Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 26, 2014, 02:16:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 104
151  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Benghazi or Bridgegate: Which scandal will be more discussion in '16? on: March 31, 2014, 11:00:46 pm
Both will be talked about a lot and block either Christie or Clinton from being the GOP nominee. After that, the GOP nominee will drop Bridgegate and keep talking about Benghazi up until his concession call.
152  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP Establishment Trying to Recruit Jeb Bush on: March 30, 2014, 11:42:01 am
Almost like Christie, Cheesemen and Rubio are Shermanesque... oh wait.
RB, who the heck is Cheeseman?

"Cheesemen" = the two "cheeseheads" (that is, Wisconsinites) who are contemplating a run for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination = Paul Ryan and Scott Walker

What does the rest of it mean though?

Bush wouldn't clear the field the way Hillary would but I'd guess Rubio, and to a lesser extent Christie are less likely to run if Bush does. Also Huckabee.
153  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How "unstoppable" is Hilary? on: March 28, 2014, 10:37:50 pm
If Hilary doesn't run, the GOP will probably win in 2016.  If Hilary does run, it will be extremely hard for the GOP to win in 2016.             

It seems like the best GOP strategy for winning in 2016 is praying HARD to God that Hilary doesn't run. 

Disagree. I don't think polls now give you a good measure of how strong Klobuchar or Warren would do. Both are currently widely unknown, especially Klobuchar. I would consider either the favorite against any of the Republicans getting speculation.

That said, I think Hillary is close to unstoppable for the nomination if she runs, and, as any Democratic nominee is likely to be, a favorite in the general.
154  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election? on: March 27, 2014, 05:30:46 pm
Well, I guess I would respond this way.  As far as Hillary goes, it's not surprising she performs relatively well right now.  She's very well known.  She was first lady, a Senator from New York, a high profile candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and just completed a term as Secretary of State.  Having said that, Clinton's job at State was, essentially, non-political and that has definitely boosted the image most have of her.

At about the same time in the 2008 process though, a well known Senator named John McCain also led the vast majority of presidential polls and by a lot in some of them.  Yet as time wore on, Bush fatigue caught up with McCain and Republicans.  Bush's approval numbers and the war in Iraq became a huge drag.  Both of those issues were hot early in 2006, yet he looked in good shape then just as Clinton does today.

As we saw in 2008 though, Democrats tarred and feathered Republicans all over the country with Bush's problems.  Even though Bush and McCain rarely saw eye to eye, Democrats made the case McCain was running for Bush's third term and it worked.  McCain just couldn't shake the unpopular president and all that came with him.

Given that, why would Clinton or any Democrat be immune from Obama's problems?  Why wouldn't Republicans be able to tar and feather her with all of Obama's problems like a stagnant economy and an unpopular healthcare plan?  After all, Clinton has to be considered closely associated with Obama's tenure since she served as his Secretary of State.  They may not see eye to eye on some issues, but neither did Bush and McCain.

If the situation in 2016 is as toxic for Obama as it is today, I just don't see how the country decides to go with his heir apparent when they never have in the past.  Now, of course, that could all change if Republicans nominate an unelectable candidate like Cruz or Paul or the economy improves, but history suggests no national candidate of the same party can overcome the low numbers of the current occupant.

But it's a sample size of one, no? Bush was the first unpopular president term-limited out. Even if you include unpopular presidents who opted out, Truman and LBJ, all 3 had approvals far lower than Obama's today. (20s or 30s vs low 40s). And Democrats faced a war hero in 1952 and their own bad divisions plus a split vote in 1968 (when they lost to Nixon by <1%). So those situations don't really match a Hillary 2016 run as far as I can see. 2008 doesn't really line up either. For one thing, Obamacare and the slow recovery with a divided congress are poor comparisons for the Iraq War and the recession-turned-Great Recession.

I also don't see Hillary comparing with McCain ahead of 2008. She didn't just complete a term as Secretary of State. She left over a year ago and has been attacked relentlessly by Republicans since. I'd guess her support now is way more polarized than that of McCain in 2006 when he wasn't even the frontrunner. The fact that McCain led polls in 2006 doesn't seem here nor there.
155  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bold Prediction: HILLARY TO WIN MO in '16 (if she runs) on: March 27, 2014, 03:22:29 pm
In 9 of the last 10 presidential elections, Missouri went to whichever candidate was more like a white Southerner. So if the GOP nominates Huckabee or Paul, I think it'll be tough for her.
156  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election? on: March 27, 2014, 02:52:20 pm
So much of this discussion about 2016 seems off base to me.  In 1988, GHB won Reagan's "third term" essentially because the economy had done and continued to do so well.  If Reagan's approval ratings were in the low 40's and the economy was lackluster, Dukakis would have been elected president.  As James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Third terms are a real rarity.  And, at least since the turn of the last century, they have all been the result of well regarded economic conditions.  That was essentially the case in 1908, in 1928, in 1940, and especially in 1988.  Now to be fair, the first two examples were unique cases because three different presidents filled each term.  And in 1940, FDR became the first man to run for a third term and win, but he wouldn't have been able to do so had the country not believed the worst of the depression was behind them and things were improving.

Given that, I just don't see how anything at this stage points to a clear Clinton victory in 2016.  I'm not saying she can't/won't win, but I think it's going to be very difficult for any Democrat to win if Obama's approval numbers remain mired in the low 40's, his signature legislative achievement remains unpopular, and, most of all, the economy remains stagnant at best.  And to that point, it would be a rarity for Obama to go a full eight years without suffering his own economic recession.

If anything, I think the current conditions suggest an electoral map realignment might be in the offing just as happened in 1968 and 1992.  Just as the 1946 and 1948 elections served as a very good template for the 2010 and 2012 elections, the current economic conditions and general unhappiness of the country may point to 1918 and 1920 serving as a good template for 2014 and 2016.  That might even be truer if Republicans nominate someone in 2016 who can't be easily portrayed as anti-immigrant or anti-minority.

Things can turn on a dime and everything might look far rosier for Democrats in 2016 (economically), but the worst thing we can do is put too much weight in general election polls taken 30 months in advance.  We won't know how the electorate really feels about the candidates and the economy at least until late 2015 and early 2016.  Even then, it might be too soon.

I understand the logic of saying polls this early are meaningless because two and a half years is plenty of time for things to change, but I don't see how they're evidence of Obama's approval rating tripping her up. Why do polls show her beating every Republican when his approvals are just off their record lows? Why shouldn't we expect the Hillary:Obama dynamic to be closer to Cuomo:Paterson than McCain:Bush?
157  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could a Republican Senate be good for Mrs. Clinton? on: March 26, 2014, 06:23:26 pm
She's been running against congress for over a year and will continue to do so for the rest of this year and the two years after that whether or not Republicans take back the senate.
158  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: WI-Marquette: Walker up 7 on: March 26, 2014, 05:24:16 pm
I still suspect Walker to wi.

Pun intended?

What's the pun? "wi" or "suspect"?
159  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Meet the next Governor of New Jersey on: March 26, 2014, 05:22:04 pm
Christie probably won't be impeached, but a resignation as governor in order to run for president is a strong possibility, given that New Jersey's pay to play rules limit his fundraising for a presidential run if he's still the sitting governor of the state.

