Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 18, 2017, 02:33:58 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Lock on the Electoral College on: August 14, 2013, 10:22:58 am
Hillary will have made history not only as the first female President, but as the fourth consecutive two-term President for the first time since James Madison


Adams was one term. Jefferson, Madison, & Monroe were two terms. Adams Jr. was one term.

I don't think four consectuvie two terms has happened unless you count FDR through Johnson or Nixon (either way) but it has to be at the party level since deaths spoil it.

Ah yes, you're right, I did overlook that. Still, it'll be the third consecutive two-term president for the first time since James Monroe.

I'm not guaranteeing that the Democrats have an absolute lock, and my predictions may not happen. However, it seems to me that Democrats will have a more favorable electoral climate in the next few cycles if the Republican Party does not change. It seems that with the more-or-less consistently negative view the electorate has had of the Republican Party as of the better part of the last decade, and with a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy (the former Secretary is in a much more formidable position now than in 2008 as a general election candidate), the conditions may favor a third or possibly fourth consecutive Democratic election win more than at any time since the 1940s, never mind that by some interpretations, 2000 actually was a third consecutive Democratic election win (except for the Gore becoming President part).
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Lock on the Electoral College on: August 14, 2013, 01:18:51 am
I agree that in its current form the Republican Party will have a very difficult time winning presidential elections, and unless they at least become more socially liberal and keep up with the times, they won't win the White House.

The next GOP President will probably be in the mid-late 2020s (after two terms of Hillary when incumbent party fatigue is really hitting), will back same-sex marriage and possibly the federal rescheduling of cannabis that (probably) happens in the late 2010s/early 2020s, and will be very careful in framing their economic message as a square deal for the middle class - they won't be like Mitt Romney. It might take losing several more consecutive elections due to terrible candidates for this to happen - a winning GOP candidate would probably have to be substantially more centrist than Christie to get enough support, because the old GOP base is dwindling and the country isn't about social conservatism.

For the GOP to be electable, they'll have to stake out more socially liberal positions while reframing their economic stances in a way that is palatable to people who aren't already wealthy, and in addition will have to assert that their new, socially... let's say, libertarian viewpoints are in keeping with a small government ethos.

I disagree with the assertion that Christie is basically a centrist Democrat - most centrist Democrats at least aren't totally anti-union, and almost all centrist Democrats would support same-sex marriage at this point. Huntsman is actually more centrist than Christie at this point, and he could win (even some of my more liberal friends would consider voting for him under the right circumstances), but the GOP probably won't think about him until they've lost two more elections.

Even if Christie gets the GOP nod and Hillary doesn't run, there are other Democrats who could give Christie a run for his money, and the Democratic camp could just play ad after ad of Christie hugging Obama, hurting Christie among the conservative base by bringing up the idea that he sabotaged Romney during Sandy. There's also the off-chance of a third party run by Rand Paul, who has made it plain that he despises Christie.

My basic prediction

2016 - Clinton defeats Christie (and maybe Paul in three-way race), GOP turns back on centrists for another cycle because they think, "Well, Romney and Christie couldn't seal the deal but they were centrists", except they weren't really that centrist.

2020 - Clinton defeats Cruz or Santorum after far-right victory in primaries, GOP does much worse than in 2012 or 2016 as President Clinton wins 40+ states, starts to look at moderates again. The GOP is not helped by the economy having recovered much more substantially by this point. Hillary will have made history not only as the first female President, but as the fourth consecutive two-term President for the first time since James Madison and the first Democrat to win 40+ states since LBJ in 1964. Texas goes very narrowly (narrower than Florida '12) to Democrats for the first time since 1976.

2024 - Huntsman-esque moderate defeats Clinton VP or other Dem, albeit narrowly as incumbent fatigue ensures that there isn't a fifth consecutive Democratic election win.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What states should Republicans compete in that W never won? on: July 05, 2013, 06:46:20 pm
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon are all Non-W states Republicans should go for. Maybe even Maine and Washington.

Pennsylvania is a possibility for a Republican win, with a Christie or Huntsman-like candidate who is perceived as moderate, against a non-Hillary candidate in 2016. New Jersey is possible too in 2016 if Christie is the nominee, but only against someone other than Hillary.

Wisconsin and Minnesota are distant possibilities in a blowout, and again, only with a candidate perceived as a moderate who appeals to independents. Both would be difficult to pull off - Republicans haven't won Wisconsin since 1984 and haven't won Minnesota since 1972. Connecticut would be very difficult for the GOP to pull off and I don't see it happening in the near future.

