Odds of an anti-SSM Democrat winning any primary? Odds of a pro-SSM Republican?

[badgate]

Demorats: 20/80
Republicans: 1/100

[7,052,770]

Surprised at all the 0% for Republicans -- Jon Huntsman could potentially win a state or two, as could John Bolton.  Not to mention that Christie is already on the path to being explicitly pro-SSM, and there's a non-0 chance he'll have fully come out by the 2016 primaries.

For Democrats, it's extremely unlikely, but if Hillary wraps it up after 4 or 5 states, maybe Randall Terry or someone like that will sink a bunch of money into one state. 

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I'd say 0% for Dems - I doubt any of the few left will run - and about 25% for Republicans. The polls are only going in one direction. I think there's a chance Christie "evolves" on the issue after he's been quiet about it for most of the primary season, and then reveals he's in favor as the primaries draw to a close once he's clinched the nod.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Surprised at all the 0% for Republicans -- Jon Huntsman could potentially win a state or two, as could John Bolton.  Not to mention that Christie is already on the path to being explicitly pro-SSM, and there's a non-0 chance he'll have fully come out by the 2016 primaries.

For Democrats, it's extremely unlikely, but if Hillary wraps it up after 4 or 5 states, maybe Randall Terry or someone like that will sink a bunch of money into one state. 

So am I.  I am very shocked.

[Mechaman]

Democrats: 0%, because anybody who was anti-gay marriage before running who wants to win at least one state is going to change their position.

Republicans: Almost certainly 100%.  Christie will run and likely be pro-SSM by then.  Hell, half of the presidential candidates could be pro-SSM by then.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see a candidate Portman running.

[Maxwell]

Surprised at all the 0% for Republicans -- Jon Huntsman could potentially win a state or two, as could John Bolton.  Not to mention that Christie is already on the path to being explicitly pro-SSM, and there's a non-0 chance he'll have fully come out by the 2016 primaries.

For Democrats, it's extremely unlikely, but if Hillary wraps it up after 4 or 5 states, maybe Randall Terry or someone like that will sink a bunch of money into one state. 

John Bolton has no chance. I know internet forums re-enforce these Washington Insider candidates like Tim Pawlenty, but nobody cares about John Bolton.

[Joe Biden 2020]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

[barfbag]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

[Joe Biden 2020]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

[Flake]

I think 5% for the Dems, and 4% for the Reps.

[Nichlemn]

I doubt Christie would be pro-SSM in 2016. He isn't now, even in a state where almost a majority of Republicans are pro-SSM. Yes, he dropped the suit against it, but that might be more of a pragmatic decision, and also reflect the imminent election in NJ. In 2016, the primary electorate will be much more conservative than the NJ general electorate.

I wouldn't put this past happening:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I don't think it really counts for the purposes of my exercise.

[RogueBeaver]

Pretty much zero.

[Mister Mets]

I realize I misread the question. It's not what the odds are that an anti-SSM Democrat or pro-SSM Republican will become the nominee, but whether they'll win any state primary.

That changes things. Current Republican contenders can change their mind, and there are at least two potential candidates who support SSM who could have credible bids. In previous Republican primaries (which included a next in line frontrunner who doesn't exist in '16) three candidates won state primaries (with Ron Paul also winning the Virgin Islands in 2012.)

The strong showings by nobodies who ran against Obama in West Virginia and Tennessee primaries show potential opening for a conservative Democrat to win a few states. It won't be enough to win the election, but it could be an effective promotional tool  to raise a national profile (to help with a book tour, or to make someone an appealing choice for a cabinet post.) That said, the handful of Democrats opposed to SSM aren't listed as potential presidential contenders, so while the odds one will win at least one state are not non-existent, it's still pretty low.

[Non Swing Voter]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Not surprised that someone like you would want to give people equal treatment under the law "just" to take the issue away from the other party... maybe you should learn to tolerate other people, you could start with deleting all of your posts calling minorities "racist."

[IceSpear]

Republicans: Almost certainly 100%.  Christie will run and likely be pro-SSM by then.  Hell, half of the presidential candidates could be pro-SSM by then.

If this happens I'll video tape myself eating my cat's food. No way in hell does that happen. Although the religious right's power is waning quickly among all Americans, their influence within the GOP is still very strong.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

Sorry guys, but this is wishful thinking. The Republican Party will not nominate a pro-SSM candidate in 2016. Maybe they will in 2020, after Ted Cruz or someone like him leads them to disaster, but the Republican base, which is much older, more rural, and more religious than the country as a whole, is still implacably opposed to gay marriage.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The latter is more likely (but still unlikely); the GOP rank-and-file cares a lot more about abortion and could probably accept a pro-SSMer if they were sufficiently fascistic otherwise.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There are very few Anti-SSM Democrats, and the few that are will not run for president.


A Pro-SSM Republican is more common (slightly). A non-Homophobe could win, but not a supporter.

