Subscribe via RSS Feed

2011 Prediction Review

[ 31 ] January 1, 2012 |

In accordance with the requirements of the Pundit-Blogger Accountability Act of 2010, here is my review of last year’s predictions:

World Series Champion: Philadelphia Phillies
College Football National Champion: Oregon Ducks
Heisman Trophy Winner: LaMichael James
North Korean Nuclear Tests: 1
South Korean Fatalities due to North Korean military action: 25
Russian Nuclear Submarine Accidents: 1
Israeli Strikes on Iran: 0
Sarah Palin Presidential Candidacies: 1
December 2011 Unemployment: 9.2% (8.6%)
Barack Obama approval rate: 50.1% (44.9%)
US GDP Growth, 3rd quarter 2011: 3.1% (1.8%)
Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities: 48 (54)
Afghanistan Coalition Military Fatalities: 650 (565)
Best Picture: Social Network
NFL #1 Draft Pick: Andrew Luck
Victor, Kentucky Gubernatorial: David Williams
# of Jonathan Pollards released: 0
US Supreme Court Vacancies: 1

And of course, I also placed dead last in the LGM World Cup Challenge. Thank God the Russians came through with the submarine thing, else this might have been embarrassing.

2012, and remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results:

World Series Champion: Texas Rangers
College Basketball National Champion: Kentucky Wildcats
Israeli Strikes on Iran:0
3rd Quarter 2012 GDP Growth: 2.0%
Number of Syrian Presidents named Assad on 12/31/12: 1
North Korean nuclear tests: 1
November 2012 Unemployment: 8.1%
Democratic seats, Senate: 47
Democratic seats, House: 220
GOP Presidential Nominee: Mitt Romney
Barack Obama Electoral Votes: 272
Afghanistan Coalition fatalities: 485

Share with Sociable

Comments (31)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TBogg says:

    Slapfights with Glenn Greenwald: 1

  2. Erik Loomis says:

    The Obama campaign is really confident about Virginia and North Carolina and I am too.

  3. You’re predicting that Obama will be reelected with fewer EVs than he won the first time around.

    Two presidents have been reelected under those circumstances: Franklin Roosevelt (twice) and Woodrow Wilson.

    I agree.

  4. Sonka says:

    Hey, at least you came really close on David Williams

  5. Were you thinking there would be a double-dip recession early in 2011, and then a more robust recovery later? That’s the only way I can come out with your high December unemployment rate, along with a high Q3 growth rate.

  6. snarkout says:

    You’re predicting that the Republicans will take four net Senate seats, but the Democrats will control the White House and take back the House? That doesn’t seem particularly likely, even with an unfavorable Senate landscape for them.

    • Robert Farley says:

      It’s the unfavorable Senate landscape that I’m thinking of. And I only have Dems taking Presidency and House by razor thin margins…

      • Erik Loomis says:

        He is polling very well in those states. His numbers remain positive even with the bad economy. The continued growth of northern Virginia and the research triangle are turning those states blue. I feel much stronger about those states than Colorado.

      • snarkout says:

        Oh, I did the math wrong. There are 51 Democrats in the Senate at the moment, but since Sanders and Lieberman are both technically independents and Lieberman is going to be replaced by a Democrat, you’re basically calling for a Republican near sweep of competitive races. (I assume that’s NE/ND/MT/MO/OH/[VA or WI in a you-pick-em]). If you’re counting Sanders as a Democrat, you’re saying they lose both VA and WI.

        I’d say that’s far too negative given how the polling currently looks, even given the tough row to hoe, *especially* if you’re predicting an Obama victory (even a narrow one) with enough national support for the Democrats for them to regain the House in the face of neutral-to-negative redistricting. (I’d say Democrats are likely to hold at least two of Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ohio, as well as pick up Massachusetts, even in the event of a narrow Obama loss. I’d say your prediction doesn’t reflect a bloodbath for the Democrats (as 2006, 2008, and 2010 all showed, in the event of a real landslide, you’ll see people lose in shockers), but doesn’t look like a narrowly Democratic election night.

        • snarkout says:

          Christ, my ability to manage simple arithmetic is failing as I age. 53 – 47 = 6, not 7, so strike my comment about losing both Virginia and Wisconsin.

          (As Erik says elsewhere, Obama continues to poll more strongly in Virginia than he does elsewhere in the country; I’d think a Kaine loss is actually slightly less likely than Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin losing.)

  7. djw says:

    In hindsight, it’s a bit puzzling you thought 9.2% unemployment and Obama over 50 were compatible.

  8. commie atheist says:

    You’re going to totally regret not predicting the huge liberal Democratic groundswell for Paul, which will lead to Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a doddering, impotent racist fuck in the White House.

  9. I think you’ve got to give yourself at least half credit for the Palin presidential campaign: she’s clearly campaigning for SOMETHING, at least in her own mind.

    • L.M. says:

      I haven’t really given this any thought, but it’s possible she’s trying for a reverse Huntsman. If Romney is the nominee, the Republicans will have nominated “moderates” two cycles in a row. I think Romney will lose; even if he wins, the economy will remain terrible. It’s possible the Republican base will look back on Palin and think “what if?”

      And she’s still young, and the Republican bench is very thin.

      Or she’s just grifting. Or she’s just a mess.

  10. bob mcmanus says:

    I’ll take the under on Assads

  11. Curious why you changed Afghanistan “fatalities” to Afghanistan “casualties.” If you did this on purpose, you seem to think the war is going to improve substantially since that casualty number will be hit in as little as 1+ month based on extrapolations from official numbers from 2010 and 2011.

    • Robert Farley says:

      My error; corrected.

      • I didn’t think you meant that but thought it worth asking. I really wish your earlier prediction could happen – but alas, that isn’t the reality our troops face there, ceteris paribus of course. The $64,000 question – or shall I say, 100,000 troop question – is whether 2014 will be an “inflection point” or a real moment in the history of that place.

  12. [...] Back in January I predicted that Assad would make it through 2012. I’ll stick to that, but I’m less confident now, although I also don’t see much chance for any significant international intervention. [...]

  13. [...] map is here. This differs from the prediction I made in January only by the shift of Ohio from Romney to Obama. Obama national vote: 49.8%. [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.