Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[Antilogic]

Oh yeah, Bobby Jindal might be running for president. Poorly.

What's really changed in the last few months? On the Republican side, I think Chris Christie's chances are falling a little; the special election selection suggests he's more interested in building up a power base in NJ than going national. Scott Walker has a rising profile; he's talked about regularly on 2016 blogs, is doing events, but might defer to Paul Ryan if he takes a stab at the top of the ticket this time around. Jeb Bush hasn't completely disappeared.

On the Democratic side, Brian Schweitzer looks like he is going to take Max Baucus' Senate seat in 2014, might end up staying there because Montana is a tough state for the Democrats. Clinton's popularity has dropped from impossibly high good to just really good and she still crowds out the rest of the field.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Paul/Napolitano '16.

That's Rand, not Ron (I'd love it but he won't run at 81) and Andrew Napolitano, DEFINITELY not Janet...

That's my prediction

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Rand Paul has it locked up for the republicans. Christie is democrat-lite and betrayed the base, he'll continue to make NJ his little fiefdom and likely switch parties down the road. The media trumpet him because, well, he's a RINO, and they love any republican that can water-down conservatism. They almost always lose to the democrat too, so that's another reason the media sings their praises. The democratic nomination is Hillary's if she wants it and the Clintons love power so that's all said and done.

It will be Rand Paul/??? vs. Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie(maybe)

 

[Antilogic]

Paul/Napolitano '16.

That's Rand, not Ron (I'd love it but he won't run at 81) and Andrew Napolitano, DEFINITELY not Janet...

That's my prediction

With the latest primary poll in (June 10th, I think), Rand Paul leads the Republican field in Iowa, Michigan, and Kentucky. Rubio was edged out in Florida by Bush, but is still in the lead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska. Ryan, Christie, and Cruz all have a state, and I'd bet everyone can guess which ones they have.

Those polls were taken over the course of a month or two and it's usually 1-2 per state, so take them with a grain of salt. Regular, repeated polling won't start until 2015.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Paul/Napolitano '16.

That's Rand, not Ron (I'd love it but he won't run at 81) and Andrew Napolitano, DEFINITELY not Janet...

That's my prediction

No chance Napolitano is on the ticket. A Paul administration though

 

[downtown]

Rand Paul has it locked up for the republicans. Christie is democrat-lite and betrayed the base, he'll continue to make NJ his little fiefdom and likely switch parties down the road. The media trumpet him because, well, he's a RINO, and they love any republican that can water-down conservatism. They almost always lose to the democrat too, so that's another reason the media sings their praises. The democratic nomination is Hillary's if she wants it and the Clintons love power so that's all said and done.

It will be Rand Paul/??? vs. Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie(maybe)

Bobby Jindal is doing a great job of making me look stupid for holding some of his stock though.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

With the latest primary poll in (June 10th, I think), Rand Paul leads the Republican field in Iowa, Michigan, and Kentucky. Rubio was edged out in Florida by Bush, but is still in the lead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska. Ryan, Christie, and Cruz all have a state, and I'd bet everyone can guess which ones they have.

Those polls were taken over the course of a month or two and it's usually 1-2 per state, so take them with a grain of salt. Regular, repeated polling won't start until 2015.

Paul led in New Hampshire the last poll I saw. The public is slowly learning the emperor has no clothes with Rubio.

 

[bhsup]

Missouri has spoken! Well, sorta. Senator McCaskill endorsed Hillary Clinton for 2016.

McCaskill’s early support of the group — and by extension, Clinton — also serves to put some distance between the Missouri senator and her decision to endorse Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential primary.

“I worked my heart out to elect him president,” she acknowledged in a statement posted on the Ready for Hillary website. “Now as I look at 2016 and think about who is best to lead this country forward, I’m proud to announce that I am Ready for Hillary.”

 

[Cutlass]

I can't see Rand Paul getting the nomination. It just seems so out of character for the Republicans. They are going to pick someone who panders best to the lunatic reactionary fringe without looking too much like a lunatic reactionary themselves.

 

[Antilogic]

Rand Paul has it locked up for the republicans. Christie is democrat-lite and betrayed the base, he'll continue to make NJ his little fiefdom and likely switch parties down the road. The media trumpet him because, well, he's a RINO, and they love any republican that can water-down conservatism. They almost always lose to the democrat too, so that's another reason the media sings their praises. The democratic nomination is Hillary's if she wants it and the Clintons love power so that's all said and done.

It will be Rand Paul/??? vs. Hillary Clinton/Chris Christie(maybe)

Dude, that's a little much.

EDIT - It's moving fast! Will respond in a sec.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Bobby Jindal is doing a great job of making me look stupid for holding some of his stock though.

Jindal won't even get out of the gate. He's not seen as a strong leader, he's comes across kind of creepy actually. He's Tim Pawlenty all over again.

 

[GhostWriter16]

With the latest primary poll in (June 10th, I think), Rand Paul leads the Republican field in Iowa, Michigan, and Kentucky. Rubio was edged out in Florida by Bush, but is still in the lead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Alaska. Ryan, Christie, and Cruz all have a state, and I'd bet everyone can guess which ones they have.

Those polls were taken over the course of a month or two and it's usually 1-2 per state, so take them with a grain of salt. Regular, repeated polling won't start until 2015.

Just curious, do you think Rand Paul has a shot at this thing at all?

No chance Napolitano is on the ticket. A Paul administration though

I was only joking, heck, I don't really think Rand Paul will be on the ticket although I really, really want him to.

That said, Rand Paul had better pick someone who is more extreme than himself, or else never leave the White House for any reason...

If he puts Ted Cruz, or heavenly forbid, a full on establishment guy in the White House, the powers that be will do everything they can to have him assassinated.

Paranoid? Yes, but that's the reality.

Who do you think Rand is going to pick as his VP?

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Dude, that's a little much.

EDIT - It's moving fast! Will respond in a sec.

It's not that farfetched. Look at the recent examples of Arlen J. Specter and Charlie Crist. Cristie fits that mold.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Just curious, do you think Rand Paul has a shot at this thing at all?

I was only joking, heck, I don't really think Rand Paul will be on the ticket although I really, really want him to.

That said, Rand Paul had better pick someone who is more extreme than himself, or else never leave the White House for any reason...

If he puts Ted Cruz, or heavenly forbid, a full on establishment guy in the White House, the powers that be will do everything they can to have him assassinated.

Paranoid? Yes, but that's the reality.

Who do you think Rand is going to pick as his VP?

I'm really perplexed who Rand's VP would be. Ideally, a minority or woman, since that would crush several democratic talking points (party of old white men, racist, etc). That person could also help campaign to other segments of the population the republicans currently do poorly with. Maybe someone in the mold of a Dr. Ben Carson type.


Link to video.

 

[downtown]

Well, this thread had a good run. Now the Paulistas have gotten ahold of it.

 

[Antilogic]

Bobby Jindal is doing a great job of making me look stupid for holding some of his stock though.

I think the Pawlenty comparison is particularly apt--he looked pretty damn good on paper, but he's not really capitalizing on his advantages.

Paul led in New Hampshire the last poll I saw. The public is slowly learning the emperor has no clothes with Rubio.

Checking my references over at the USEA, Paul was leading in NH in the April PPP poll, Rubio took the lead in the May PPP poll, I haven't seen anything new in June yet. It's within a few points, so it's neck-and-neck.

Christie's big problem is that he's not winning outside of his home state. If he can't take New Hampshire, a New England state that should be part of his natural base, he's not going to go far in the primaries.

Missouri has spoken! Well, sorta. Senator McCaskill endorsed Hillary Clinton for 2016.

Might be the first official endorsement of one Democrat for another in the 2016 election. I've heard a few lines from Republicans endorsing their candidates, but the Democrats have been playing mostly a wait-and-see kind of game for their primaries and second-tier candidates (because, let's face it, there is only one first-tier Democratic candidate).

I can't see Rand Paul getting the nomination. It just seems so out of character for the Republicans. They are going to pick someone who panders best to the lunatic reactionary fringe without looking too much like a lunatic reactionary themselves.

If this is a Goldwater-type moment, or the reverse of the 1980s where the Democrats have a relative lock on the presidency and Senate and the Republicans control the House, it's not completely out of the range of possibilities.

Just curious, do you think Rand Paul has a shot at this thing at all?

I was only joking, heck, I don't really think Rand Paul will be on the ticket although I really, really want him to.

That said, Rand Paul had better pick someone who is more extreme than himself, or else never leave the White House for any reason...

If he puts Ted Cruz, or heavenly forbid, a full on establishment guy in the White House, the powers that be will do everything they can to have him assassinated.

Paranoid? Yes, but that's the reality.

Who do you think Rand is going to pick as his VP?

Rand Paul has a decent shot at winning the Republican nomination, but I don't think he's the best candidate for the general election. He doesn't really expand the electoral map by himself. By picking Brian Sandoval or Susana Martinez, maybe even Kelly Ayotte as VP, he might be able to expand it a little. The only Republican nominee that can really mess up the electoral map is probably Chris Christie (putting Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine-02 in play, a total of 39 EVs that would otherwise be lean-to-likely blue) and to a smaller degree Jon Huntsman (take out New Jersey's 14 EVs from that list).

That's not to say those states would be a lock for the Republicans, but I would call them legitimate tossups. And given the Democrats have a massive electoral advantage right now (I put their leans-to-safes around 257 EVs, the Republicans around 191 from the last election), the Republicans need to put formerly solid-D states into play.

It's not that farfetched. Look at the recent examples of Arlen J. Specter and Charlie Crist. Cristie fits that mold.

Specter and Crist will never be the VP candidate, nor will Christie for the Democrats. They might switch parties (Lincoln Chaffee is a good example, formerly moderate Republican governor of Rhode Island, switched to independent, and just recently joined the Democrats), but they won't have a national future.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, this thread had a good run. Now the Paulistas have gotten ahold of it.

I'm really perplexed who Rand's VP would be. Ideally, a minority or woman, since that would crush several democratic talking points (party of old white men, racist, etc). That person could also help campaign to other segments of the population the republicans currently do poorly with. Maybe someone in the mold of a Dr. Ben Carson type.

Putting a black candidate on the ticket won't swing votes for the Republicans. Probably the only black Republican in the country that would take a sizable part of the black vote at this point is Powell. And he's not running. None of the others really appeal to black voters. They just alienate the white Republican vote.

 

[Antilogic]

This thread has been derailed a few times previously and we've kept it on track, let's not give up too quickly.

Putting a black candidate on the ticket won't swing votes for the Republicans. Probably the only black Republican in the country that would take a sizable part of the black vote at this point is Powell. And he's not running. None of the others really appeal to black voters. They just alienate the white Republican vote.

I share your skepticism of identity politics. There have been a few competing diagnoses of the Republican failure in 2008 and 2012. One school of thought is that the party has to outreach to one or two more key constituencies to preserve itself, the other is that it just needs a better spokesperson for the same set of ideas. The latter might work for the midterms but not in the general.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I can't see Rand Paul getting the nomination. It just seems so out of character for the Republicans. They are going to pick someone who panders best to the lunatic reactionary fringe without looking too much like a lunatic reactionary themselves.

Do you consider Rand Paul to be a lunatic reactionary?

Dude, that's a little much.

EDIT - It's moving fast! Will respond in a sec.

For the record, I don't really necessarily think its going to be Rand Paul, although I certainly hope so. I'm a natural pessimist but he looks like he's got a shot.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

I think the Pawlenty comparison is particularly apt--he looked pretty damn good on paper, but he's not really capitalizing on his advantages.

Checking my references over at the USEA, Paul was leading in NH in the April PPP poll, Rubio took the lead in the May PPP poll, I haven't seen anything new in June yet. It's within a few points, so it's neck-and-neck.

Christie's big problem is that he's not winning outside of his home state. If he can't take New Hampshire, a New England state that should be part of his natural base, he's not going to go far in the primaries.


Might be the first official endorsement of one Democrat for another in the 2016 election. I've heard a few lines from Republicans endorsing their candidates, but the Democrats have been playing mostly a wait-and-see kind of game for their primaries and second-tier candidates (because, let's face it, there is only one first-tier Democratic candidate).


If this is a Goldwater-type moment, or the reverse of the 1980s where the Democrats have a relative lock on the presidency and Senate and the Republicans control the House, it's not completely out of the range of possibilities.


Rand Paul has a decent shot at winning the Republican nomination, but I don't think he's the best candidate for the general election. He doesn't really expand the electoral map by himself. By picking Brian Sandoval or Susana Martinez, maybe even Kelly Ayotte as VP, he might be able to expand it a little. The only Republican nominee that can really mess up the electoral map is probably Chris Christie (putting Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine-02 in play, a total of 39 EVs that would otherwise be lean-to-likely blue) and to a smaller degree Jon Huntsman (take out New Jersey's 14 EVs from that list).

That's not to say those states would be a lock for the Republicans, but I would call them legitimate tossups. And given the Democrats have a massive electoral advantage right now (I put their leans-to-safes around 257 EVs, the Republicans around 191 from the last election), the Republicans need to put formerly solid-D states into play.


Specter and Crist will never be the VP candidate, nor will Christie for the Democrats. They might switch parties (Lincoln Chaffee is a good example, formerly moderate Republican governor of Rhode Island, switched to independent, and just recently joined the Democrats), but they won't have a national future.

NH was neck and neck like you say. What's fascinating is the republican love affair with Rubio appears to be over or least dying a slow death.

Christie is gunning to be the Milquetoast moderate. Conventionally wisdom says its a smart strategy being that the last two republican nominees came from the Milquetoast/RINO wing of the party. I think the electorate is rapidly changing though. I don't think someone like Christie could excite enough skeptics, conservatives, libertarians, etc to win the republican nod, let alone the general election. He won't even win his home state of NJ against Hillary. People in the midwest and south surely don't care for his schtick and don't trust him. They won't turn out for him in the numbers to defeat the democrat. Why elect democrat-lite when you can have the real thing?

Specter surely won't be VP since he's dead I only brought them up as good examples of RINOs going rogue and thank you for listing Chaffee, he's another good example.

Can a libertarian put those swing states in play? I think they have a much better shot at doing so than a status quo republican. I believe that under the surface the electorate is waiting to bust out of this malaise. They thought they did that in 2008, but were duped. A good portion might just say, what hell, let's try the libertarian Paul.