Shouldn't we just judge the competition and support the most deserving acts and forget the amateur crystal ball bollocks?
The X Factor's short history shows us that it has failed to discover / produce a top drawer artist to date and on the whole, winners only enjoy as much success as winning the X Factor allows. There is actually some validity in the argument that the reason these people are on the show is that they were previously adjudged not to be worth investing in. We know how the show hand picks its main contestants and it hand picks them from the bin labelled 'promising and / or interesting rejects'. That, we know as fact.
Leona Lewis, Matt Cardle, Steve Brookstein (all winners) and numerous near-winners and total disasters have one thing, above all in common. They were all quite well known in the industry prior to being head-hunted by X Factor. All had been considered, auditioned and duly and perhaps repeatedly adjudged 'not good enough' by shrewd industry professionals. That's a fact.
Back to my point. As none of us here I'm sure are shrewd industry professionals working in an A&R capacity (this would be an absurd place for such a person to bew hanging out), maybe we should stick to judging the acts and supporting the one we think is most deserving of winning the (fixed and not to be taken too seriously) show. Anybody here looking to discover the next global superstar is really not getting it.
Oh yes, and before somebody brings up the old fart who turned down the Beatles, remember that they were picked up soon after and when they were still younger than your average XF finalist. If the X Factor ever discovers and unleashes an act half as good as the Beatles, I'll eat my laptop and revise my position totally.