2016 Election Prediction Thread

[birddog]

I would think Hillary would be very supportive of the LGBT since she's bi-sexual! Is she trying to hide her queerness?

 

[Toro]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

 

[toxicmedia]

I saw this really whacky GOP "strategist" on CNN this morning, and she went on and on about how she thinks they can tie Hillary to Obamacare, the economy under Obama, and some other crap that only Fox News watchers believe. But I take it with a grain of salt, because any GOP strategist who appears on CNN or MSNBC, along with any DNC strategists that appear on Fox News...obviously are not CURRENTLY successful in their own industry, and must find work appearing to be inferior on the advocacy journalism networks. Great examples of this are Pat Caddell, Steve Schmidt, Doug Schoen, and Nicole Wallace. All of these, and more like them, have been in some monumental campaign failure that got them tossed from the "A" lists amongst strategy firms.

The way Fox News presents things really can tip the hand for the GOP. Seasoned strategists in the GOP and DNC don't need Fox News to enlighten them, but for politics junkies like me, and many of you, if you read between the lines, you can see what their concerns are based on what they DO NOT evangelize to the GOP base.

So IMO....what Fox News doesn't cover IN DEPTH. = concerns for the GOP

Including head to head polls with Hillary VS Misc GOP Presidential nominees.

Granted, it's early, but!...you will not find any polls in recent history showing a non incumbent presidential election, with that wide of a margin between all comers, and one potential nominee. The best GOP strategists can do with this is tell the base "it's too early to tell", and hope for no indepth follow up questions. Which is exactly what righties parrot on this site.

 

[JimH52]

Well, since he's also auditioning to be attention whore, the GOP could nominate David Duke..... sure looks like he's a good fit for a LOT of that party......

HA! Agreed. I was looking at Taliban justice and felt that some of the tactics would fit well with the GOP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[JimH52]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

A two term worse man.....who gave the country a surplus, unlike the recovering alcoholic who left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I saw this really whacky GOP "strategist" on CNN this morning, and she went on and on about how she thinks they can tie Hillary to Obamacare, the economy under Obama, and some other crap that only Fox News watchers believe. But I take it with a grain of salt, because any GOP strategist who appears on CNN or MSNBC, along with any DNC strategists that appear on Fox News...obviously are not CURRENTLY successful in their own industry, and must find work appearing to be inferior on the advocacy journalism networks. Great examples of this are Pat Caddell, Steve Schmidt, Doug Schoen, and Nicole Wallace. All of these, and more like them, have been in some monumental campaign failure that got them tossed from the "A" lists amongst strategy firms.

The way Fox News presents things really can tip the hand for the GOP. Seasoned strategists in the GOP and DNC don't need Fox News to enlighten them, but for politics junkies like me, and many of you, if you read between the lines, you can see what their concerns are based on what they DO NOT evangelize to the GOP base.

So IMO....what Fox News doesn't cover IN DEPTH. = concerns for the GOP

Including head to head polls with Hillary VS Misc GOP Presidential nominees.

Granted, it's early, but!...you will not find any polls in recent history showing a non incumbent presidential election, with that wide of a margin between all comers, and one potential nominee. The best GOP strategists can do with this is tell the base "it's too early to tell", and hope for no indepth follow up questions. Which is exactly what righties parrot on this site.

Correct. And never before in history have we seen this many polls for a not-yet- declared candidate at this point in the game. One poll can easily be wrong. But all of them? No way.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Not really. I don't think there's ever been an election in history that's been decided by the selection of a bad VP.

Palin didn't cost McCain the election, Bush did.

Even Eagleton didn't cost McGovern the election. It was that McGovern embraced the hippies who were scaring the shit out of people like my parents.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Yeah.....


the VP gets about a week of media attention and then everyone forgets who they are. The top of the ticket is really the sole focus.

