Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[Cryptic_Snow]

Then what's your explanation for the fact that 90%+ of blacks simply won't vote for a Republican? And a growing number of Hispanics the same.

That probably deserves its own topic. How the GOP Lost the African American Vote, And Their Civil Rights Reputation

 

[Antilogic]

No, I don't. Whites elected Obama to office, many crossed over from the Republican party to vote for him. Independents turned out in droves for him. He did extremely well with younger white voters (18-30), college-educated white voters, and suburban white voters.

I'm not too sure about this explanation. From wiki, we know that Bush beat Kerry by 2.4% nationally, Obama beat McCain by 7.2%, and Obama beat Romney by 3.9%. I found a demographic breakdown on another site that shows Kerry winning 41% of the white vote in 2004, Obama winning 43% in 2008, and Obama winning only 39% in 2012.

While that additional 2% might be the result of some polarization (i.e. Southern whites voted more heavily against Obama, but he held his own in the Midwest and Northeast) and could have cost McCain a state or two, I don't think it would have changed the result of the election. Obama only picked up 2% over Kerry in that demographic, but his overall spread against Kerry was 9.6% (!). And in 2012, he did worse than Kerry in the white vote and yet still won comfortably with 332 EVs.

I'll save any personal anecdotes, etc., for the other thread and keep this section of the post dedicated to election results.

I don't know much about Cruz although I already don't trust him. Some libertarian leaning people like him, but I don't particularly. What about Cruz makes him "Wacky"? The biggest thing I haven't liked him about so far is his hawkish foreign policy leanings. Granted, compared to the Republican Party as a whole he isn't a hawk, but compared to Rand Paul and Mike Lee (The other "liberty" guys in the senate) he is.

I think we have other threads that might address this, but a lot of people think he channels his inner McCarthy a little too well. Stuff like the charges of communists in American universities and the take-no-prisoners absolutist attitude towards politics. I can see why libertarians might appreciate some of his positions (his recent embrace of abolishing the IRS and instituting a low flat tax scheme, for instance). In a presidential primary/election situation (where I'm trying to stay focused), he'd have his advantage in the South and maybe some of the Great Plains states.

Paul Ryan is one thing... I don't like him but he's pretty mainstream, with the added advantage of having a lot of people who think he's more conservative than he is. He's ultimately a Romney guy, I think. I can understand that.

But... Santorum?

Honestly, if America is sane, that would be a 538-0 election. I'm not even sure the deep south would unite behind him, they might say "But he's Catholic" or something as an excuse...

Too bad we can't, but I guarantee you RON Paul would do substantially better on the electoral map than Santorum, let alone Rand....

Ryan is your classic example of the budget-hawk fiscal issues wing of the party, and has always been more popular inside the beltway than outside it. He's polling on average 6-10%, and given his name recognition that's not a good sign if he wants to run in 2016. Not insurmountable though, given Santorum polls in the 1-3% range. If you are the runner-up in the last primary season and you are polling within the margin of error of even existing on the ballot, you are toast.

What do you think Santorum's electoral map would look like?

Maybe something like this: Hillary Clinton/Brian Schweitzer (405) v. Rick Santorum/Ted Cruz map (133). Also, AK, KY, WV, SD, and TX are close but Santorum holds within a point or two in each. Also, cue a massive trollface.

Basically, yes. I'm not that rabidly anti-amnesty but its not really something I particularly want to fight for either. Rubio was clearly much more in favor of that than the GOP is...

It's not so much that he is in favor of it or against it--there are some reports that Rubio is trying to kill the bill behind the scenes by getting other Republican senators to add poison amendments. He praises the bill on CSPAN and then goes on talk radio and trashes it. He's trying to simultaneously get the credit for passing an awesome bipartisan reform while getting credit for watering it down. All the while, the media narrative around him is that he is a young and savvy negotiator who is mostly conservative but willing to deal on immigration reform. Problem is, that narrative crashes if he can't deliver the results.

Romney was always pro-choice through and through. That anyone bought that little gambit of his for even a second will always amaze me. Words are one thing, but when it came to actions, Romney was even more radically pro-abortion than Obama was.

People in the Northeast bought it, and he might have lost New Hampshire the moment he said it. Over the course of a long Republican primary, a lot of moderate voters were put off by far-right stuff in the Republican debates, and the fact that there were so many, and the season so long, meant that this narrative soaked in. It kind of became a self-reinforcing cycle between 2008 and 2012, where some moderates left, so the candidates tried to appeal to the remaining right, which puts off more moderates, and so on.