Oregon seems to have moved a little further leftward and no longer seems like a potential pickup for Republicans. The only scenario I see making it possible is if there's a big enough third-party challenge to Democrats a la 2000, in which Nader almost won enough votes that would have gone to Gore for Bush to win the state. Michigan seems as unlikely to go GOP as Oregon - both had similar (and substantial) margins of victory for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Maine seems unlikely to go back to the GOP - it hasn't been there since 1988. Governor LePage is very unpopular, and that may or may not translate to further dislike for the national GOP. If they ever want a chance, they'd need, again, a Christie or Huntsman candidate against a non-Hillary Democrat, but that might only get Maine down to 2004 / 2000 margins.

Washington - I live here. The only way for the GOP to win here is if you have a really moderate, almost non-partisan, pro-choice GOP candidate who's cool with same-sex marriage, and is running against a Democrat who causes severe problems or splits within the Democratic base. That's the only way a Republican could compete in Seattle / Western Washington. I mean, we wouldn't elect McKenna, which most of the GOP seems to think of as reasonably moderate - we still felt he was too conservative for us.

It's necessary to win western WA to win the state, and in western WA we're mostly a bunch of liberals of different variations. I don't foresee Washington going to the Republicans in the near future, unless the GOP becomes a more moderate or liberal party at some point, which I doubt will happen.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will Clinton, Rubio, and Christie take as running mates? on: May 15, 2013, 07:51:41 pm
Patrick wouldn't be a drag on a Clinton ticket but probably wouldn't shift any states either way. Patrick is younger than Joe Biden was in 2008, and is still eight years younger than Clinton.

For Clinton:

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) - Not the first on everyone's minds, but rightfully admired by the liberal base, could solidify Colorado in the unlikely situation that it were to start slipping substantially away from Hillary.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) - May encounter accusations of inexperience and criticism for being only a one term Senator - though he'll have served as much time in the Senate as Barack Obama when he was elected. He's young and may prove to be a political force in time.

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) - Governor for eight years, relatively well liked by the base, a fairly safe pick.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) - Choosing Warren would shore up liberal support big-time.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) - Young Senator from what may be a swing state in 2016 if Martinez happens to get the nomination or on the GOP ticket

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) - Relatively well liked by the base, from the pivotal swing state of Ohio

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) - Well liked by the base

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) - Would solidify Virginia in Clinton's favor

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) or Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - Unlikely though experienced picks. It'd be interesting to see someone from my home state finally get on a major party ticket.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) - If there's anytime for the first openly LGBT Vice President, it's with Hillary at the top of the ticket at a time when more and more states are legalizing same-sex marriage - call me crazy but I predict that more than 25 states will have legalized it by 2017.

I'll do Rubio and Christie later.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: The guy you KNOW will never run but you want him/her to? on: May 15, 2013, 07:33:14 pm
Steve Buscemi - Great actor, honest, cool, helped with 9/11 rescue effort

Morgan Freeman - Great actor, great voice, he's already been President like four times on film, so I'm sure he has sufficient experience

Joe Pesci - Like George Carlin once said, Joe Pesci is a man you can trust.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Biden/Cantwell vs. Christie/Fischer on: April 12, 2013, 08:30:48 pm
About jokes on Cantwell's name -

There was a Republican candidate for Senate in 2006 in our state named Mike McGavick. Mike put up ads on buses - something along the lines of "Maria Can't-Vote-Well".

He lost by 17 points, 56.9% to 39.9%.

Republican candidates for statewide office in Washington who aren't named Slade Gorton, Dino Rossi or Rob McKenna tend to be unable to break 40%.

Nationwide would be another story and would certainly be narrower - she could probably be on a winning ticket as VP if the climate's right or if she's chosen by Hillary somehow, but she doesn't seem to have a ton of national name recognition even though she's been in the Senate for over a decade.

Also, 3 and a half years from now, Biden may actually be able to beat Christie. His approvals won't stay 70% forever - they may very well be back at 50/50 in a couple years.
7  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Donald Trump: Mitt Romney's Immigration Policy Was 'Maniacal' on: November 27, 2012, 03:04:55 am
Clinton/Warner '16 - 60.8%, 469 EV
Trump/Bachmann '16 - 37.4%, 69 EV

Let's see if I'm right. I was only one state off this year.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will the 2016 election be more like 2004 or 1980? on: November 22, 2012, 03:04:41 am
If unemployment is around 6%, and Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Clinton will win around 2008 margin popular and electoral vote wise, possibly slightly higher.

If a Democrat other than Clinton wins the nod and unemployment is around 6%, the Democrat will win by around a 2008 margin. If it's a stubborn 6.7-7% it will be a tossup, either side winning by a 2000-2004 like margin.

If a Republican wins in 2016 it will be by a narrow 2004-like margin. Possible GOP 45th Presidents could be Christie or Rubio, possibly but probably not Jindal, or maybe Martinez.

9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats who really don't want Biden, Clinton or Cuomo to be the nominee. on: November 22, 2012, 03:00:01 am
I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee but I might consider someone else first in the primary. I preferred Obama over Clinton in 2008 due to Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War and Obama's early opposition to the invasion, as well as well as the fact that Obama seemed to do slightly better in polls against McCain than Clinton.

I have to say I was impressed by the U.S.-Egypt brokered Gaza ceasefire today, and if it holds I'll be even more impressed. I would be less skeptical of a Clinton run this time. But I still am a bit more liberal than the center of the Democratic Party, and would weight my options in who to support.
10  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Mitt Romney is now very close to ... on: November 22, 2012, 02:35:17 am
The main reason Obama got even the margin he did was because of the left coast loonies in lala land.

I have a suggestion. Please never leave Rhode Island, and never move to Ohio or Florida. I really, really like the fact that your vote doesn't matter.

By the way, where were those left coast so-called loonies when Bush beat Kerry in 2004? They already voted for Kerry, and they did not decide the election. And why this prejudice toward the west coast? Your state is more liberal than mine!

I'm sorry, but Nate Silver and his arithmetic were right. Sorry, those polls weren't skewed. Sorry, not everybody who disagrees with you is automatically an ultra leftist.

The GOP lost because it utterly alienated women, and minorities, who are only a slightly more substantial portion of the U.S. electorate this time around. It sounds to me like with his 47% talk, Romney alienated plenty of moderates, some of whom may have voted for Bush in 2004. Looks like your party has some work to do demographically Losefield, I mean, Winfield. Publicly penning an op-ed titled "Let Detroit go bankrupt" does not help a Republican candidate in Ohio and the upper midwest. This is common sense.

Seriously man. Your party lost Florida, twice in a row, a state that has historically been at least lean GOP. And they did it conditions where they probably should have won the state. I predicted a 303-235 Obama win with Romney winning Florida, but Obama won Florida. What does that tell you? Does it tell you keep doing the same thing? Because if it does at a party-wide level, the Republicans can expect to lose in 2016 and 2020 as well if economic conditions continue to improve, even gradually. If (and it is a big if) we're looking at 6 to 6.5% unemployment in 2016, do the Republicans even have a chance anyway?
11  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Mitt Romney is now very close to ... on: November 21, 2012, 08:37:48 pm
Yeah well 47.47% or 47.54% at least it says, that % of folks didn't want the anointed one & the casual observer can be excused for noticing, that Obama didn't win the popular vote blow-out he had wished for, the first president since Woodrow Wilson to see his support decrease; also Romney did better than Dukakis in 1988, GHWB in 1992, Dole in 1996 (only Kerry in 2004, did marginally better) and McCain in '08; both percentage wise as well as the EV; the anointed one might have been re-elected, but nothing on the blow-out scale he was expecting; that must catch in a few craw's; in terms of EV scoring, Obama only did better than Wilson, Truman, Carter and Dubya...not Mt. Rushmore territory is it? What would be sweet Irony, is if Obama and Dubya are both at 50.73% each...yep those stats are a bitch!

Romney also won a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton in 1992, but sorry, he did not and thankfully never will become president. If your party does not bring itself into some passable approximation of reality within the next couple years they will continue losing elections that they could conceivably have won, and will spend an era in opposition. Which I'd be perfectly fine with, frankly. By the way, if you have not figured it out yet, calling President Obama "the anointed one" makes you sound delusional. Perhaps try "the elected one"?
12  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Will Obama's Cocaine and Drug use be an issue in the 2012 election? on: October 07, 2012, 02:29:43 pm
I have an idea. Let's end the War on Drugs.

The past three Presidents have done drugs in their youth. A war on drugs is an unwinnable drain of resources costly in both lives and treasure, and legalizing and regulating substances and treating drug abuse as a health rather than a criminal issue would be better than what we have had for decades.

Besides, if you live in a country that will throw you in the slammer over a substance you decide to put into your own body to achieve some desired effect, but won't penalize bankers for ruining the economy, you aren't living in a free country.

So no, it isn't fair to attack Obama and say he's unfit for office because he did drugs a few times in the early 80s. That would be silly and I would frown upon it. If anything, you could use his and G. W.'s and Clinton's youthful drug experimentation to highlight the absurdity of continuing the War on Drugs, which all three of the presidents have continued to do.

Never, at any point in our history, are we gonna say, "Phew, got 'em all, there are no more drugs left, everybody's finally sober."

That's never, ever going to happen.

Milhouse, I'm a liberal. But I didn't attack George W. Bush for doing cocaine in the 60s or 70s. I think that would be ridiculous. So when you say "liberals attacked George W. Bush for cocaine", write a little asterisk next to it that says *except Statesman.

I attacked him for his policies (Iraq War was unnecessary and costly in blood and treasure, not going after bin Laden was a stupid decision, tax breaks for the wealthy did not help the economy recover long term and is a waste of money) while he was President, which, I think it's safe to say, got us to a worse place than where we when he took office. You might want to notice that Obama has a net gain of jobs, and George W. Bush had a net loss of jobs.
13  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: If the 2012 results mirror 2000 does either side concede? on: October 06, 2012, 11:35:48 pm
What if December 21, 2012 is the day they finally call Ohio?

Could happen, but I doubt it.

It could be that close, but I think Obama still has this thing. Two more debates, with large amounts devoted to foreign policy, not Romney's strong suit.
14  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: If you met Obama or Romney.. on: October 06, 2012, 09:36:29 pm
Obama - "Hey can I get the name of your coke dealer? You must be on the good stuff."

Uh... cocaine's a stimulant... if this comment's related to the debates, you might want to take into account that Obama looked like he needed a cup of coffee... if you're trying to sound clever, you're failing miserably. I've been around people who've done coke (thankfully I never did it myself), and they were the opposite of how Obama was on stage.


To Mr. Obama - "Throw a punch next time."

To Mr. Romney - "You will never be my president."
15  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney: Barack Obama Voters 'Dependent On Government on: September 18, 2012, 06:03:47 am
If that's true, they're still outliers. This is going to damage Romney heavily.

This week will probably be looked at as the week Romney lost the election, and we haven't even gotten to the debates. Something has seriously backfired with his campaign the last month.

I think Romney ran a campaign too far to the right when he really should have been appealing to the center all along, and he's done a poor job of re-centering his campaign around independents. If you're trying to be a president for all Americans, it's unwise to just write off 47% of the electorate from the start, even if cracking 53% seems unlikely.

One thing is for certain, Mitt seems like he's unable to go a week without making a major gaffe, or without having something he said or did months or years ago come back to haunt him.
16  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Jobs Report Effect on: September 08, 2012, 12:25:42 am
Little effect. A negative number or the unemployment rate rising would have been damaging to Obama. If the unemployment rate drops below 8.0% with the October jobs report, Romney will be the one in trouble. That said, 96,000 isn't enough. But I don't see what Romney's done or is proposing to fix that problem.
17  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Rate Bill Clinton's speech on: September 06, 2012, 12:44:43 am
42 10s now... Clinton was the 42nd President... and 70%... about his approval rating right now.
18  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Rate Elizabeth Warren's speech on: September 06, 2012, 12:39:27 am
I thought it was excellent and blunt. If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd be proud to vote for her.
19  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Rate Bill Clinton's speech on: September 06, 2012, 12:02:17 am

He spoke forever and it didn't get boring. It was substantive, yet it was also full of feeling. He effectively skewered Romney and effectively defended Obama's accomplishments. If Obama can match this tomorrow, he's pretty much got the election sewn up. All that's left are the debates, which are not Romney's strong suit (but rather his empty suit).
20  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Game changing endorsement: Nicki Minaj (R) backs Romney. on: September 04, 2012, 06:26:50 am
This'll sure change minds.

21  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Rumor: Ron Paul to endorse Gary Johnson on the Tonight Show, Tuesday. on: September 04, 2012, 05:24:31 am
This would be interesting. It might make a few would-be "I'm gonna hold my nose and vote Romney" voters switch to Johnson, but I don't know if it will have a really big impact on the election or not. But it might get some non-voters to the polls.

A friend of mine who is disappointed with Obama but also really dislikes Romney told me he probably wouldn't vote this year. He leaned towards Ron Paul on some issues, and this might give him a reason to vote. I recommended to him that if he didn't like Obama and couldn't stomach Romney, he might like some proposals by either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Perfect President on: September 03, 2012, 05:41:41 am
There is no era of good feelings on the horizon. There may be candidates that win 35-40 states against weak opposition. But no 50-state + DC sweeps, even with a World War III (provided elections are still ongoing under those circumstances).
23  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Obama still a fan of Clint Eastwood. on: September 02, 2012, 07:34:39 pm
Clint Eastwood is still worth his weight in gold.
24  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Official Republican National Convention 2012 Discussion Thread on: August 31, 2012, 05:11:44 am
Eastwood dissed student loans, which comes off as elitist. His speech was less than impressive. His movies are good, he should stick to acting.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: George Romney (R) vs. Hubert Humphrey (D) - 1968 on: August 31, 2012, 04:22:37 am
Humphrey, and Humphrey would win.

The gaffe prone George Romney would probably make a better president in 1969 than his son would in 2013. But he would stumble a lot on the campaign trail. Humphrey would take Missouri and Kentucky, Wallace would take Tennessee and South Carolina, and many states around the country would shift to narrow Humphrey victories.

Humphrey ~45% 345 EV
Romney ~41% 129 EV
Wallace ~14% 64 EV
Pages: [1] 2

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines