2016 Election Prediction Thread

[Skylar]

If Cruz gets the nomination he won't be facing Hillary. She's not gonna be the nominee, she's being torpedoed by Obama.

And how is Obama 'torpedoing' her?

 

[JakeStarkey]

S.J. in no way can show any 'torpedoing' by BHO of HRC.

BHO is staying out of the nomination process.

 

[Toro]

Yes, it is possible, far more possible, Rubio or Paul than Cruz.

Rubio I see as a possibility. Lots on the right do not like him for his immigration policy but they will swallow him to avoid Bush. I think this will be similar to 2012 when the party was looking for anyone but Romney. Now it will be anyone but Bush. It will at least be interesting to see if it takes the same rout as last time and Bush takes the nomination. I don't see that as happening because there will be a better selection of candidates this time around. I mean really, who gave Bachmann a spot on the stage...

I suspect Rubio will be in play this election season. I don't see him making much progress personally toward the presidency. He lacks the name recognition, party backing, and experience to likely be a credible candidate. Obama lacked all these things. But I think we can agree his 2008 victory was improbable. Rubio is hamstrung by a fiercely conservative voting record. Which doesn't help outside the GOP primaries with a much more moderate electorate.

Rubio on the other hand would make an excellent VP pick for a GOP candidate that was from outside of Florida. Kasich, for example, could use Rubio to shore up both his support among Latinos and to help in Florida. Both hugely advantageous for a GOP candidate.

The GOP is also doing an excellent job in cultivating its AAA team, with plenty of future leaders in their pipeline. (They're doing this much better than democrats, that have traded unity in the face of GOP election wins for cultivation of new leaders....but that's another discussion). Rubio is one such future leader. And a VP slot would put him in an excellent position to win the presidency himself in 2024. As it resolves 3 of the 4 factors working against him, granting experience, name recognition and party backing.

And Rubio, unlike Cruz, has made major in roads with the Latino community. I'd argue his a viable member of that communities conservative political spectrum. Cruz isn't part of that community at all despite his father being Cuban. Rubio's connection to the Latino community could help him in the long term. And act as a method of the GOP bringing Latinos into the conservative fold.

I see that as unlikely, as the GOP's focus on minorities tends to be opportunistic and anecdotal. But its better than if they picked just another white guy.

Rubio is going to do better than most people think. He's telegenic, articulate, and acceptable to both conservatives and moderates. He's often Republicans' second or third choice.

Don't know if he will be the candidate, but don't count him out.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it is possible, far more possible, Rubio or Paul than Cruz.

Rubio I see as a possibility. Lots on the right do not like him for his immigration policy but they will swallow him to avoid Bush. I think this will be similar to 2012 when the party was looking for anyone but Romney. Now it will be anyone but Bush. It will at least be interesting to see if it takes the same rout as last time and Bush takes the nomination. I don't see that as happening because there will be a better selection of candidates this time around. I mean really, who gave Bachmann a spot on the stage...

I suspect Rubio will be in play this election season. I don't see him making much progress personally toward the presidency. He lacks the name recognition, party backing, and experience to likely be a credible candidate. Obama lacked all these things. But I think we can agree his 2008 victory was improbable. Rubio is hamstrung by a fiercely conservative voting record. Which doesn't help outside the GOP primaries with a much more moderate electorate.

Rubio on the other hand would make an excellent VP pick for a GOP candidate that was from outside of Florida. Kasich, for example, could use Rubio to shore up both his support among Latinos and to help in Florida. Both hugely advantageous for a GOP candidate.

The GOP is also doing an excellent job in cultivating its AAA team, with plenty of future leaders in their pipeline. (They're doing this much better than democrats, that have traded unity in the face of GOP election wins for cultivation of new leaders....but that's another discussion). Rubio is one such future leader. And a VP slot would put him in an excellent position to win the presidency himself in 2024. As it resolves 3 of the 4 factors working against him, granting experience, name recognition and party backing.

And Rubio, unlike Cruz, has made major in roads with the Latino community. I'd argue his a viable member of that communities conservative political spectrum. Cruz isn't part of that community at all despite his father being Cuban. Rubio's connection to the Latino community could help him in the long term. And act as a method of the GOP bringing Latinos into the conservative fold.

I see that as unlikely, as the GOP's focus on minorities tends to be opportunistic and anecdotal. But its better than if they picked just another white guy.

Rubio is going to do better than most people think. He's telegenic, articulate, and acceptable to both conservatives and moderates. He's often Republicans' second or third choice.

Don't know if he will be the candidate, but don't count him out.

I haven't counted him out. My entire post opens with 'I suspect Rubio will be in play in this election season'. I've simply argued that he's far more likely to be VP candidate than a presidential one.

Rubio's voting record buries the needle in terms of extreme conservatism. I think he's sporting a 0.97 on the DW nominate scale (out of a possible 1.0). If he becomes a major contender for office, I suspect the dems will hammer him mercilessly with this. And that it will cost him ground with moderates.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I still predict that Scott Walker will be the GOP nominee. I have no idea who the dims will run. I hope it's Hillary, but that's starting to look doubtful, she might actually be in prison by the time the election rolls around.

 

[Nyvin]

I still predict that Scott Walker will be the GOP nominee. I have no idea who the dims will run. I hope it's Hillary, but that's starting to look doubtful, she might actually be in prison by the time the election rolls around.

Well it sure is weird there are no criminal investigations against Hillary right now...or will be in the foreseeable future.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well it sure is weird there are no criminal investigations against Hillary right now...or will be in the foreseeable future.

I'm sure an assclown like you has all 39 of his IQ points working diligently for Madam Hillary..

 

[FA_Q2]

Well it sure is weird there are no criminal investigations against Hillary right now...or will be in the foreseeable future.

I'm sure an assclown like you has all 39 of his IQ points working diligently for Madam Hillary..

Really irrelevant. His point stands, there are not real criminal investigations into HRC.

Put aside your feelings for the situation and what you believe to be the actual legality of the matter and look at the evidence and history of the possibility of her getting convicted of a crime. The reality is that weather or not a crime actually was committed she is part of the ruling elite and will not be charged. It is that simple.

There is ZERO chance HRC will have any real criminal trouble for the email issues. At this point, I doubt there will even be any real political fallout from it but that is less sure.

 

[FA_Q2]

As an aside, I'm interested in exploring the dymanics of party control (unity) v. comparative chaos in cultivating future leaders. I'd argue that the GOP's current internal strife is actually enhancing their crop of potential leaders, creating some real competition and chances for B list players to shine. Where different visions and different messages allowing for plenty of face time of its up and coming politicians. What they pay for this strife is ineffectiveness, as they can't reliably bring the votes of the members of their own party.

The Democrats are having the opposite problem. They've had excellent unity over the last 4 years. And have been able to use that unity to nullify any electoral advantage the fractured GOP might have, resulting in a veritable stalemate. But this was done through adherence to a rigid hierarchy with folks like Pelosi holding portions of the party together. The cost to this unity is that it doesn't allow up and coming democratic leaders to get much face time or make much progress in advancing different messages. At least not as much as the GOP 'thunderdome' scenario.

The results are a presently ineffective but potentially vital future GOP. And an presently effective but potentially stagnant future DNC.

This is a theory in progress, and I'd like to discuss it. I haven't formed any really firm opinions yet.

It is a good theory.

The classic charge from the left against the right has recently been the GOP marches in lockstep and the democrats are far more diverse in views more readily challenging the party. That seems to have flipped as the right has been anything but lockstep recently.

Personally, I always think this is better. It does cost current political power BUT it allows the party top evolve. The contention that it brings new leadership to the surface is interesting and I think I agree with that sentiment but I think it is also the smaller issue. Far larger is the fact that this contention is allowing the right to essentially 'find itself' amid the chaos. We will end up with a better GOP, I hope, at the end of this tunnel. I

 

[candycorn]

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

Gee, wrong again....

Join the official campaign Join us Hillary for America

 

[Skylar]

As an aside, I'm interested in exploring the dymanics of party control (unity) v. comparative chaos in cultivating future leaders. I'd argue that the GOP's current internal strife is actually enhancing their crop of potential leaders, creating some real competition and chances for B list players to shine. Where different visions and different messages allowing for plenty of face time of its up and coming politicians. What they pay for this strife is ineffectiveness, as they can't reliably bring the votes of the members of their own party.

The Democrats are having the opposite problem. They've had excellent unity over the last 4 years. And have been able to use that unity to nullify any electoral advantage the fractured GOP might have, resulting in a veritable stalemate. But this was done through adherence to a rigid hierarchy with folks like Pelosi holding portions of the party together. The cost to this unity is that it doesn't allow up and coming democratic leaders to get much face time or make much progress in advancing different messages. At least not as much as the GOP 'thunderdome' scenario.

The results are a presently ineffective but potentially vital future GOP. And an presently effective but potentially stagnant future DNC.

This is a theory in progress, and I'd like to discuss it. I haven't formed any really firm opinions yet.

It is a good theory.

The classic charge from the left against the right has recently been the GOP marches in lockstep and the democrats are far more diverse in views more readily challenging the party. That seems to have flipped as the right has been anything but lockstep recently.

The lockstep, at least legislatively, has been a short term strategy that may have longer term consequences. I don't think it will prevent the Dems from adapting. But I think it will put them as many years behind as they use the lockstep strategy.

It has, however, done amazing things for them in terms of effectiveness. Democrats have stymied GOP legislative efforts. With the GOP internal strife limiting those efforts as its harder for folks to agree within the party.

I don't know if the differences are the genuine diversity of ideas. Or if its merely the power that various factions have. In the GOP the fringe has much more power than it did in the past. And policies that haven't really found much mainstream GOP support ('fair taxes, closing the IRS, government shutdowns) receive much more play.

There are diverse ideas in the Democratic party as well. As Sanders and Warren demonstrate. But their factions have less power, are given less face time within the DNC.

It could be that these factors are irrelevant. And the GOP is just better at cultivating their talent than the DNC. Or perhaps that the GOP politicians themselves are better at promoting their personal brand and taking the stage, rather than having it given to them. Or it could be that democratic politicians in power are unwilling to relinquish that power, even to other democrats. While republican instability is such that power moves around more, being more difficult to consolidate.

Or quite plausibly.....that more money is being pumped into the fringes of conservatism than into the fringes of liberalism. And the money creates the power and exposure.

Dunno. I'm fleshing the theory out.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that the 'fringe' as you call it has more power in the GOP.

The fact is, well my opinion at least, the GOP does not represent its base at all. I look at the GOP and I see more democrats. The only thing they do different is tax policy and even that is a wash considering that they 'lower' taxes with a bunch of loopholes rather than simplifying the code as the base wants. They pass HUGE government expansions - just look at the bailout and the PA. Nothing in their core values is ever pushed for except for the absolute loosing issues (gay marriage, abortion and the like). Those issues are already decided by the courts and irrelevant to the political machine outside of garnering votes from the blind.

I don't think that the liberals are really supported by the democrats either but at least the democrats are not completely dishonest with what they support. The republicans are. That opened up the floodgates for disenfranchised republicans looking desperately for something else. The only thing lament is the fact that the moral majority seems to have captured the head if the internal strife and they may sink it all on their own. Those that are like me - looking for representation that truly supports a fiscally responsible government and support measures that further freedom rather than governmental control have nowhere to turn at all.

 

[dcraelin]

I still predict that Scott Walker will be the GOP nominee. I have no idea who the dims will run. I hope it's Hillary, but that's starting to look doubtful, she might actually be in prison by the time the election rolls around.

I kind of actually like the fact that Walker isn't a college grad.....but it looks like hes tied up with the same establishment loved EB-5 program.....which is riddled with corruption ...and sells visa to rich foreigners....that HIllary Clinton cronies are involved in......

of the republican estalbishment saps, hes probably the best, but that aint saying much.

Scott Walker backs controversial immigrant investor program

 

[JimH52]

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

Gee, wrong again....

