’t overshadow Obama because he’s not an old Washington hand, and he’s not a camera hound or a natural campaigner, and he’s not a whole lot older and more experienced – he just has a very different set of experiences.
Having Webb on the ticket reassures a whole collection of people who might otherwise be nervous about Obama: rural folks, military veterans, people who are nervous about voting for a black man (and there are more of them than I would like to admit). Webb is triply important if Obama is facing McCain, because the question will come up of whether Obama is ready to be Commander in Chief the way McCain is. The largest part of Obama’s answer is going to relate to his judgement and temperament; but Webb crucially validates that because he can speak from experience, and say that he agrees with the skinny kid from the South Side.
(I want to be clear: I’m not suggesting Obama needs a Cheney, or that Webb would be his Cheney.)
— Noah Millman · Jan 1, 03:25 AM · #
Romney will never pick the pro-choice Hutchinson. Evangelicals are already suspicious of him on this issue (and because of the Mormon thing). A ridiculous prediction.
— Thursday · Jan 1, 04:21 AM · #
I have already made a bet on this ticket. I have lost all my contributions (to Obama) due to Clinton Attack Machine (Shaheen, Bill on Rose & Register editorial board chasing, Kerrey, Penn, etc.)
McCain and Kay Bailey
versus
Clinton and Richardson/Clark/Kerrey
The victory will be McCain.
The theme will be Character and Integrity.
Both of which Clinton lacks, but Obama has.
For Democrats to win, the ticket should be:
Obama and Biden/Dodd
Enough said. McCain will be the next President. He will demolish Clinton. I will cheer for him all the way. All the way, even though I am a Democrat.
— eorse · Jan 1, 04:38 AM · #
your oscars picks for best picture and director are probably backwards. atonement is the kind of historical romance epic that’s likely to win best picture even if it wins few other oscars, and the coen brothers are long-overdue geniuses whose latest film was massively acclaimed by critics. it’ll be like crash/brokeback or shakespeare in love/saving private ryan.
— Max B. · Jan 1, 05:06 AM · #
Noah: Your rationale makes a lot of sense. I just believe (especially if McCain is the Republican nominee) that Obama will need a Cheney to balance the “inexperience” claim (just as Bush did), and that Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc., are all better suited to that role than Webb. Biden is my top suggestion because of his foreign policy expertise and evident skill at attack dog politics, but as you say Webb also has those pluses going for him.
The main problem with Webb is, I think, that he goes beyond balancing the ticket to producing contradictions: his economic populism, ethnic nationalism, and to some extent even his former job in the Navy run directly opposite to key elements of the Obama message.
— right · Jan 1, 04:39 PM · #
Thursday: As a Texan who actually follows politics, Hutchison (note the lack of ‘n’) is not anywhere close to “pro-choice”. Sorry.
With that said, I don’t really see her being Romney’s VP candidate. Then again, I can’t think of someone I consider more likely, so who knows.
— jbb · Jan 1, 08:48 PM · #
Hey jjb:
You may be a Texan, but you apparently don’t follow the actual votes of Texas politicians. Hutchison has explicitly voted in favour of Roe v. Wade:
http://capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=108&x=14&y=15
She may not be pure enough for your tastes, but she is definitely pro-choice by most reasonable standards.
— Thursday · Jan 2, 02:50 AM · #
Thursday: KBH gets a 75% score from the NRLC and a 7% score from NARAL. That sounds to me like she generally votes for restrictions on abortion and to confirm GOP judicial picks, but does not favor the outright criminalization of abortion. You say that makes her pro-choice.
I bet she comes to the ticket with better pro-life credentials than Romney, to say nothing of Giuliani. And she has the same NRLC score as McCain. So she will be as pro-life as any of the plausible ticket-leaders. She’s also got as good or better credentials on the issue than Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush had when they ran. But you say she’s absolutely unacceptable.
Who’s demanding purity here?
You’re free to argue that nobody who isn’t in favor of making abortion illegal in all circumstances should be on the ticket. But that’s very different from saying that no such person could be on the ticket.
— Noah Millman · Jan 2, 05:39 AM · #
1. Well, if Giuliani is your standard, then just about everybody in the Republican party is more pro-life. That is irrelevant. Rudy is going down in flames.
2. Read the individual votes, not just the overall ratings.
a) McCain’s rating is reflective of his votes on campaign finance reform, which NRLC somewhat bizarrely counts as being pro-abortion. This will matter nothing in the general election.
b) McCain has clearly voted against Roe v. Wade, while Hutchinson has clearly voted for it. Hutchinson’s (few) public statements on this issue have been to clearly support legal abortion. (McCain has made some muddy statements on Roe in the past and has been majorly sucking up to the religious right to make up for it. Hutchison has never done anything of the sort and any last minute conversion would be viewed with skepticism, to say the least.) Her 75% rating is reflective of her votes for parental notice for minors, for conservative judges and against funding for abortion, but on Roe her record is clearly pro-choice, and for a general election that is what will count.
3. A Republican with strong pro-life credentials could probably get away with a moderately pro-choice veep nomination like Hutchison, but a Republican with weak credentials on abortion make himself even more vulnerable by choosing_ someone else_with weak credentials on abortion. If Romney picks Hutchison, it will be a signal that he is not serious about his change of heart on this issue. That would unnecessarily antagonize a key Republican constituency in what will be a close election (assuming, of course, the Democrats doesn’t blow out the Republicans). Furthermore, such “re-ratting” will reinforce the perception of him as an untrustworthy. Its an all around dumb move.
You seem to assume this reflects some sort of preference on my part, but on a purely political calculus your prediction is ridiculous. You say, “I bet she comes to the ticket with better pro-life credentials . . .” With all due respect, you should actually know something about the voting records and public statements of any particular politician before you start shooting your mouth off about them.
— Thursday · Jan 2, 06:36 AM · #
I’d be tickled if those were the choices in Nov 2008. I’d vote for McCain/Huckabee but wouldn’t be heartbroken if Obama/Webb won. None of the 4 are nutters. Giuliani and Hillary are my 2 never-evers.
— Don · Jan 2, 07:10 AM · #
Thursday: first of all, I’m really not wedded to the KBH pick – as I said, it’s less obvious to me who Romney should (or would) pick.
Second, I never said she was pro-life. I said she “generally votes for restrictions on abortion and to confirm GOP judicial picks, but does not favor the outright criminalization of abortion.” Is that inaccurate?
Third, I compared her record to the three leading candidates for the nomination. Giuliani, who I agree is going to lose, is still one of the leading candidates, and has racked up some heavy-duty support from the GOP establishment. And he’s an outright, down-the-line pro-choice politician, someone NARAL would be very happy to see elected. Romney was similarly a flat-out pro-choice politician until very recently, though he has certainly moved very far from that position now. I agree with you that McCain has a more pro-life record than Hutchison, viewed objectively. But the fact that they have the same scores from the NRLC suggests that not everyone views it that way. And McCain did, in 1999 or 2000, say that he thought Roe should not be overturned, because it would lead to deaths from illegal abortions. (He later backtracked from this statement, but I’ve heard any number of pro-life single-issue types bring it up when McCain’s name surfaces.) I’ll agree, that one symbolic vote by KBH stands out, but even considering that vote she winds up in the middle on abortion, favoring some restrictions but not others (that vote was, after all, her only dissenting vote in that year, according to NRLC’s calculus), hardly as the poster-child for the pro-choice position. So rejecting her is a purist position. And that’s all I accused you of: taking a purist position, that Romney’s VP pick must be solidly, full-throatedly pro-life, nothing less.
Does Romney have to pick someone solidly pro-life (not someone who has a reasonable record of voting to restrict abortion and to support conservative judicial picks), in order to hold the coalition together?
Maybe so. But maybe as the nominee he won’t see it that way. Maybe Romney, in particular, will think (a) he won the nomination in part by running as strongly pro-life, so he’s secured that flank, and (b) he needs to pivot now to win the general election. Remember: this pick happens after the primary is over. All through the campaign, Romney has pivoted to attack whoever looks like the biggest threat. If polling says picking KBH helps him pull suburban women away from Hillary, why wouldn’t he seriously consider her?
For what it’s worth, I also suspect there’d be a decent personal chemistry between Romney and KBH, which is very hard for me to picture between Romney and, say, Mike Huckabee.
Look: you may be right. Romney might decide he needs to further bolster his position with pro-lifers going into the general election, or at least not offend them with a pick they find questionable. So: who’s the VP pick you see for Romney, who’s pro-life and also an asset (not a liability) in the general election?
— Noah Millman · Jan 2, 03:04 PM · #