Comments on: Hugh Hewitt Indicator: Obama On The Upswing

By: Hugh Hewitt Indicator: Obama To Win » Oliver Willis

Hugh Hewitt Indicator: Obama To Win » Oliver Willis — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:20:24 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Tom Hughes

Tom Hughes — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:29:21 +0000

A classic from the vault:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/06/karl_rove_on_election_eve

By: Tax Analyst

Tax Analyst — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:16:24 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy Kilgore

Jeremy Kilgore — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:16:03 +0000

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.

By: Frank DiSalle

Frank DiSalle — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:46:02 +0000

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…

By: jonas

jonas — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:16:56 +0000

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.

By: Jim in VA

Jim in VA — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:02:40 +0000

Frank said, “If the two candidates are “tied” between Columbus Day and Halloween, McCain wins…”

Correlation is not causation.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:56:18 +0000

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.

By: JC

JC — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:38:13 +0000

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!

By: Karl Rove Is Projecting » Oliver Willis

Karl Rove Is Projecting » Oliver Willis — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:08:29 +0000

[...] (By the way, has anybody asked Rove if he’s got “the math” on this election? Maybe he shared it with Hugh Hewitt.) [...]

By: Frank DiSalle

Frank DiSalle — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:01:04 +0000

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: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:40:07 +0000

Remember the days when Frank posted “rarely, if at all?” Those were the good old days.
I fondly remember those (three) days.

By: Truthseeker

Truthseeker — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:56:57 +0000

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.

By: Duros Hussein 62

Duros Hussein 62 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:47:36 +0000

Hewitt has bigger boobs.

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:20:16 +0000

Hewitt also thought Bush won that first debate in 2004. He is what we call an idiot.

By: jr

jr — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:06:54 +0000

Can anyone tell Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager apart?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:58:36 +0000

Wow, Frank. Mr. Goodwin engages in some big-time, center-ring clowning in that column you linked for us:

Apparently that Obama has left the building. He’s been replaced with a party man who sees the other side as evil and beneath contempt. Consider these bitter words from campaign boss David Plouffe that outlines the Obama plan for the stretch run.

“John McCain has shown that he is willing to go into the gutter to win this election,” Plouffe wrote in a memo circulated Friday. “His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people.”

That rant might be comfort food for the nervous base, but will likely alarm independents who already aren’t sure about Obama. By further scaring them with scorched-earth partisanship, the Obama team will only cede to McCain the label of the real independent.

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?

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:52:37 +0000

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.

By: mambochicken23

mambochicken23 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:43:40 +0000

Damn, Frank… you’re really, really old!

By: Frank DiSalle

Frank DiSalle — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:36:49 +0000

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

2000
2004
1996
1988
1984
1980
1976
1972
1968
1964
1960
1956