Join the official campaign Join us Hillary for America

They are hoping that she won't run. There is no prospective nominee that can come close to her in the General.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

Gee, wrong again....

Join the official campaign Join us Hillary for America

They are hoping that she won't run. There is no prospective nominee that can come close to her in the General.

Actually we're happy she is running. Currently she seems to be running from the press.

 

[Nutz]

I like Huckabee and Paul...nether really has a chance of winning...not because they aren't good candidates, but because racist teapers will not allow it. They want a fucking canadian. How absurd, from a Kenyan to a candian-Cuban American...well American as of a few months ago before he FINALLY renounced his canuck citizenship.

Why isn't the media asking this fucking canadian why he took so long to denounce his canuckery.

Fucking Cuban wetback.

I can see it now...2020 we will have a gay German Gook as the nominee.

 

[JimH52]

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

Gee, wrong again....

Join the official campaign Join us Hillary for America

They are hoping that she won't run. There is no prospective nominee that can come close to her in the General.

Actually we're happy she is running. Currently she seems to be running from the press.

Yeah, that probably helps you sleep at night....

 

[Skylar]

I think that the 'fringe' as you call it has more power in the GOP.

The fringe are those conservatives within the GOP that are really right wing. Anything over about a 0.75 on the DW nominate scale. Ted Cruz for example. And Cruz does have power. But not based on his support from the people. Instead, his power comes from the massive support he has from a handful of supporters. Cruz can (and literally has) threatened other GOP congressmen with well funded primary competition in their own districts if they don't do what Cruz tells them. And its not Cruz that is producing the 'well funded' backing for the threat. But the Super PACs that support Cruz.

In this way we see empowerment of the what I would argue is fringe conservatism. With most GOP congressmen less extreme. Power in the GOP tends to center around money. Perhaps power in any party or political setting. So in the GOP, it centers around party leadership and those funded from outside PACs.

I look at the GOP and I see more democrats. The only thing they do different is tax policy and even that is a wash considering that they 'lower' taxes with a bunch of loopholes rather than simplifying the code as the base wants. They pass HUGE government expansions - just look at the bailout and the PA. Nothing in their core values is ever pushed for except for the absolute loosing issues (gay marriage, abortion and the like). Those issues are already decided by the courts and irrelevant to the political machine outside of garnering votes from the blind.

I try to use a more objective scale like the DW nominate scale as it helps mitigate personal opinion. I'm not immune to projecting my beliefs onto a situation, through I try to be as impartial as I can if for no other reason than I favor accuracy. Its possible that your 'I look at conservatives and I see democrats' perspective may be a product of your own right leaning. And not necessarily a reflection of their actual policy positions or objective political positions.

The fact is, well my opinion at least, the GOP does not represent its base at all.

Its another interest idea to test. Comparing the actual political positions of 'fringe' conservatives with the population in general and the GOP in particular. And see how well they represent each. Its possible you're right. But I suspect that fringe positions are powerfully out of line with both. Through arguably, more out of line with the general public than the GOP, the audience most sympathetic with the conservative fringe.

I don't think that the liberals are really supported by the democrats either but at least the democrats are not completely dishonest with what they support. The republicans are. That opened up the floodgates for disenfranchised republicans looking desperately for something else. The only thing lament is the fact that the moral majority seems to have captured the head if the internal strife and they may sink it all on their own.

There's an expansion of those that consider themselves liberal, though its still only a fraction of those that consider themselves conservative. But conservativism has been relatively stagnant in terms of the population. While moderates are in decline...with almost all of that decline going to increase the proportion of liberals.

There has been an accompanying liberalization of democratic politics, though not as severe as the push toward the edges of conservatism that the GOP has experienced. In general there's been a trend toward political polarization. The polarization tends to be equal between conservatives and liberals in terms of proportion. With the folks both are electing being more liberal or conservative respectively.

But.....with the effect magnified with conservatives much more so than liberals. I'd argue that this magnification and intensification of polarization in elected officials is the product of the money. Not a product of the views of the people. The unmagnified portion of that polarization would be more reflective of the will of their respective constituency.

Those that are like me - looking for representation that truly supports a fiscally responsible government and support measures that further freedom rather than governmental control have nowhere to turn at all.

Smaller government and 'further freedom' really haven't been a hallmark of any recent period of GOP policy. Even Reagan expanded government, its spending and its regulation.

Policy advocacy and actual policy enactment are two different things. The GOP platform of policy support tends to match up only marginally with their actual policy enactments. As best as I've been able to see, there are only a handful of actual GOP policy priorities:

1) Tax cuts that overwhelming favor the wealthy.
2) Reduction in regulation, specifically regulation that effects guns or industry.
3) Increases in abortion regulation/pushes toward criminalization.
4) Increases in military spending/ deployment.

Beyond that, the rest appears to be lip service.

 

[Toro]

Yes, it is possible, far more possible, Rubio or Paul than Cruz.

Rubio I see as a possibility. Lots on the right do not like him for his immigration policy but they will swallow him to avoid Bush. I think this will be similar to 2012 when the party was looking for anyone but Romney. Now it will be anyone but Bush. It will at least be interesting to see if it takes the same rout as last time and Bush takes the nomination. I don't see that as happening because there will be a better selection of candidates this time around. I mean really, who gave Bachmann a spot on the stage...

I suspect Rubio will be in play this election season. I don't see him making much progress personally toward the presidency. He lacks the name recognition, party backing, and experience to likely be a credible candidate. Obama lacked all these things. But I think we can agree his 2008 victory was improbable. Rubio is hamstrung by a fiercely conservative voting record. Which doesn't help outside the GOP primaries with a much more moderate electorate.

Rubio on the other hand would make an excellent VP pick for a GOP candidate that was from outside of Florida. Kasich, for example, could use Rubio to shore up both his support among Latinos and to help in Florida. Both hugely advantageous for a GOP candidate.

The GOP is also doing an excellent job in cultivating its AAA team, with plenty of future leaders in their pipeline. (They're doing this much better than democrats, that have traded unity in the face of GOP election wins for cultivation of new leaders....but that's another discussion). Rubio is one such future leader. And a VP slot would put him in an excellent position to win the presidency himself in 2024. As it resolves 3 of the 4 factors working against him, granting experience, name recognition and party backing.

And Rubio, unlike Cruz, has made major in roads with the Latino community. I'd argue his a viable member of that communities conservative political spectrum. Cruz isn't part of that community at all despite his father being Cuban. Rubio's connection to the Latino community could help him in the long term. And act as a method of the GOP bringing Latinos into the conservative fold.

I see that as unlikely, as the GOP's focus on minorities tends to be opportunistic and anecdotal. But its better than if they picked just another white guy.

Rubio is going to do better than most people think. He's telegenic, articulate, and acceptable to both conservatives and moderates. He's often Republicans' second or third choice.

Don't know if he will be the candidate, but don't count him out.

I haven't counted him out. My entire post opens with 'I suspect Rubio will be in play in this election season'. I've simply argued that he's far more likely to be VP candidate than a presidential one.

Rubio's voting record buries the needle in terms of extreme conservatism. I think he's sporting a 0.97 on the DW nominate scale (out of a possible 1.0). If he becomes a major contender for office, I suspect the dems will hammer him mercilessly with this. And that it will cost him ground with moderates.

I would agree that he is more likely to be a VP candidate.

A guy whom I used to work with went to high school with him, and is still friends with Rubio. I think he even dated his sister. Anyways, when he beat Crist for the nomination, we were out for lunch when a reporter from the New York Times called him, wanting to know about Rubio. I only tell you that story because my understanding from my friend is that despite his ideological track record, he's more flexible than what one might expect.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

Gee, wrong again....

Join the official campaign Join us Hillary for America

They are hoping that she won't run. There is no prospective nominee that can come close to her in the General.

Actually we're happy she is running. Currently she seems to be running from the press.

Yeah, that probably helps you sleep at night....

LOL. No, what helps me is the knowledge tha tthe Democrats are so bankrupt Hillary Clinton is their best shot at winning.