I generally avoid writing self-serving "I told you so" articles. This is not because I don't enjoy patting myself on the back (who doesn't?), but because most writing of this type is actually pretty boring. Since I don't like to bore you, the reader, I usually shy away from such articles on general principles.

Having said that, I have to say I did pretty good picking Super Tuesday winners. But since I do this rarely, I'll get to the winner tote board in a minute, as I'd like to review my writing on the presidential race in general. If you just want to see the numbers, scroll down to the end of this article.

I began writing about the race in January of 2007, by trying my hand at writing a campaign speech I'd like to hear. I have heard echoes of what I wrote in a lot of Democratic campaign speeches, which is good news as far as I'm concerned.

Because I'm a sucker for the underdog, I ran two articles [Part 1, Part 2] in April spotlighting all the Democratic candidates the mainstream media was going to completely ignore. I guess I should have added Edwards, but I tried to do my part to give the minor candidates some exposure.

I wrote plenty of times on the primary calendar mess, none more forcefully that when I called for the primaries to be federalized in order to bring some sanity to the system. The best primary reform idea I've heard yet comes from a guy who wrote a letter to the Washington Post, Kenneth R. Insley, Jr., who proposed setting the order of the primaries by which states had the highest voter participation in the previous election.

April 11th of last year, I laid out the scenario we now find ourselves in:

The "real convention" scenario. Results from the first four states are inconclusive, splitting between three (or even four) candidates, meaning no candidate can proclaim themselves the clear winner. Reflecting this mood across the country, [Super Duper Tuesday] results are also split -- perhaps narrowing the field from four to three, or from three to two. This would turn conventional wisdom on its head, since then the later primaries become the important ones. And if three candidates are still in the race, there may even be no clear-cut nominee at the end of the process. If no candidate wins an outright majority of delegates to the convention, we may even have a real convention that actually actively nominates a candidate (gasp!). This would really shock the chattering classes in the media, although it has to be said they'd enjoy the heck out of it (they do love a good fight). If we go to the convention with no nominee, absolutely anything could happen.

While it wasn't a prediction, merely one scenario out of four, I think I may have bragging rights to even mentioning the possibility before most media awoke to the possibility. I later did a whole article on the possibility of such a campaign free-for-all.

Since this is becoming a "greatest hits" article, I have to mention the funniest thing I've seen along the campaign trail, the Top 20 Democrats and Top 20 Republicans for president.

From last June, here's a roundup of what the Democratic candidates were saying about how they would deal with Iraq. Just in case you'd like to compare and contrast what they're saying currently.

Because predicting open conventions wasn't radical enough, last July I made an outrageous prediction that if Bloomberg enters the race, we will have the wildest election since 1824, with the House of Representatives deciding our next President. The jury's still out on whether this will come to pass or not, but Bloomberg doesn't seem as interested these days in jumping into the race, so it may not even be a possibility. We'll see.

Back to the real race instead of fantasies (although it's hard to tell at times), the media focused briefly on Hillary Clinton's cleavage, which was even sillier than John Edwards' haircuts. But it did allow me to quote the Nowhere Man from Yellow Submarine, while discussing boobs of a different sort. Oh, and the Republicans came up with a mildly obscene logo for their convention.

Last August, I sized up the Republican field, and like most at the time, got it completely wrong. I not only wrote off John McCain, but I also picked him as the easiest Republican to beat in November. Now I'm not so sure about that. Here's what I wrote:

McCain painted himself into a corner, by trying to be a "maverick" and the "heir apparent" at the same time. He has largely moved away from his "maverick" position, backing President Bush up to the hilt on Iraq, and campaigning for Bush during the '04 election. But conservatives have longer memories than most of the American electorate, and McCain has committed several unforgivable sins in their eyes. He was part of the McCain/Feingold election reform law. He actually was against torture (I can't believe I just typed that, but it is true that conservatives hold this against him). And, the final nail in the coffin of his campaign: he recently supported Bush's immigration reform effort. McCain would be fairly easy to run against, but Democrats probably won't get to do so, since I predict that McCain will be the first to get out of the race.

While I got it wrong, note that bit about "long memories" which Rush Limbaugh and others have been displaying recently.

Last August, the Democrats asked the public for a bumpersticker slogan to run on, so of course my readers were happy to help!

In October, I made a prediction that is sure to get some scrutiny in the coming weeks: Ron Paul will run as the Libertarian Party nominee. Once again, the jury's still out, but after Super Tuesday, he's got to be at least entertaining the idea.

I went on vacation last Thanksgiving, but left everyone with a series of campaign speech transcripts from each of the Democratic candidates. I still think it's a shame this sort of thing isn't done by newspapers anymore, so I'm doing my bit to give readers the candidates in their own words.

Mitt Romney gave a speech on religion in December, which gave me the chance to write the story of Smoot. Anyone who thinks partisanship in Washington is worse now than it ever has been just doesn't know their own history.

Which brings us to the primary season. Up until Monday, my numbers for predicting the outcome of the state races were:

Total correct Democratic picks so far: 3 for 12.
Total correct Republican picks so far: 11 for 18.
Total overall correct picks: 14 for 30 -- 47%.

And, the Wednesday morning after Super Tuesday, I have to say I did pretty good. On the Republican side, I called 15 races right out of a total of 21, for an impressive 71%. I got Alabama wrong, and also Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia. I underestimated Huckabee's strength in the South, and Romney's strength in the frozen tundra of the north plains. I overestimated John McCain's momentum, as well. But still, 71% isn't too bad.

On the Democratic side, New Mexico is still counting, so we don't have complete numbers yet. I called the state for Obama, but it's a tight race separated by only a few hundred votes, so it still could go either way. But in the other states, I did even better than on the Republican side, picking 16 out of 21 correctly. I called California for Obama, and four states for Clinton which ended up in Obama's column (Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, Missouri). Kind of a mixed result -- I overestimated Obama's California support, and underestimated him elsewhere. But it leaves me with a 76% correct record for the night. Which could change to 17 out of 22 (77%), or 16 out of 22 (73%). Either way, the best night I've had yet on the Democratic side.

So, after adding in Super Tuesday results (so far), my totals are:

Total correct Democratic picks so far: 19 for 33 (58%).
Total correct Republican picks so far: 26 for 39 (67%).
Total overall correct picks: 45 for 72 -- 62.5%.

Onward to the rest of the campaign!

-- Chris Weigant