This is right. More dirt turning up against Christie makes it more not less likely he'll be governor next year since it's probably more likely to cause him to abandon a run for president than lead to impeachment or indictment. But with both those as possibilities, Guadagno will probably be the next governor. Of course, she's being investigated herself presumably so who knows?
160  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sheldon Adelson looking for a candidate to finance on: March 26, 2014, 01:06:16 pm
The irony is that unfettered campaign donations line up with the vision of Rand Paul more than anyone else and Adelson's primary concern will be sinking Paul's candidacy.
161  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which assumed 2016 candidate will stun political junkies and decide not to run? on: March 25, 2014, 04:01:45 pm
I keep saying many here are underestimating Cruz but I simultaneously feel many are underestimating the chance he doesn't even run. It's plausible he could pass. Rubio too, though things are gradual so an announcement of no run that may have stunned 1 or 2 years earlier wouldn't be shocking by the time it happens.
162  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Your current ranking for republican primary. on: March 25, 2014, 03:55:26 pm
I am skeptical the "party" can dictate the nominee. For one thing, party actors aren't monolithic. Palin and Rush Limbaugh (who vocally opposed both Huckabee and eventual nominee McCain in 2008) are party actors. They're likely to endorse Cruz if he runs. As far as "the establishment" goes, they failed to dictate many statewide nominees over the last two cycles and candidates they were allergic to won Iowa in 2008 and 12, New Hampshire in 08, South Carolina in 12. It's true none of Huckabee, Santorum or Gingrich ended up the nominee, but I think there was a better chance they could have been than Bernstein allows. And Cruz won't be as meek a fundraiser as Huckabee or Santorum and won't have the vulnerabilities Gingrich had in his shady past. They don't simply veto a candidate they don't like, they struggle to over the attempt of other party leaders to veto their choice. And the winner of that contest isn't always a foregone conclusion. My larger point, was that even if it's twice as likely an establishment approved candidate is the nominee as a Cruz or Paul, Cruz or Paul should still rank ahead of the establishment choices since their sub-primary is more wide open. It'd be like if in the early Super Bowl days, Cruz and Paul were in the AFL Championship and no one even knew was going to be in the NFL playoffs. And maybe one of them is the Jets. Not that Cruz is guaranteed to run but he's far more likely than Bush, whose wife's feelings are a huge question mark, or Walker, who is reportedly waiting on Ryan and could lose his re-election.
163  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Your current ranking for republican primary. on: March 24, 2014, 10:26:05 pm
I figure I'm probably close to last at this point due to low name recognition and lack of legal eligibility.

Sounds like a 2006 quote from Obama. Hit those talk shows, fix that birth certificate… voila!
164  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Your current ranking for republican primary. on: March 24, 2014, 10:05:20 pm
Bush will run. Rubio will endorse him. I told you all Cruz would rise this fast. He's the man to beat.

This is coming from someone who always thought a Bush run was more likely than a Rubio run, even when the board's consensus was the opposite. Still, there's still a big enough chance he won't run- arguably >50%- that I don't understand ranking him #1 at this point. Same with Walker. On the other hand, Cruz is much more likely to run than not. And why assume the establishment can stop him? They failed to dictate the winners in Iowa or New Hampshire in 2008, or Iowa or South Carolina 2012. It's true that Huckabee, Santorum and Gingrich ultimately failed to win the nomination but Cruz doesn't have similar weaknesses.

And I don't understand Thune either. One person posts it and then everyone else follows suit. The guy hasn't done a thing to suggest he has the slightest interest in running. Get your head in the game!
165  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Your current ranking for republican primary. on: March 24, 2014, 04:24:55 pm
#1 Jeb Bush
#2 Scott Walker
#3 Rand Paul
#4 Chris Christie
#5 John Kasich
#6 Marco Rubio
#7 Mike Huckabee
#8 Ted Cruz
#9 Paul Ryan
#10 Rick Santorum
Kasich ruled out a run a couple days ago.

It's less convincing than I first thought.

In any case, guys like Walker and Kasich have to get through uncertain re-elections. Bush doesn't but by accounts, his indecision feels genuine. So I don't think you can rank those people above Cruz and Paul who, right now, are much more likely to run. Cruz and Paul also both have a very good chance of winning an early state. But I think Paul has more latent problems with the base than Cruz does.

So I'd rank them:
1. Cruz
2. Paul
3. Bush
4. Walker
5. Kasich
6. Christie
7. Huckabee
8. Ryan
9. Rubio
10. Jindal

But I'd say there's also a good chance it ends up someone off the radar. Thune would be one example of that since he's done nothing to suggest he has any interest in running. If he surprised everyone by running, he could become top tier.
166  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Hillary and Jeb palling around next week on: March 23, 2014, 12:47:19 am
167  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sabato: Jeb Bush leads GOP Field on: March 22, 2014, 11:45:27 am
I think he nailed it.
168  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New Sabato ranking for GOP primary. on: March 20, 2014, 01:05:12 pm
This feels arbitrary. Bush and Walker are top-tier if they run but those are big ifs. Bush looks and sounds genuinely undecided, arguably more likely to pass than run. And everything I've read suggests Walker would defer if Ryan decided to run. Also, his re-election is up in the air and could presumably knock him out if he loses.  Huckabee or Ryan, who would also be top-tier if they run, should be ranked in a similar place but instead are grouped with Martinez (who has done nothing to suggest an interest in running) and Portman (who also hasn't done anything to suggest a run and endorsed gay marriage, which may be a dealbreaker in a GOP primary). And why is Cruz, who has led several state polls, grouped with Rubio, who hasn't shown any sign of being able to recover from immigration, and Kasich, who has serious base problems and gave a fairly convincing denial when last asked if he would run?

I would say…
First tier: no one
Second tier: Paul, Cruz
Wild cards: Bush, Walker, Christie, Ryan, Huckabee
Still has a chance: Everyone else
169  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who should Hillary pick as her VP choice? on: March 19, 2014, 04:32:58 pm
No one really picks a running mate based on geography or swing state. The most likely profile would be a younger, male governor but at the same time, there are plausible scenarios where she picks a female senator in her 60s: needs to pick Warren to energize the base, has a double-digit lead and picks Murray, etc.
170  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What is the probability that Hillary won't win the nomination? on: March 19, 2014, 04:26:49 pm
Chance of not running + chance of running, not winning the nomination = <5%

Those 2 + being nominated and losing = <40%.
171  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Colorado (PPP): Clinton rebounds, leads all Republicans on: March 19, 2014, 01:52:59 pm
She needs to not run in 2016, getting too old and needs to enjoy life.  Wait, Democrats said the same thing about McCain in 2008.

As Democrats, we feel the need to tell John McCain and everyone else how to live their lives. As a libertarian, you should stay out of Hillary Clinton's business.
172  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / NC-PPP: Huckabee up by 4 on: March 12, 2014, 11:50:18 am
Huckabee - 19
Christie - 15
Cruz - 14
Bush - 12
Paul - 12
Walker - 6
Rubio - 5
Ryan - 4
Jindal - 1
Someone else/not sure - 12


What happened to Ryan? There was a while when he was up in double digits with the rest of that bunch. Is it just his supporters preferring Huckabee if he runs?
173  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / NC-PPP: Clinton leads all Republicans on: March 12, 2014, 11:44:20 am

Clinton 47
Bush 46

Clinton 46
Christie 42

Clinton 49
Paul 43

Clinton 49
Huckabee 42
174  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - March 2014 on: March 04, 2014, 01:42:04 pm
To ballpark, say Walker is 60% to get re-elected and even if he does, Ryan is 1 in 3 to run. That puts Walker at 40% to run (maybe half of Ted Cruz's likelihood to run). Even in a race so wide open, I don't see how it doesn't make sense to say the likeliest nominee is someone less likely to run than not.
175  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sen. John Thune (R-SD) for president? on: March 04, 2014, 02:18:35 am
What evidence is there that Thune won't run?

The lack of a single piece of evidence that he will?

But there are usually people who surprise by running. Maybe that'll be Thune this time. He would be utterly annihilated.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 104

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines