I've made a lot of bold predictions on this blog. I don't do this because I think I'm a prophet or able to predict the future. I do it because I've trained myself to think like a scientist, and scientists are supposed to make predictions to test their ideas against reality. An incorrect prediction has a way of forcing one to reevaluate a potentially incorrect belief.
So how have my predictions fared? Honestly, I've been looking for failed predictions more so than correct ones, as a scientist ought. Unfortunately, despite the outlandish nature of many of my predictions, there haven't been a lot of clear failures. The big failure was a prediction of war between Egypt and Israel after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt, but the situation stabilized due to the military retaking power in Egypt from the Brotherhood. If the Brotherhood had remained in power, would there have been a war? We will never know. I used this failure to add a condition to my other big prediction, that Russia and the United States would go to war within the term of the next president as long as Putin remained in power. I would argue this prediction has been technically accurate, though I would be hard pressed to make the case that one incident constitutes a war. The incident we know about escalated in exactly the way I expected. Two opposing, mobilized and deployed forces, one highly aggressive and the other lacking a clear strategic direction from the top, engaged in a pitched battle. Russian mercenaries were clearly attempting to take control over an oil refinery, and U.S. forces wiped out two full companies of Russian infantry. This may have been some kind of mistake or miscommunication, but it might also have been Putin testing the U.S. rules of engagement or even a direct attack. We don't know exactly what happened, but it fits the definition of conventional war I have previously laid out because the Russians were attempting to take control of territory that was protected and held by the U.S.. That said, no one, including myself, would argue that the U.S. and Russia are in fact at war. One incident does not a war make. Have there been other incidents we don't know about that would strengthen the case that we are in a state of de facto, undeclared war with Russia in Syria? The verdict is still out on that one.
However, I've been surprisingly accurate with my other predictions. I predicted global warming wasn't really going to be a thing anymore except on the far left. I predicted the failure of the Arab Spring and afterwards the rise of an incredibly violent and malevolent power as a result which turned out to be ISIS. At the outset of the Crimean incident I predicted Russia would gain the Crimea and up to half of Ukraine. They now control Crimea and another small region of Ukraine called the Dunbas and are essentially getting away with it. I predicted the alt-right were incompetent fools with no real power and would be wiped out by virtually anybody who knew what they were doing in politics. Subsequently Steve Bannon was not only fired from Trump's administration but humiliated several times in various races around the country after announcing he would field candidates to challenge every Republican Senator except Cruz. I'm working on a conspiracy theory that the establishment wing of the party intentionally allowed Roy Moore to win the Alabama Senate primary in hopes he, and Bannon with him, would be humiliated in the general. Now the alt-right isn't really a thing anymore, at least politically. Before that, I predicted that Obama's election was a "momentary backlash by a political movement in the throes of death". Recall that back then all the smart money was on Hillary Clinton to be the next President. I would also argue that I predicted in that column and a few others that the Republican party establishment, much like the alt-right, did not have the power they think they had and would lose control of the party. That has essentially happened, although to be fair I would have said then that movement conservatives would take over the party. *sigh* If only.
One of the first predictions I made on this blog was that Paul Ryan, or at least his message, had a future and Mitt Romney's establishment style, consultant-driven message targeting various demographics did not. Romney lost that election, although he will likely coast into the Senate in Utah here soon. Meanwhile Paul Ryan was basically dragged kicking and screaming into his current Speaker of the House position. Then Donald Trump happened, whom Ryan refused to endorse. Ryan has passed his career defining law, the corporate tax cut. Now the economic benefits of that are rolling in and Trump, because he's the president, is getting credit for it despite the fact he had nothing to do with it. Mostly Trump can take credit for attempting to start a boneheaded, ineffective but still economically harmful trade war over nothing. Donald Trump is the antithesis of everything Paul Ryan stands for. Ryan has to be deeply incredulous that this kind of challenge to his ideals is coming from within the Republican Party. Ryan is free trade, Trump is anti-trade, more so than anybody I can remember in politics in my lifetime. Ryan is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration. Trump ran on deporting everybody and building a wall. Ryan believes in the power of ideas. Trump has no ideas and mostly believes in the power of his own personality. In the midst of all of this and a pretty large number of Republican retirements, Paul Ryan is leaving the Speakership and the House, citing his family. Ryan must also be deeply disappointed that Republicans likely lose the House in a couple of months in a referendum not on what has actually happened in the House, which is a whole lot of great stuff that died in the Senate due to the filibuster, but because of a man he personally and politically disdains. That's a lot for any man to take, especially one who could have easily walked away with the 2012 nomination but refused to run.
