’)How does one predict the future? There are many methods, some involving entrails and spells, others use crystal balls. My method is to predict the future by doing the exact opposite of what Hugh Hewitt says.
I’ve done this before. In January of 2007, Hewitt declared “McCain campaign on the rocks”. I took that opportunity to make the observation that momentum was clearly on John McCain’s side for the Republican nomination. I had no hard and fast data in my hands, just the God-given knowledge that to be on the opposite side of an issue from the dishonest Hugh Hewitt is to be on the right side of history. And of course, a little more than a year later Sen. McCain had the GOP nomination while Mitt Romney, the subject of Hewitt’s quickie book A Mormon In The White House? (now available in bargain bins from coast to coast). was roaming the used car lots of America, seeking the surviving members of his tribe.
In 2006, contrary to every poll and analysis, Hewitt insisted that the GOP would hold on to the House and Senate, heck he even implied that they might make gains! Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, of course, know what happened there. Although Hewitt wrote a book about that too. Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority is sort of the “Dewey Defeats Truman” of its genre.
I say this all to preface my new and improved predictor using the Hewitt Indicator. Hewitt writes (citing Victor Davis Hanson, who never got back to me about the made-up “liberal furor” he cited over the movie 300) about the “accelerating collapse” of the Obama campaign. This, my friends, can only mean one thing.
Momentum is on Barack Obama’s side. I worked it out in my math machine, calculating the chances of my statement being true times the amount of wrong Hugh Hewitt sends out into the world on an hourly basis and the result is consistent. Obama has momentum because Hugh Hewitt says he doesn’t.
THAT’S SCIENCE. AND SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE.
(Bonus: As I noted yesterday, Hewitt slammed Obama for using a teleprompter on the trail while two posts down printing a picture of Sarah Palin using a teleprompter. There is now an image in the NY Times of the stage at a McCain campaign stop where McCain is using… a teleprompter.)
[...] Willis has made a startling discovery which has important scientific ramifications: The Hewitt Indicator: How does one predict the future? There are many methods, some involving entrails and spells, [...]
That’s all very well and good, but I’m not putting any money down until I hear from Bill Kristol. He’s my anti-crystal (HA!) ball.
I’m not putting any money down until Bill Kristol weighs in. He’s my anti-crystal(HA!) ball.
When he says Obama is gonna lose, I’m all in.
To be fair, almost everybody thought Sen. McCain was done for in 2007. Good for you, though, for properly divining the Hewitt.
He also predicted that Ohio State would trample USC in the last big game before the Democrat Party let terrorists destroy America.
How’s that working out, Baby Huey?
He also predicted that Ohio State would trample USC in the last big game before the Democrat Party let terrorists destroy America.
Yeah, that was a personal favorite of mine.
Totally off topic, but; anyone see the new Obama ad?
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/09/the-new-obama-ad
I don’t know if anyone here was old enough to vote four years ago or if you read anything more than your local newspaper, but Hugh Hewitt was well out in front in saying the polls were showing Bush would win by 3-4 points nationally. He made the call the night of the third debate when all the polls showed the race essentially tied, and Senator Horseface singled out Dick Cheney’s daughter as being a lesbian. I remember him saying, ‘ladies and gentlemen, George Bush has just won the election’, immediately after Kerry’s huge gaffe.
If he didn’t get a lot of things right, no one would be talking about him.
OT:
Voter Registration for ALL 50 STATES
Spread the word
Get up to speed, rikyrah. It’s a 57 state strategy now.
“If he didn’t get a lot of things right, no one would be talking about him.”
Dennis, you fundamentally misunderstand how Hewitt operates. He does not base his pronouncements on analyzing data or facts. He is a purely ideological animal. He is a cheerleader.
Hewitt will always say that Republicans are winning and will win, no matter what the actual facts are. Have ever heard him actually predict a Republican loss? I never have, even in the face of all the obvious facts. If you listened to his radio show on the night of the 2006 elections, as I did, you would know that well into the night he was still insisting that Republicans were going to pull off huge gains. It was an incredible thing to listen to. The next day his own readers excoriated him in the comments sections of his blog.
As for his prediction about Kerry after the Cheney comment, there isn’t a single thing Obama could say this election after which Hewiit wouldn’t follow up by saying ‘ladies and gentlemen, John McCain has just won the election.’ That’s how he operates. Obama could say the sky is blue and Hewitt would argue that voters in Montana, the “Big Sky State”, will reject Obama’s blatant elitist pandering.
So, sure, he gets some things right because sometimes Republicans win. He is the proverbial broken clock.
Thanks, fafaroo. I don’t get his radio show where I live.
Just curious, though, have you heard him say anything positive or negative about this blog? I’m a bit limited to to only having read Hewitt’s blog and Google, and so far nothing. Maybe he’s mentioned it on his show?
Just adding, Dennis, all you need to know about Hewitt is summed up here:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/09/16/oh-noes-teh-prompter/#more-9213
In the morning Hewitt posts a picture of Palin at a campaign stop with a teleprompter clearly in view on the stage only, later in the afternoon, to post a similar picture of Obama at a rally with a teleprompter in view. Hewitt’s conclusion: Obama can’t speak without a teleprompter. No comment on the teleprompter at Palin’s rally.
The guy simply doesn’t care what the facts are. It’s all about staying on message no matter what.
“Just curious, though, have you heard him say anything positive or negative about this blog?”
Not that I can recall, but so what? If you’re a liberal with a blog, Hewitt considers you part of the “nutter fever swamp,” you know, the fever swamp of Kos and MoveOn.org and George Soros that really gives Pelosi, Reid and Obama their marching orders. It’s the same rant every time he mentions the left blogosphere. If Hewitt were ever to mention this blog I can safely predict exactly the words he would use to describe it: nutter, fever swamp, far left fringe, kook, Media Matters, Soros, etc., etc.
The guys is a broken record. he never changes his line of attack, regardless of the subject or content under discussion.
“If he didn’t get a lot of things right, no one would be talking about him.”
sure, but just imagine how many people would be talking if he DID get something right.
Like I’ve said before, a broken clock is right twice a day, but it’s fucking wrong all the rest of the time.
“Obama leads McCain by 2 points: Reuters poll”
seems OW’s theory works.
Commentary from the NY Daily News
If the two candidates are “tied” between Columbus Day and Halloween, McCain wins…
And, yes, I was wrong in 2006 and 1992
and right
in
2000
2004
1996
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
1968
1964
1960
1956
Damn, Frank… you’re really, really old!
Did you vote for Eisenhower? If so, and you were a Republican in 1956, it surprises me a bit that you’d be a Republican in 2008.
Wow, Frank. Mr. Goodwin engages in some big-time, center-ring clowning in that column you linked for us:
Of course, Mr. Goodwin is probably just having a good laugh at his readers’ expense. The words he quotes from Mr. Plouffe don’t acutally “outlines [sic] the Obama plan” at all. They describe what Mr. McCain has been doing of late–and nearly every observer in the known universe has commented on it.
In quoting Plouffe, Mr. Goodwin absent-mindedly forgets to tell readers something important–what on earth Mr. Plouffe was talking about, something about pigs and lipstick, I believe.
On Mr. Goodwin’s planet, apparently “real independents” make up false stories about their opponents while “scorched earth partisans” point out–correctly–that the attacks are lies.
Now why was it you wanted to bring Mr. Goodwin’s labors to our attention? For our amusement?
Can anyone tell Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager apart?
Hewitt also thought Bush won that first debate in 2004. He is what we call an idiot.
Hewitt has bigger boobs.
Yes, I agree with your Hewitt indicator. He is a true partisan hack. I often go to his blog to see what “the other side” is saying – he lies, posts portions of quotes, takes things out of context – he is truly a buffoon! Don’t confuse him with the facts! Remember “Romney rising, Romney rising?” He begged his fellow travelers not to vote for McCain during the primaries, saying he is not a true “conservative,” cited his working across the aisle with Democrats (horrors!), the Gang of 14, etc. When McCain actually won the nomination, have you actually seen any postings on why McCain is great and should be voted for? No! It’s all a referendum against Obama! That’s all – smear and lie 24/7.
Remember the days when Frank posted “rarely, if at all?” Those were the good old days.
I fondly remember those (three) days.
For the benefit of Mr Henry, who seems to have difficulty with the use of adjectives and adverbs :
rare·ly (rârl)
adv.
1. Not often; infrequently:
[...] (By the way, has anybody asked Rove if he’s got “the math” on this election? Maybe he shared it with Hugh Hewitt.) [...]
Obama has momentum because Hugh Hewitt says he doesn’t.
THAT’S SCIENCE. AND SCIENCE DOESN’T LIE.
You are wise in the ways of Science, My Liege!
Don’t forget Hugh’s championing of Harriet Mier’s for SCOTUS, I believe he was one of the last 3 people in America(George Bush and Harriet Miers being the others) who thought it was going to actually happen.
Frank said, “If the two candidates are “tied” between Columbus Day and Halloween, McCain wins…”
Correlation is not causation.
An even better prognosticator is Dick Morris. Whatever Dick Morris says or predicts is always, always, 100%, 180 degrees, bass ackwards wrong. Hewitt is wrong all the time because Republicans are wrong and Hewitt just says what he thinks will make Republicans look good on any given day. Hacky wrong is bad, but ultimately it’s just a coincidence combined with stupidity. Morris, however, taps into some deeper force in the universe that allows him to be wrong on a whole other level. He is the Platonic form of wrong. Hewitt is a poor, deformed accident of wrong.
I believe that if the candidates are reported as “tied” or “in a close race”, that that will not actually be the case… I believe that major network and other media bias (NYT LAT WashPo) will report them as close , when they really are not …
“Suddenly” and “surprisingly” on Election Day, there will be an “upset victory” by McCain …
Prepare the “there were voting irregularities in ____________ (name of battleground state)” OR “America wasn’t ready for a Black President” memo for Wednesday morning…
The first time I observed this phenomenon was in 1972 , when Nixon – McGovern was reported as “close” — there were even reports that Nixon might not win California…
Nixon won 48 or 49 states — part of his Southern (and Eastern and Western and Northern) Strategy, I guess…
I’ve never seen or commented on this blog before, but Frank’s post is an outright lie. Everybody knew McGovern was doomed in 1972, it was just a matter of how badly he was going to be killed. There _may_ have been reports about California being close, but the country? Total BS. Frank is a liar. Probably not on Palin’s level, but still a liar.
Yes, everyone knew McGovern was toast for well over the last month of the 1972 Election…probably even longer, but many did not want to accept it, considering that meant another 4 years of Richard Nixon…of course, it turned out to be less than 4 years, but that’s another story.
A classic from the vault:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/06/karl_rove_on_election_eve
[...] return to the favorite and most accurate indicator of the future on OliverWillis.com. As I said before, “My method is to predict the future by doing the exact opposite of what Hugh Hewitt [...]