Wishful Thinking

[Mister Mets]

It seems to me that Democrats are more likely to believe that Hillary Clinton could start buying drapes for the White House, and that Republicans are more likely to believe we'll win the next election. At least one group is engaging in wishful thinking here.

So, what do you want in 2016? And what is your impression of how likely it is  that it'll happen?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary's very experienced in buying drapes for the White House. She spent the entire 2007 on this task

[IceSpear]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

[Mister Mets]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

Next election refers to the presidential election.

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's the frontrunner, although we likely disagree on what that means.

I think Hillary Clinton's more likely than anyone else to be the next President, so she's the frontrunner. But this is primarily due to the expectation that she's more likely to win the Democratic party's nomination than any given Republican is to win the party's presidential nomination.

[IceSpear]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

Next election refers to the presidential election.

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's the frontrunner, although we likely disagree on what that means.

I think Hillary Clinton's more likely than anyone else to be the next President, so she's the frontrunner. But this is primarily due to the expectation that she's more likely to win the Democratic party's nomination than any given Republican is to win the party's presidential nomination.

And also because she currently leads every Republican in the polls by at least 9 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I want to see the two-party system thrashed, trashed, and stomped into the dirt. (But not by some charismatic authoritarian.) I suspect that is significantly  less likely than a global economic collapse and/or WWIII. (And I see those as very low probability events at least in the next 2-4 years.)

To be somewhat more realistic, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate an utter right-wing nut-job Tea Partier and lose the national vote by 20% or more, while getting trounced in the electoral college. Then perhaps the country can move away from the theocratic bigotry and move towards have an at least semi-functional and semi-rational two-party system again.

[Mister Mets]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

Next election refers to the presidential election.

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's the frontrunner, although we likely disagree on what that means.

I think Hillary Clinton's more likely than anyone else to be the next President, so she's the frontrunner. But this is primarily due to the expectation that she's more likely to win the Democratic party's nomination than any given Republican is to win the party's presidential nomination.

And also because she currently leads every Republican in the polls by at least 9 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Voters aren't likely to pay attention to her views until the General Election.

But those are some big spreads.

I want to see the two-party system thrashed, trashed, and stomped into the dirt. (But not by some charismatic authoritarian.) I suspect that is significantly  less likely than a global economic collapse and/or WWIII. (And I see those as very low probability events at least in the next 2-4 years.)

To be somewhat more realistic, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate an utter right-wing nut-job Tea Partier and lose the national vote by 20% or more, while getting trounced in the electoral college. Then perhaps the country can move away from the theocratic bigotry and move towards have an at least semi-functional and semi-rational two-party system again.

Would you really be upset if a Republican loses a narrow election?

[Potatoe]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

Next election refers to the presidential election.

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's the frontrunner, although we likely disagree on what that means.

I think Hillary Clinton's more likely than anyone else to be the next President, so she's the frontrunner. But this is primarily due to the expectation that she's more likely to win the Democratic party's nomination than any given Republican is to win the party's presidential nomination.

And also because she currently leads every Republican in the polls by at least 9 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Voters aren't likely to pay attention to her views until the General Election.

But those are some big spreads.

I want to see the two-party system thrashed, trashed, and stomped into the dirt. (But not by some charismatic authoritarian.) I suspect that is significantly  less likely than a global economic collapse and/or WWIII. (And I see those as very low probability events at least in the next 2-4 years.)

To be somewhat more realistic, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate an utter right-wing nut-job Tea Partier and lose the national vote by 20% or more, while getting trounced in the electoral college. Then perhaps the country can move away from the theocratic bigotry and move towards have an at least semi-functional and semi-rational two-party system again.

Would you really be upset if a Republican loses a narrow election?

What will seem so offensive about her views?

[Mister Mets]

By the next election, do you mean the midterms? If so, then both things could be correct.

If you're referring to the presidential election, then it's pretty obvious for now that Hillary is the frontrunner. That could change of course, but at the moment there is no question, unless you're an unskewed polls nutter.

Next election refers to the presidential election.

I agree with you that Hillary Clinton's the frontrunner, although we likely disagree on what that means.

I think Hillary Clinton's more likely than anyone else to be the next President, so she's the frontrunner. But this is primarily due to the expectation that she's more likely to win the Democratic party's nomination than any given Republican is to win the party's presidential nomination.

And also because she currently leads every Republican in the polls by at least 9 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Voters aren't likely to pay attention to her views until the General Election.

But those are some big spreads.

I want to see the two-party system thrashed, trashed, and stomped into the dirt. (But not by some charismatic authoritarian.) I suspect that is significantly  less likely than a global economic collapse and/or WWIII. (And I see those as very low probability events at least in the next 2-4 years.)

To be somewhat more realistic, I'd like to see the Republicans nominate an utter right-wing nut-job Tea Partier and lose the national vote by 20% or more, while getting trounced in the electoral college. Then perhaps the country can move away from the theocratic bigotry and move towards have an at least semi-functional and semi-rational two-party system again.

Would you really be upset if a Republican loses a narrow election?

What will seem so offensive about her views?

There's nothing particularly offensive about her views. She's just a Democrat in a partisan environment. Some of the voters who currently like her will be reminded of the issues she disagrees with them on. Races tend to tighten.

She can still win, but it's not going to be the highest numbers suggested by the polls. If McCain was able to get 45.7% during an economic crisis with Sarah Palin as his running mate, and the flawed Romney campaign got within four points of Obama in the popular vote after Hurricane Sandy, I don't see Jeb Bush or Rand Paul losing by ten, much less twenty, barring catastrophic Akin-like errors.