But, Tragic, you are saying, that doesn't explain why you think Ryan will run. No, no it doesn't. Ryan could very well be doing exactly what he claimed. He could be getting out while he's ahead. He could be going home to watch his kids grow up like he said. As to that, if Ryan was president he could live with his family at the White House. In other words, he has an easy out for when he announces. He also could run as though he had nothing to lose, because if he did lose, all he'd get would be all he's ever wanted, to go home and spend time with his family. But seriously though, that's not evidence. Sure I could go through all of the existential reasons why Ryan might run against Trump. He could be wanting to fight for the soul of the Republican Party he worked so hard to build against a man who represents everything he's always been against, yadda, yadda, yadda. Those are all rationalizations and any one is as good as any other after the fact. But I'm not into all of that. I generally think people make decisions first and rationalize them later. So why then?
A couple of months ago I noticed an intriguing story way below the fold about Ryan firing the House chaplain. This was after Ryan announced he was stepping down and leaving the House. It was one of those little noticed things that I always notice and think is way more important than anybody else does because something doesn't quite make sense about it. Specifically, it's not the kind of thing I would expect from a man who is planning on leaving politics for good. Why would he care who the House chaplain is if he's leaving in less than a year? At any rate, there was a backlash and the Jesuit priest was reinstated just a few days later.
All these thoughts resurfaced when I watched Paul Ryan's interview with Jonah Goldberg a few months ago. Goldberg mentioned on his podcast later that there was something weird about the interview, like Ryan was intentionally trying to position himself against the alt-right. Perhaps somebody whose name rhymes with Tall Lion was practicing his messaging for a run against Trump in 2020? The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. At several points, Ryan says we have to "re-litigate these issues" and win a public debate over conservative ideology. He even said at one point that were in he "that job", meaning Trump's job, he would make a different argument. He sounds like a man seriously considering a political battle with Trump.
Ryan is not popular with the anti-immigration crowd, for good reason. However, on virtually every other issue, Ryan is a unifying figure on the right. He was made Speaker over his objections because both sides of the Republican Party, the movement conservatives and the business-establishment side, viewed him positively. He would take the entire moderate wing of the party in a race against Trump, and he would attract a large number of movement conservatives who are uneasy with Trump because they know he's not really a conservative, even though many of his policies have been. Ryan would have the support of virtually the entire political class and all parts of the country where ideological conservatives and moderates outnumber the crazy, retarded douchebags. So basically everywhere except the South. He would certainly win a Republican primary in a landslide, barring a 17-candidate circus show like we had in 2016. Since Democrats have nothing except socialism and "Trump sucks!", they'd be pretty vulnerable to a man who came up in politics critiquing socialism and communism and isn't Trump. It's beyond doubt the question of running against Trump has been posed to Ryan in private by serious people, early and often. The only question is whether he wants to or not. Judging by these little looks into Ryan's thinking I just went through, I think Ryan has already decided to run and is actively preparing for it, as are his allies evidenced by the recent anonymous attack on Trump's fitness for the office, which couldn't be better calculated to undermine Trump's position within the Republican Party. Ryan is already running. He just hasn't announced yet, which will likely come after Republicans lose the House in November and blame their loss on Trump.
Paul Ryan will run for President against Trump in 2020 and win. Then he will win the general election and be sworn into office in January, 2021.
Now that's whack.
So how have my predictions fared? Honestly, I've been looking for failed predictions more so than correct ones, as a scientist ought. Unfortunately, despite the outlandish nature of many of my predictions, there haven't been a lot of clear failures. The big failure was a prediction of war between Egypt and Israel after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt, but the situation stabilized due to the military retaking power in Egypt from the Brotherhood. If the Brotherhood had remained in power, would there have been a war? We will never know. I used this failure to add a condition to my other big prediction, that Russia and the United States would go to war within the term of the next president as long as Putin remained in power. I would argue this prediction has been technically accurate, though I would be hard pressed to make the case that one incident constitutes a war. The incident we know about escalated in exactly the way I expected. Two opposing, mobilized and deployed forces, one highly aggressive and the other lacking a clear strategic direction from the top, engaged in a pitched battle. Russian mercenaries were clearly attempting to take control over an oil refinery, and U.S. forces wiped out two full companies of Russian infantry. This may have been some kind of mistake or miscommunication, but it might also have been Putin testing the U.S. rules of engagement or even a direct attack. We don't know exactly what happened, but it fits the definition of conventional war I have previously laid out because the Russians were attempting to take control of territory that was protected and held by the U.S.. That said, no one, including myself, would argue that the U.S. and Russia are in fact at war. One incident does not a war make. Have there been other incidents we don't know about that would strengthen the case that we are in a state of de facto, undeclared war with Russia in Syria? The verdict is still out on that one.
However, I've been surprisingly accurate with my other predictions. I predicted global warming wasn't really going to be a thing anymore except on the far left. I predicted the failure of the Arab Spring and afterwards the rise of an incredibly violent and malevolent power as a result which turned out to be ISIS. At the outset of the Crimean incident I predicted Russia would gain the Crimea and up to half of Ukraine. They now control Crimea and another small region of Ukraine called the Dunbas and are essentially getting away with it. I predicted the alt-right were incompetent fools with no real power and would be wiped out by virtually anybody who knew what they were doing in politics. Subsequently Steve Bannon was not only fired from Trump's administration but humiliated several times in various races around the country after announcing he would field candidates to challenge every Republican Senator except Cruz. I'm working on a conspiracy theory that the establishment wing of the party intentionally allowed Roy Moore to win the Alabama Senate primary in hopes he, and Bannon with him, would be humiliated in the general. Now the alt-right isn't really a thing anymore, at least politically. Before that, I predicted that Obama's election was a "momentary backlash by a political movement in the throes of death". Recall that back then all the smart money was on Hillary Clinton to be the next President. I would also argue that I predicted in that column and a few others that the Republican party establishment, much like the alt-right, did not have the power they think they had and would lose control of the party. That has essentially happened, although to be fair I would have said then that movement conservatives would take over the party. *sigh* If only.
One of the first predictions I made on this blog was that Paul Ryan, or at least his message, had a future and Mitt Romney's establishment style, consultant-driven message targeting various demographics did not. Romney lost that election, although he will likely coast into the Senate in Utah here soon. Meanwhile Paul Ryan was basically dragged kicking and screaming into his current Speaker of the House position. Then Donald Trump happened, whom Ryan refused to endorse. Ryan has passed his career defining law, the corporate tax cut. Now the economic benefits of that are rolling in and Trump, because he's the president, is getting credit for it despite the fact he had nothing to do with it. Mostly Trump can take credit for attempting to start a boneheaded, ineffective but still economically harmful trade war over nothing. Donald Trump is the antithesis of everything Paul Ryan stands for. Ryan has to be deeply incredulous that this kind of challenge to his ideals is coming from within the Republican Party. Ryan is free trade, Trump is anti-trade, more so than anybody I can remember in politics in my lifetime. Ryan is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration. Trump ran on deporting everybody and building a wall. Ryan believes in the power of ideas. Trump has no ideas and mostly believes in the power of his own personality. In the midst of all of this and a pretty large number of Republican retirements, Paul Ryan is leaving the Speakership and the House, citing his family. Ryan must also be deeply disappointed that Republicans likely lose the House in a couple of months in a referendum not on what has actually happened in the House, which is a whole lot of great stuff that died in the Senate due to the filibuster, but because of a man he personally and politically disdains. That's a lot for any man to take, especially one who could have easily walked away with the 2012 nomination but refused to run.
But, Tragic, you are saying, that doesn't explain why you think Ryan will run. No, no it doesn't. Ryan could very well be doing exactly what he claimed. He could be getting out while he's ahead. He could be going home to watch his kids grow up like he said. As to that, if Ryan was president he could live with his family at the White House. In other words, he has an easy out for when he announces. He also could run as though he had nothing to lose, because if he did lose, all he'd get would be all he's ever wanted, to go home and spend time with his family. But seriously though, that's not evidence. Sure I could go through all of the existential reasons why Ryan might run against Trump. He could be wanting to fight for the soul of the Republican Party he worked so hard to build against a man who represents everything he's always been against, yadda, yadda, yadda. Those are all rationalizations and any one is as good as any other after the fact. But I'm not into all of that. I generally think people make decisions first and rationalize them later. So why then?
A couple of months ago I noticed an intriguing story way below the fold about Ryan firing the House chaplain. This was after Ryan announced he was stepping down and leaving the House. It was one of those little noticed things that I always notice and think is way more important than anybody else does because something doesn't quite make sense about it. Specifically, it's not the kind of thing I would expect from a man who is planning on leaving politics for good. Why would he care who the House chaplain is if he's leaving in less than a year? At any rate, there was a backlash and the Jesuit priest was reinstated just a few days later.
All these thoughts resurfaced when I watched Paul Ryan's interview with Jonah Goldberg a few months ago. Goldberg mentioned on his podcast later that there was something weird about the interview, like Ryan was intentionally trying to position himself against the alt-right. Perhaps somebody whose name rhymes with Tall Lion was practicing his messaging for a run against Trump in 2020? The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. At several points, Ryan says we have to "re-litigate these issues" and win a public debate over conservative ideology. He even said at one point that were in he "that job", meaning Trump's job, he would make a different argument. He sounds like a man seriously considering a political battle with Trump.
Ryan is not popular with the anti-immigration crowd, for good reason. However, on virtually every other issue, Ryan is a unifying figure on the right. He was made Speaker over his objections because both sides of the Republican Party, the movement conservatives and the business-establishment side, viewed him positively. He would take the entire moderate wing of the party in a race against Trump, and he would attract a large number of movement conservatives who are uneasy with Trump because they know he's not really a conservative, even though many of his policies have been. Ryan would have the support of virtually the entire political class and all parts of the country where ideological conservatives and moderates outnumber the crazy, retarded douchebags. So basically everywhere except the South. He would certainly win a Republican primary in a landslide, barring a 17-candidate circus show like we had in 2016. Since Democrats have nothing except socialism and "Trump sucks!", they'd be pretty vulnerable to a man who came up in politics critiquing socialism and communism and isn't Trump. It's beyond doubt the question of running against Trump has been posed to Ryan in private by serious people, early and often. The only question is whether he wants to or not. Judging by these little looks into Ryan's thinking I just went through, I think Ryan has already decided to run and is actively preparing for it, as are his allies evidenced by the recent anonymous attack on Trump's fitness for the office, which couldn't be better calculated to undermine Trump's position within the Republican Party. Ryan is already running. He just hasn't announced yet, which will likely come after Republicans lose the House in November and blame their loss on Trump.
Paul Ryan will run for President against Trump in 2020 and win. Then he will win the general election and be sworn into office in January, 2021.
Now that's whack.
