A year from now there will still be over 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq.
« What's It All About? | Main | If You've Got Nothing Nice to Say »
Your Year in Iraq Predictions
31 Dec 2007 09:02 am
Comments (27)
That's just about the safest prediction you could possibly make. The US military won't even be down to pre-surge levels (about 130,000 troops) until next summer. Is there a single person who knows what he or she is talking about who thinks there will be (as opposed to "should be") fewer than 100,000 US troops in Iraq when Bush leaves office?
As long as we're throwing predictions out there: I predict there will be more than 100,000 American troops in Iraq at the end of 2009.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Bush withdraw enough troops to get below 100,000 in time for the election. Then again I thought that was going to happen in '06 too.
I'm thinking things will seem much better in Iraq come October, but then worse again in December.
Matthew's Year in Iraq Prediction in Iraq is correct.
-----
Petey's Week in Iowa Prediction:
39% Edwards
31% Clinton
26% Obama
OK, Petey, you're on: I'll put my money where your mouth is. If Edwards reaches 39% in Iowa, I'm sending him a $100 donation.
"OK, Petey, you're on: I'll put my money where your mouth is. If Edwards reaches 39% in Iowa, I'm sending him a $100 donation."
If you did the caucuses today, I think he'd be around 35%. And he's picking up all the late-deciders.
(Today's Zogby tracker showed him up 2 points in the last 24 hours.)
I actually think he's got a decent shot of winning by double digits.
As any advantage player (as my gambling buddy who wins consistently at online poker refers to himself) would tell you -- never bet your heart. If the over/under for Edwards was 38%, then I'd definitely take the under. He might squeak out a win, but I'd bet he won't break 35%.
"He might squeak out a win, but I'd bet he won't break 35%."
As stated, I think he'd get around 35% today, and he's likely to gain significant support over the final 72 hours.
Don't forget the particularities of the caucus rules. Edwards could easily walk into the caucuses with 32% of first choice support numerically statewide, and walk out with 42% in the final results. He's cleaning up in second choice support of the non-viable candidates, and he's cleaning up in the overweighted rural precincts too.
As stated, don't be astonished if he wins by double digits.
Also, don't be astonished if Clinton and Obama figure out that Edwards is gone and start attacking one another in an attempt to avoid the dreaded third place finish.
"A year from now there will still be over 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq."
Yes, but two years from now?
Well, I haven't spent any time on the endless polls and such out of Iowa, but I certainly hope that Petey's right!
One prediction I would make is that if Edwards actually wins Iowa by that sort of margin---despite having a fraction of the money and media coverage of two rivals---the momentum will give him a clear win in NH, and probably the nomination as well...
I hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but there's really scant hope to defeat HRC for the nomination -- there are just too many state organizational delegates that have been Clinton's since before dirt was created.
You might be surprised lemuel. The caucuses are not simple ballotting. If the second tier candidates are looking bad, their voters are free to abandon them, and switch their vote to another candidate. Edwards is believed to be the second choice of most of the future also-ran supporters.
The latest poll shows essentially a 3-way dead heat at around 23% each, leaving 31% undistributed among the top 3. Edwards only needs about half of that to redistribute to him to get to that 39%. The key for Edwards is whether Richardson's and Biden's support collapses or not.
Of course there will be more than 100,000 US troops in Iraq a year from now, and the next six months will make the difference.
A more difficult question to chew on: The Celtics traded for a guy whose numbers are a little lower than the guy they traded, then added an aging all-star who seemed to duplicate the skills of the one good player they already had, and instantly turned from a hopelessly bad team to an astonishingly good one -- their nearly 14 point margin of victory is ridiculous. How do you explain this?
I predict there will be over 100,000 American troops in Iraq on Tuesday November 6th, 2012.
It's a pretty safe bet because no serious candidate for president (since Dean in '04) has yet campaigned on withdrawal.
"the momentum will give him a clear win in NH, and probably the nomination as well..."
The closest thing to a tracking poll in NH right now is ARG, and they've got Edwards picking up 6 points in the last ten days.
In other words, he's already surging in NH in advance of IA. I think he's perfectly positioned to take advantage of any boost from the IA results in NH.
The Clinton attempted firewall is going to come in NV. She's got the Harry Reid state party machinery behind her there. (Remember how Reid was able to pack the hall for the televised debate there this fall?) I assume the NV Culinary union will come out for Edwards if he wins IA, but NV is still going to be Clinton's best shot to stop Edwards from rolling the table.
"I hope Edwards wins in Iowa, but there's really scant hope to defeat HRC for the nomination -- there are just too many state organizational delegates that have been Clinton's since before dirt was created."
Do the math. I think Clinton is plus less than 100 among Superdelegates. If she pooches IA and NH, you're not going to be able to put that Humpty Dumpty back together. Clinton needs to actually win elections if she wants to be the nominee.
Edwards is believed to be the second choice of most of the future also-ran supporters.
I've heard that too. But unless there's been a real shift in the last month or so, Clinton and Obama are the leading second-choice picks of each others' supporters, and that may be more important.
there are just too many state organizational delegates that have been Clinton's since before dirt was created.
Yes, I continue to think that the compressed primary schedule just doesn't leave time for momentum from the early states to trump Clinton's organizational base. Unlike Jeffrey Davis, I'm not particularly bothered by that. But altho I don't think Edwards can win, he's doing yeoman work pushing the debate in a progressive direction and I want to see him continue strong for as long as possible.
"I've heard that too. But unless there's been a real shift in the last month or so, Clinton and Obama are the leading second-choice picks of each others' supporters, and that may be more important."
Both Clinton and Obama are likely to reach viability in most places. So their second choice picks don't matter. It's the second choice picks of the non-major candidates who will actually matter.
The Mason-Dixon poll from yesterday re-assigned the supporters of the non-major candidates to their second choices, and Edwards was up 7 points.
Overall, Edwards is getting in the mid-30's for second choicers, Obama in the low-20's, and Clinton has collapsed to around 10.
In the unlikely event that either Clinton or Obama collapsed to the point where their second choicers come into play, Edwards will easily break 40%.
"Yes, I continue to think that the compressed primary schedule just doesn't leave time for momentum from the early states to trump Clinton's organizational base."
The compressed schedule actually prevents Clinton from being able to remobilize if she loses early. If there were two months between Iowa and most of the delegates being chosen, she'd have a shot. But the early state momentum should be cresting right around 2/5. If we'd run the '84 election under the '08 calendar, Gary Hart would've been the nominee.
I predict there will be 250,000 private contractors in Iraq a year from now.
I'm not sure I buy everything Petey says about Edwards but I hope he's right that he will win by a substantial margin in Iowa. Part of it is the second choice voting and his organization in Iowa. A larger part is that his message is on track with the mid-west populism of Iowa democrats. What really brought me to attention, though, was the phone call to Musharraf. That was a major achievement for Edwards.
"I'm not sure I buy everything Petey says about Edwards"
I wouldn't bet the farm that Edwards will win Iowa. We're still a lifetime away from the actual caucuses.
And I still think Clinton has a very serious shot of winning the nomination. But things are looking very bright for the Edwards cause at the moment.
I agree that things are looking very bright for the Edwards cause at the moment and not wanting to jinx, I will not bet the farm on Edwards. I will bet that there will be an additional non-DoD government employee or private contractor in Iraq for every troop removed below 120,000 in 2008.
My heart hopes Petey is right, but my brain still thinks he's wrong. Anyway, we'll all know soon enough.
By the way, my own preferences are Edwards-Clinton-Obama, but I'll enthusiastically support any of them come Novemebr. And my sense is that while the blogopshere is full of "Clinton must be stopped!" and "Edwards is an empty suit!" (not to mention ""Obama is the antichrist!"), in the real world there are lots more Dems and liberals who will be happy to vote for any of the field.
Wow. New poll just out showing the second choice vote from the non-major candidates goes:
62% Edwards
21% Clinton
17% Obama
If you reassign the non-viable votes, this poll gets Edwards up to around 36%.
How many troops there are at the end of 2008 depends on what happens with Iran and then the plans of the Sunnis and Shia.
If the naysayers are correct, and the NIE has wiped out Cheney's chances of starting a war with Iran - and Israel goes along with that, or is prevented from starting the war by the US refusal to grant overflight permissions for Israeli aircraft - then the issue will depend on whether the al-Sadr militia and the Sunnis decide to start up against the US occupation.
If they decide to wait and see if the US draws down their troops, then we might hit 100,000 at the end of 2008 and the violence will remain contained - temporarily.
Once US troops drop closer to 50,000 in 2009, both Sunnis and Shia will see their opportunities and ratchet up the violence. Then the issue will be how the Dem administration - assuming they win - handles that - by running up another "surge" or pulling the rest of the troops out.
However, if Iran is attacked in 2008 - by the US or Israel - all bets are off. Either US troops will be devastated in Iraq by intense Shia and Iranian assaults, or they will be pulled out (under heavy attack), or another 100,000 will be sent in to attack Iran as utter chaos envelopes Iraq and Iran.
"A year from now there will still be over 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq."
"I predict there will be 250,000 private contractors in Iraq a year from now."
So, if American forces and contractors in Iraq stay at predictable levels, and Iraqi civilians continue to die or flee the country at current rates, how long until Americans in Iraq outnumber Iraqis in Iraq?
You have no idea how much I wish that question were tongue-in-cheek.
Comments closed January 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
That's a lazy, fish-in-a-barrel Atrios-type post, unworthy of MY as political uber-blogger. Stick you neck out!
Posted by otto | December 31, 2007 9:07 AM