 

[toxicmedia]

I saw this really whacky GOP "strategist" on CNN this morning, and she went on and on about how she thinks they can tie Hillary to Obamacare, the economy under Obama, and some other crap that only Fox News watchers believe. But I take it with a grain of salt, because any GOP strategist who appears on CNN or MSNBC, along with any DNC strategists that appear on Fox News...obviously are not CURRENTLY successful in their own industry, and must find work appearing to be inferior on the advocacy journalism networks. Great examples of this are Pat Caddell, Steve Schmidt, Doug Schoen, and Nicole Wallace. All of these, and more like them, have been in some monumental campaign failure that got them tossed from the "A" lists amongst strategy firms.

The way Fox News presents things really can tip the hand for the GOP. Seasoned strategists in the GOP and DNC don't need Fox News to enlighten them, but for politics junkies like me, and many of you, if you read between the lines, you can see what their concerns are based on what they DO NOT evangelize to the GOP base.

So IMO....what Fox News doesn't cover IN DEPTH. = concerns for the GOP

Including head to head polls with Hillary VS Misc GOP Presidential nominees.

Granted, it's early, but!...you will not find any polls in recent history showing a non incumbent presidential election, with that wide of a margin between all comers, and one potential nominee. The best GOP strategists can do with this is tell the base "it's too early to tell", and hope for no indepth follow up questions. Which is exactly what righties parrot on this site.

Correct. And never before in history have we seen this many polls for a not-yet- declared candidate at this point in the game. One poll can easily be wrong. But all of them? No way.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I keep saying this, so sorry if you've sat through it before...

Most people vote based on the thoughts going through their heads, during the moments they spend in the voting booth.

It's kind of like that last rack of goodies at the supermarket before you check out.

When people think of any of the GOP nominees, they're probably going to come up with a mental picture of their face, and if the GOP is lucky, a few choice 10 word slogans, and none of the negative campaign 10 word slogans. The rest will conjur up a "no photo" in their minds. This may change if the GOP campign does shit right, and avoids 47% type faux pas.

When people think of Hillary, some will remember her in those smart 90's outfits, in the white house. Or maybe her as Secretary of State chewing out GOP Benghazi inquisitionists with her "what does it matter!" statement. Or maybe the photo taken in the war room the night Bin Laden bought it. The only people who've been supplied with negative imagery are Fox News voters, and they won't vote for Hillary anyway.

Some significant change has got to happen to prevent Hillary from being the first female POTUS. The same people that came out to vote for Obama, and tipped the scales, will come out for Hillary this time around. I think an old white guy will not be elected till other sexes and races have been given a chance.

Hopefully by then, we'll all realize race or sex doesn't matter.

 

[JimH52]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Not really. I don't think there's ever been an election in history that's been decided by the selection of a bad VP.

Palin didn't cost McCain the election, Bush did.

Even Eagleton didn't cost McGovern the election. It was that McGovern embraced the hippies who were scaring the shit out of people like my parents.

Bush leaving the country swinging in the wind lost McCain the election. That is true. But Sarah being the loon she is certainly did not help him.

 

[Synthaholic]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

Maybe, when judged by the values you choose to judge him by. We don't know all of HW's personal quirks, do we? There was talk of his adulterous affair but we never got details like with Clinton. And we have no idea what demented things he may have approved while CIA director.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I saw this really whacky GOP "strategist" on CNN this morning, and she went on and on about how she thinks they can tie Hillary to Obamacare, the economy under Obama, and some other crap that only Fox News watchers believe. But I take it with a grain of salt, because any GOP strategist who appears on CNN or MSNBC, along with any DNC strategists that appear on Fox News...obviously are not CURRENTLY successful in their own industry, and must find work appearing to be inferior on the advocacy journalism networks. Great examples of this are Pat Caddell, Steve Schmidt, Doug Schoen, and Nicole Wallace. All of these, and more like them, have been in some monumental campaign failure that got them tossed from the "A" lists amongst strategy firms.

The way Fox News presents things really can tip the hand for the GOP. Seasoned strategists in the GOP and DNC don't need Fox News to enlighten them, but for politics junkies like me, and many of you, if you read between the lines, you can see what their concerns are based on what they DO NOT evangelize to the GOP base.

So IMO....what Fox News doesn't cover IN DEPTH. = concerns for the GOP

Including head to head polls with Hillary VS Misc GOP Presidential nominees.

Granted, it's early, but!...you will not find any polls in recent history showing a non incumbent presidential election, with that wide of a margin between all comers, and one potential nominee. The best GOP strategists can do with this is tell the base "it's too early to tell", and hope for no indepth follow up questions. Which is exactly what righties parrot on this site.

Correct. And never before in history have we seen this many polls for a not-yet- declared candidate at this point in the game. One poll can easily be wrong. But all of them? No way.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I keep saying this, so sorry if you've sat through it before...

Most people vote based on the thoughts going through their heads, during the moments they spend in the voting booth.

It's kind of like that last rack of goodies at the supermarket before you check out.

When people think of any of the GOP nominees, they're probably going to come up with a mental picture of their face, and if the GOP is lucky, a few choice 10 word slogans, and none of the negative campaign 10 word slogans. The rest will conjur up a "no photo" in their minds. This may change if the GOP campign does shit right, and avoids 47% type faux pas.

When people think of Hillary, some will remember her in those smart 90's outfits, in the white house. Or maybe her as Secretary of State chewing out GOP Benghazi inquisitionists with her "what does it matter!" statement. Or maybe the photo taken in the war room the night Bin Laden bought it. The only people who've been supplied with negative imagery are Fox News voters, and they won't vote for Hillary anyway.

Some significant change has got to happen to prevent Hillary from being the first female POTUS. The same people that came out to vote for Obama, and tipped the scales, will come out for Hillary this time around. I think an old white guy will not be elected till other sexes and races have been given a chance.

Hopefully by then, we'll all realize race or sex doesn't matter.

Sure, no disagreement from me.

It's called the Democratic Base, which has been built solidly upon since 1992.

The LOW water-mark for the DEMS in the last 6-cycles, since the Clinton Revolution, is 252 (well, 251) EV, in 2004, just 19 shy of the magic 270. The high-water mark is 379.

Meanwhile, in the same time-frame, the GOP low-water mark is 159 (Dole, 1996) and the high-water mark is 286 (Bush 2004).

That's a 92 EV disparity between the DEM and GOP low-water marks, and a 93 EV disparity between the respective high-water marks.

Because of the solidity of the DEM electoral column, the best a wartime president in the middle of a war could do was 286 EV, and Ohio hung very much in the balance intil the last minute.

Now, imagine that the women's vote will explode for Hillary, as it certainly will. We will see first-time female voters all over the nation registering and voting in 2016, and for Hillary by a massive margin. I expect her to win in the female vote by +20, as current polling is showing ALL over the nation. There are very few states and even fewer 1 on 1 matchups where Hillary is at less than +15 at least in the female vote.

In 2012, women accounted for 52% of our electorate and the overall White vote was 72%. I expect that the women's vote will be 54% of the electorate in 2016, the white vote overall will be either 70% or even only 69%, the Latino vote will soar. Assuming these conditions, then Hillary clocks in at 57% in 2016, as I have predicted probably at least 40 times in USMB. Alone, jumping to +20 in the female vote brings her from Obama's 51.01% in 2012 to just under 56%, and that is assuming that nothing else changes.

It is going to be a Hillary landslide in 2016, will very likely surpass Bush 41's 1988 landslide in all respects.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Not really. I don't think there's ever been an election in history that's been decided by the selection of a bad VP.

Palin didn't cost McCain the election, Bush did.

Even Eagleton didn't cost McGovern the election. It was that McGovern embraced the hippies who were scaring the shit out of people like my parents.

Bush leaving the country swinging in the wind lost McCain the election. That is true. But Sarah being the loon she is certainly did not help him.

Which is why I wrote that Palin sunk his ship. It was never going to get to home port first, but at least it would have arrived. Of course, the fake Rabbi did not understand this, due to his extreme ignorance.

 

[birddog]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

A two term worse man.....who gave the country a surplus, unlike the recovering alcoholic who left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Clinton did NOT leave a true surplus, instead left a declining economy for Bush to deal with. Clinton, as a weak CIC, set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Slick Willie, the rapist, did more harm by far than Dubya did!

 

[Synthaholic]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

A two term worse man.....who gave the country a surplus, unlike the recovering alcoholic who left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Clinton did NOT leave a true surplus, instead left a declining economy for Bush to deal with. Clinton, as a weak CIC, set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Slick Willie, the rapist, did more harm by far than Dubya did!

^^^ The failed talking points from a failed ideology. #losers

 

[Faun]

I never assume the voters think like me and go off what I feel at the moment. I believe Cuomo is a stronger candidate than Elizabeth Warren but any Democrat running will have a hard time winning unless they're facing someone like Ted Cruz.

So I figure Jeb will win and eight years of another Bush.

So after electing two Bush failures, you think the right is dumb enough to elect a third??

I don't consider Bush 41 to be a failure. Of all of our presidents in the last 70 years, none has had a resume as broad and as deep as George H. W. Bush. He also worked tirelessly with Helmut Kohl to tear the Berlin Wall down - and is partially to credit for the fact that it happened. Bush 41 is a decent man and was a decent President. Only, Clinton was far better.

Clinton was a worse man.

A two term worse man.....who gave the country a surplus, unlike the recovering alcoholic who left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Clinton did NOT leave a true surplus, instead left a declining economy for Bush to deal with. Clinton, as a weak CIC, set up 9-11 and the Iraq War. Slick Willie, the rapist, did more harm by far than Dubya did!

What? Are you admitting Bush lied when he came into office, saying he was cutting taxes due to the surplus?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Only to find you, full of fantasies and face powder, pretending you know something most others don't.

Your sockiness is fun to watch.

Much more entertaining to see yours

Tell us RuPaul, what will happen tomorrow? Following your patterns, of course. Be specific. sim sala bim.

Well, I am not RuPaul, I don't even know who he is. But tomorrow I am going to be here. Who knows if you will. Shazaam.

You don't even know that lol. Maybe you'll be poisoned by hair dye, or choke on a cloud of rouge in your sleep. Áyo, maygain.

I read up. RuPaul is a gay figure. Not interesting to me. Next.

It's simply a matter of cosmetic preference. I understand you're a Maybelline Man.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

McCain lost because of McCain. You suck at political analysis.

Actually, no. You are way out of your league, here, and have no idea how much data flowed that showed that Palin sunk and already damaged ship.

You are right, McCain was campaigning in grocery stores when Palin came along and gave him a slight bump. Crowds were nowhere near Obama's but she did okay until she started doing interviews. People began to think about McCain's age and her being first in line of succession and attitudes toward her changed in a big hurry.

Absolutely correct. The 10 latest polls leading up to McCain announcing Palin as his running mate, Obama lead McCain by an average of just 2.2 percentage points. Compare that to the last 10 polls taken just one month later ... Obama's lead stretched to an average of 5.3 points.

WH2008 General

Only the truly brain dead thinks that Palin didn't sink McCain.

Only the truly braindead thinks McCain needed help losing that election.

You missed the point, but that's ok, whackie Righties usually do.

No I didn't. Sarah Palin would have been elected Vice President of the United States had she a better candidate to run with.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually, no. You are way out of your league, here, and have no idea how much data flowed that showed that Palin sunk and already damaged ship.

You are right, McCain was campaigning in grocery stores when Palin came along and gave him a slight bump. Crowds were nowhere near Obama's but she did okay until she started doing interviews. People began to think about McCain's age and her being first in line of succession and attitudes toward her changed in a big hurry.

Absolutely correct. The 10 latest polls leading up to McCain announcing Palin as his running mate, Obama lead McCain by an average of just 2.2 percentage points. Compare that to the last 10 polls taken just one month later ... Obama's lead stretched to an average of 5.3 points.

WH2008 General

Only the truly brain dead thinks that Palin didn't sink McCain.

Only the truly braindead thinks McCain needed help losing that election.

You missed the point, but that's ok, whackie Righties usually do.

No I didn't. Sarah Palin would have been elected Vice President of the United States had she a better candidate to run with.

Oh, my. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk