Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[MagisterCultuum]

Was Ben Carson really against BOTH of them? I've never heard of this guy. If he really is, I'm on his bandwagon NOW!

Rand Paul screwed up on Afghanistan, although in fairness, so did his dad...

I just did a search and eventually found this this article where he says he would not have gotten involved in either war.

He also says that he believes that we should have scared the middle countries into helping us by announcing a JFK-like 10 year plan to become independent from their oil. He says that this would de-fund the terrorists and that scare moderate Muslims into giving up bin Laden.



Ben Carson was raised by a poor, illiterate single mother. He was a very poor student during elementary school but turned around by high school well enough to get into Yale. He went to the University of Michigan Medical School and became one of the world's best Neurosurgeons. He is now a professor at Johns Hopkins University.

He is also Seventh Day Adventist and a Young Earth Creationist. He is very socially conservative, and has made many statements that seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.

He supports moving to a flat tax on income.

He is a black man but seems to be very unpopular with most African-Americans.

 

[downtown]

No love for Hickalooper?

I like Hickalooper a lot, maybe more than any other prospective Dem, even Clinton. He's pretty much tailor-made for a yuppie-ish young urbanite voter like me though...small business experience, highly effective and popular big city mayor, strong record on environmentalism, social progressiveness, urban development and issues, while still having budget credibility. I love that message, not sure how exciting that is for a labor-type guy though.

I wouldn't see him taking many votes from a more conservative wing of the Dem party though.

Foreign policy is infinitely more important. I need to know that for sure before I support him.

Someday you will learn the difference between what is important to YOU and what is strategically important to OTHER VOTERS.

I just did a search and eventually found this this article where he says he would not have gotten involved in either war.

Yeah, he sounds like a smarter Alan Keyes. Bring him on.

 

[Antilogic]

I still do. Jindal is getting push back for advocating fundamentally conservative ideas...he wants to trim back state income and corporate taxes in favor of more sales taxes or equally regressive rates. In a state with as many poor people as Louisiana, that's a harder sell (while very conservative, the state still has a streak of blue-ish populism in it), but to a Republican primary audience, I don't see why that would eliminate him? Guys who weren't so popular with their geographic base run for president all the time...not just Mittens, but Santorum too. Heck, I'm not sure if Georgia would sent Newt back to congress if they could.

Jindal still has strong credentials for a conservative policy reformer, especially on education (where there is mostly an agreement between conservative and liberal elites). He's one of the very few Republicans who can credibly talk about health care. He's very much not an idiot, and he's not white. He's boring, but there are still a lot of stronger fundamentals there.

I think it's probably more likely he ends up as the next Sec of Education or something in a GOP Presidency, but if he runs, I think he'd do fairly well.

I think the point Silver was trying to make is that being unpopular with your home state may not kill you in the primaries (so long as your state isn't Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina), and might endear yourself to the base that is voting in the primaries (as opposed to the overall state, which includes plenty of people who won't bother voting for you in the primaries as well as in the general election).

His State of the Union response is old news at this point, old enough that he can re-introduce himself nationally. At the moment, the only recent quote from him out is the stupid party speech, I think. And with the conservative policies he's pushing, that's a good thing.

I was expecting people to crucify me on my DNC choices (only one actually has a chance, unfortunately).

I know from prior posts that you would prefer a more conservative blue-dog type Democratic candidate. Like DT said, they probably don't have much of a realistic chance, but moreso they haven't been putting in enough time on the weekend shows and other making major speeches that establishes them nationally (about the only exception you could find here is Joe Manchin on guns).

The "conservative" Dems in this election will probably be Cuomo and gov Brian schweitzer

Is Warner viewed as a conservative Dem or a more moderate one?

I like Hickalooper a lot, maybe more than any other prospective Dem, even Clinton. He's pretty much tailor-made for a yuppie-ish young urbanite voter like me though...small business experience, highly effective and popular big city mayor, strong record on environmentalism, social progressiveness, urban development and issues, while still having budget credibility. I love that message, not sure how exciting that is for a labor-type guy though.

I wouldn't see him taking many votes from a more conservative wing of the Dem party though.

Do you see Hickenlooper as the candidate-of-choice for the progressive wing?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Why, of all positions that whoever this guy is holds, did you rememeber THAT ONE?

Those were the only ones I knew that he had.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You're missing my point though: Somebody being well-known and agreeing with you doesn't actually mean they'd be good at being president. I mean, I agree with Ben Carson that people should be healthy, but I'm not gunning for his job. So what has he done indicating he has the skills needed for any political office?

He is a highly determined individual who is very intelligent.

This is what I think a Paul/Carson versus Cuomo/Warren would look like:

And this would be the map if the Democrats wisely chose Schweitzer (no particular VP/GOP contender).

 

[Antilogic]

Are you a member of the US Election Atlas? I've browsed some of the threads on that site.

I think your Paul v. Cuomo map is very optimistic for Paul, to say the least. I think whether the Republicans can take Nevada and New Mexico back depends more on what the party (and in particular the state parties) does in the next couple years than on the identity of the candidate. As for winning Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and New Hampshire (and even Virginia, although you gave that to the Dems)... it's possible, but maybe with a slightly adjusted ticket.

On the second map, I think it's equally optimistic for Schweitzer; South Carolina and Louisiana will be very tough nuts to crack, even after they pull off the miracle of flipping Indiana, Montana, and Missouri (any one of those three, plus the states that Obama won in 2012 and maybe NC, would be a huge Democratic victory in 2016). It's nearly impossible for the Democrats to pull off NE-02 again; the Republicans adjusted the borders of that district to include more of the Omaha suburbs to block that.

 

[RobAnybody]

I consider myself quite representative of the uninformed, low initiative voter. And, well, I don't know who any of these people put forth in the last couple of posts are.

Other than Ryan, I guess, but didn't he lose? Cuomo? That's a... someone I've vaguely heard of, I guess. Therefore, they have no chance, unless they rocket onto the stage in the next couple years. FWIW. Just saying.

There's a Schweitzer now? Carson? Isn't he dead?

 

[madviking]

Switching the colors? WTH is wrong with you...

 

[ZeletDude]

Okay, I will. Pryor has been a Senator of little renown and is almost certainly going to lose his seat this year. Manchin is barely a Democrat who might not have even voted for Obama last election, and Baucus has been one of the Senate's biggest supporters of Big Banks, and was full of conflict of interests in dealing with health care reform. He's a western version of Senator Dodd, hardly something to be excited about.

The "conservative" Dems in this election will probably be Cuomo and gov Brian schweitzer

I don't think Pryor will go the way of Lincoln..

 

[Antilogic]

Switching the colors? WTH is wrong with you...

Actually, that's what a lot of people said about 2000.

And at one point, red was unallocated and yellow was Republican, but they decided to make Reagan blue in 1980 and Carter red. Bonus in the clip: you can see a young Barbara Walters calling the 1976 returns!

 

[madviking]

But nowadays Blue States and Red States are real Things.

 

[ace99]

democrats should b red becoz theyre communists lulz am i rite guyz?

 

[Antilogic]

But nowadays Blue States and Red States are real Things.

Oh, no doubt. The 2000 election and the Florida recount engraved the modern color associations in stone.

 

[Cutlass]

He is a highly determined individual who is very intelligent.

This is what I think a Paul/Carson versus Cuomo/Warren would look like:

And this would be the map if the Democrats wisely chose Schweitzer (no particular VP/GOP contender).

You confuse the issue with the wrong colors.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Are you a member of the US Election Atlas? I've browsed some of the threads on that site.

I'm wary of any site that requires your address/zip code.

I think your Paul v. Cuomo map is very optimistic for Paul, to say the least. I think whether the Republicans can take Nevada and New Mexico back depends more on what the party (and in particular the state parties) does in the next couple years than on the identity of the candidate. As for winning Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and New Hampshire (and even Virginia, although you gave that to the Dems)... it's possible, but maybe with a slightly adjusted ticket.

It's my theory that Republicans are going to expand their voting base West, and the Democrats will expand South. Virginia will be a blue state by 2020. Democrats will probably also expand in the poorer parts of the South (Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi). I could also see Indiana start leaning blue.

On the second map, I think it's equally optimistic for Schweitzer; South Carolina and Louisiana will be very tough nuts to crack, even after they pull off the miracle of flipping Indiana, Montana, and Missouri (any one of those three, plus the states that Obama won in 2012 and maybe NC, would be a huge Democratic victory in 2016). It's nearly impossible for the Democrats to pull off NE-02 again; the Republicans adjusted the borders of that district to include more of the Omaha suburbs to block that.

Schweitzer would be more of a "common man" type of Democrat IMO than Cuomo, Warren, Emmanuel, or the others. That would help him in traditionally red states.

 

[downtown]

Is Warner viewed as a conservative Dem or a more moderate one?

To be honest, I have no idea.

Do you see Hickenlooper as the candidate-of-choice for the progressive wing?

Probably not THE candidate of choice, but he may be able to fight for those votes. THE candidate of choice is Hillary Clinton, and if she runs, just about all of these guys aren't. In terms of who actually has the most progressive record, it's probably Gov.O'Mally in Maryland (I don't think Warren is a credible presidential candidate).

If Biden and Clinton do not run, I imagine it would look something like O'Malley-Hick-Warner?-Cuomo-Schweitzer

It's my theory that Republicans are going to expand their voting base West, and the Democrats will expand South. Virginia will be a blue state by 2020. Democrats will probably also expand in the poorer parts of the South (Kentucky, Arkansas, Mississippi). I could also see Indiana start leaning blue.

Thats silly. Low-educated, poor, rural, non-union, socially conservative voters have not been in the Democratic camp for 30 years. Mississippi is one of the 4 most conservative states in the entire country. These will be some of the last states in the country to ever vote for Dems in national elections.

The Democrats have made inroads in places in VA and NC in large part because their state demographics have changed, and they are now younger, more urban, more diverse and more educated than they were in 1986.

The most likely long term trend, I think, unless the Republicans can stem the demographic tide, would be for Democrats to continue to lock up the Mountain West (sans Utah), and Republicans will slowly make gains in the Midwest, as more and more people like me leave states like Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin and move to places like Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia. The Democrats are taking Texas before they take Mississippi.

Also, your maps are total LOL



Schweitzer would be more of a "common man" type of Democrat IMO than Cuomo, Warren, Emmanuel, or the others. That would help him in traditionally red states.[/QUOTE]

 

[ZeletDude]

Texas is a ticking time bomb for the GOP, it's a minority majority state, soon enough it'll become contested..

The entire nation is a ticking time bomb, Nevada won't be contested in 2016, much like New Mexico wasn't this year.. The GOP will have to change to keep up with shifting demographics

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The entire nation is a ticking time bomb, Nevada won't be contested in 2016, much like New Mexico wasn't this year.. The GOP will have to change to keep up with shifting demographics

Which they will probably do.

 

[Cutlass]

Which they will probably do.

Sure. But how and when? The pragmatists in the Republican party (pragmatic on politics, not necessarily policy) see the handwriting on the wall, and wonder how little change they can get away with to lose their negatives with future voting majorities. But so far little to no one is looking at it and saying they need substantial changes in policy. Immigration is their easiest policy change to look less like a whites against the world party. And even then most of them are pretty grudging about giving it a serious look.

Other policies they really haven't looked at at all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He is a highly determined individual who is very intelligent.

This is what I think a Paul/Carson versus Cuomo/Warren would look like:

And this would be the map if the Democrats wisely chose Schweitzer (no particular VP/GOP contender).

Why are you changing the colors?

Texas is a ticking time bomb for the GOP, it's a minority majority state, soon enough it'll become contested..

The entire nation is a ticking time bomb, Nevada won't be contested in 2016, much like New Mexico wasn't this year.. The GOP will have to change to keep up with shifting demographics

Probably by becomming even more useless, hope the Tea Party base is willing to punish...

Sure. But how and when? The pragmatists in the Republican party (pragmatic on politics, not necessarily policy) see the handwriting on the wall, and wonder how little change they can get away with to lose their negatives with future voting majorities. But so far little to no one is looking at it and saying they need substantial changes in policy. Immigration is their easiest policy change to look less like a whites against the world party. And even then most of them are pretty grudging about giving it a serious look.

Other policies they really haven't looked at at all.

We need immigration reform, no doubt. They could probably get away with supporting civil unions as well, I don't see that ticking off nearly as much of their base as flat out supporting SSM. If they were to actually apply their small government, state's rights philosophy to the drug war, they might get a somewhat higher percentage of the black vote, especially if the Democrats didn't change their drug views.

Okay, I will. Pryor has been a Senator of little renown and is almost certainly going to lose his seat this year. Manchin is barely a Democrat who might not have even voted for Obama last election, and Baucus has been one of the Senate's biggest supporters of Big Banks, and was full of conflict of interests in dealing with health care reform. He's a western version of Senator Dodd, hardly something to be excited about.

The "conservative" Dems in this election will probably be Cuomo and gov Brian schweitzer

Cuomo is conservative? Seriously? He's a liberal in NEW YORK for crying out loud...