[Mr. Illini]

0% for the Dems. Manchin picking up support in Appalachia means nothing if he doesn't have the support of the liberal northeast, and I don't see the northeast or party elites supporting an anti-SSM candidate, both because of the issue being important to them and because said candidate would probably be too conservative on other issues as well (guns, etc.).

I'll go with 10% for the Republicans. The scenario I see would be Christie coming out in favor (I think he probably is deep down but has not yet for political reasons) and while that would deal him a huge hit in the polls, he could still possibly win. It's a slim chance, though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

Sorry guys, but this is wishful thinking. The Republican Party will not nominate a pro-SSM candidate in 2016. Maybe they will in 2020, after Ted Cruz or someone like him leads them to disaster, but the Republican base, which is much older, more rural, and more religious than the country as a whole, is still implacably opposed to gay marriage.

Don't forget more white and more male than the country as a whole.

[Joe Biden 2020]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

Sorry guys, but this is wishful thinking. The Republican Party will not nominate a pro-SSM candidate in 2016. Maybe they will in 2020, after Ted Cruz or someone like him leads them to disaster, but the Republican base, which is much older, more rural, and more religious than the country as a whole, is still implacably opposed to gay marriage.

I could see your scenario in the sense that the primaries are usually more partisan than the general election on both sides of the aisle.  However, I still think the Republicans have a good chance to see a pro-SSM winning a primary state.  Granted, it would have to be a state that currently allows SSM, such as Iowa or New Hampshire, or California, but the states that are still do not allow it or recognize it, especially those in the Bible Belt no way in hell would that happen.  Heck, that probably won't happen until 2048 or 2052.

[Nichlemn]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

Sorry guys, but this is wishful thinking. The Republican Party will not nominate a pro-SSM candidate in 2016. Maybe they will in 2020, after Ted Cruz or someone like him leads them to disaster, but the Republican base, which is much older, more rural, and more religious than the country as a whole, is still implacably opposed to gay marriage.

I could see your scenario in the sense that the primaries are usually more partisan than the general election on both sides of the aisle.  However, I still think the Republicans have a good chance to see a pro-SSM winning a primary state.  Granted, it would have to be a state that currently allows SSM, such as Iowa or New Hampshire, or California, but the states that are still do not allow it or recognize it, especially those in the Bible Belt no way in hell would that happen.  Heck, that probably won't happen until 2048 or 2052.

That seems too late. Nate Silver's projections are a useful guide. Though they don't go any further than 2020, he projects only six states to disapprove by that point, and extrapolating later we should majority approval in every state by 2032.

A relevant number for our exercise is he projects 54% support for SSM in a hypothetical nationwide referendum in 2016. So a clear majority, but not so overwhelming that Republicans will feel forced to give support in order to be electable in the general, and also indicative of a Republican primary that will still be largely in opposition.

[Joe Biden 2020]

There are already about an even number of pro-SSM Republicans as there are anti-SSM.  It is no longer as taboo of a subject or a position even for the Republicans.

It really isn't and Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage than the dinosaur media wants people to think. Also, it's not an issue they're really very passionate about compared to Democrats. Regardless of what my party thinks, I think we should help to legalize it just to take an issue off of the table for Democrats.

Very true.

Sorry guys, but this is wishful thinking. The Republican Party will not nominate a pro-SSM candidate in 2016. Maybe they will in 2020, after Ted Cruz or someone like him leads them to disaster, but the Republican base, which is much older, more rural, and more religious than the country as a whole, is still implacably opposed to gay marriage.

I could see your scenario in the sense that the primaries are usually more partisan than the general election on both sides of the aisle.  However, I still think the Republicans have a good chance to see a pro-SSM winning a primary state.  Granted, it would have to be a state that currently allows SSM, such as Iowa or New Hampshire, or California, but the states that are still do not allow it or recognize it, especially those in the Bible Belt no way in hell would that happen.  Heck, that probably won't happen until 2048 or 2052.

That seems too late. Nate Silver's projections are a useful guide. Though they don't go any further than 2020, he projects only six states to disapprove by that point, and extrapolating later we should majority approval in every state by 2032.

A relevant number for our exercise is he projects 54% support for SSM in a hypothetical nationwide referendum in 2016. So a clear majority, but not so overwhelming that Republicans will feel forced to give support in order to be electable in the general, and also indicative of a Republican primary that will still be largely in opposition.

I could see anywhere between 2028 and 2036.  I was exaggerating when I said 2048 or 2052, but I think anytime in the next 10-20 years.  There is a possibility it may happen by 2024, but I think 2028-2036 are the most likely cycles.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

0% for the Dems. Manchin picking up support in Appalachia means nothing if he doesn't have the support of the liberal northeast, and I don't see the northeast or party elites supporting an anti-SSM candidate, both because of the issue being important to them and because said candidate would probably be too conservative on other issues as well (guns, etc.).

I'll go with 10% for the Republicans. The scenario I see would be Christie coming out in favor (I think he probably is deep down but has not yet for political reasons) and while that would deal him a huge hit in the polls, he could still possibly win. It's a slim chance, though.

I don't think he'll run again/have a chance, but I'd also bet Huntsman is that way too.