Predicting the Future

People seem to be having a hard time choosing between Democratic Candidates in Iowa.

Nearly 11 months before the presidential election, differences like this are not meaningful, even before you throw in the poll's 3 percent margin of error. So many things can change -- both in terms of the images of the candidates and the problems facing the nation -- that all crystal balls should come with the kinds of warning labels emblazoned on cigarette packs.

Having grown up within (what I like to call) pissing distance of Iowa, this caucus seems like a no brainer. Remember how journalists thought Dean had a chance? I know the upper midwest. These people talk one way to journalists and pollsters because they don't want to appear awkward and backwards. Truth be told, the vast majority of Iowans I have met are closeted bigots and racists who are not trend setters. The front runners are clearly Clinton and Obama. These are the only two worth any attention. And if I know anything about Iowa, Clinton will trounce Obama because it is far better to give your support to a woman (add redneck Iowa farmer gag sound here) than to a black.

Iowa liberals are some of the most conservative Democrats you'll ever meet. Granted, the ones active in the party are not, but the majority of Iowa yellow-dog Democrats are just liberal enough to admit that the KKK is a bad thing, unions are a good thing, and Republicans fuck over farmers. To them, Clinton is man enough for the job. That is better than they would say about Obama in private.

Don't believe me? Fine. In 2006 I predicted the outcome of over 90% of the elections just by looking at photos of candidates. Block out all data about the possible candidates, look at the accompanying photo, and choose the winner. Hillary by a landslide in Iowa.