You're right that Rand Paul is definitely trying to get both (The libertarians and the Tea Party.) But his is a unique mix of positions that hasn't really been tried before. I don't think you can just throw Rand Paul into the Tea Party. He's not really the same as other Tea Party types.

True, but it's not so much me Rand Paul has to worry about. When it comes time to decide on an electoral strategy and if Rand Paul has the nomination, can he sufficiently distance himself from the tea party to win a state like Pennsylvania? If not, where is the Republican route to victory?

Are there any states that are blue-leaning primarily because of foreign policy? Any such state could perhaps play into Rand's hands...

Eh... hard question. Maybe Virginia, through a combination of shifting demographics and the large military/government presence? New Hampshire is always swingy because of the libertarian numbers there, might rate foreign policy higher than average. I'm drawing a blank here, any other election watchers, please chime in.

 

[downtown]

Maybe Virginia, through a combination of shifting demographics and the large military/government presence? New Hampshire is always swingy because of the libertarian numbers there, might rate foreign policy higher than average. I'm drawing a blank here, any other election watchers, please chime in.

That would be the only one, because of their large military presence. There is no reason to think, at this time, that foreign policy would even crack the top 3 reasons for a candidate preference.

 

[mangxema]

As for putting states in play, I think a libertarian can compete effectively in New Hampshire, but I'm not really sold on the others.

Wouldn't the main effect be more global, i.e., trying to peel off some of the younger voters everywhere by pushing back on war, debt, and privacy issues?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's been tried before and was successful. How do you think Rand got elected or any of the other liberty candidates? When libertarians and tea party both agree to support a certain candidate they destroy their primary opponents and go on to win the general election too.

I more meant at the national level, for the Presidency. I don't think anyone has tried winning the Presidency the way that Rand Paul currently is.

That has more to do with religious fervor than anything else.

This is unfortunate, considering how passionately Evangelical I am, yet I don't agree with them on those things. Heck, Rand is a Presbyterian and Ron Paul is a Baptist. They don't agree with the rest of the Republicans on war and peace issues at all.

We were referring to Steve Deace. The social conservative radio guy in the video.

Fair enough. I'd never heard him before, that might be a good video to post in a few places. Thanks for linking.

I never claimed Deace was a libertarian. He's a well-known, influential, social conservative. My point was that critical thinking about our aggressive foreign policy and the proponents of that policy (McCain, Lindsey Graham) are beginning to be critically examined by conservatives who wouldn't have given that a second thought a year or two ago. Issues that libertarians raised at the time, but were heaped with ridicule by these diehard republicans. For someone like Deace to come out and admit they were wrong is pretty huge.

Here's the follow up to that piece where he says the libertarians were right about numerous issues, not just foreign policy.


Link to video.

Awesome video. Keep learning from us, Deace

 

[Cutlass]

Wouldn't the main effect be more global, i.e., trying to peel off some of the younger voters everywhere by pushing back on war, debt, and privacy issues?

War, maybe. Privacy plays with some. But the "libertarians" are as pro-debt and anti-economy as all the other conservatives, and in many cases worse. So unless the libertarian message gets a hell of a lot more separated from just ordinary extreme conservatism, it isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

 

[Cutlass]

That probably deserves its own topic. How the GOP Lost the African American Vote, And Their Civil Rights Reputation

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12540233&postcount=36

 

[Antilogic]

That would be the only one, because of their large military presence. There is no reason to think, at this time, that foreign policy would even crack the top 3 reasons for a candidate preference.

Yeah, it's not the Cold War anymore.

Wouldn't the main effect be more global, i.e., trying to peel off some of the younger voters everywhere by pushing back on war, debt, and privacy issues?

War, maybe. Privacy plays with some. But the "libertarians" are as pro-debt and anti-economy as all the other conservatives, and in many cases worse. So unless the libertarian message gets a hell of a lot more separated from just ordinary extreme conservatism, it isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

There would be a (smaller) national effect, definitely. I was thinking of the subset of states from that prior list where that national effect could reasonably tilt a swing state or make a swing state out of an ordinarily safe state.

Out west, I think Colorado would be another state where a libertarian-type Republican would do well in a national election. Obama was also somewhat of an ideal Democratic candidate to run in Colorado, so his performance there might not be replicable in 2016.

But yeah, the anti-war left has been missing in action for years now, and privacy concerns could play well. It's almost like the last month of NSA leaks were intended to give an opening for the left-Dems and libertarian-type Republicans to enter the fray. It's the perfect opportunity.

I more meant at the national level, for the Presidency. I don't think anyone has tried winning the Presidency the way that Rand Paul currently is.

How is that? He's building up a nationally-recognized profile with public speeches and television interviews, building connections with other politicians and potential donors, getting experience in the Senate, sounds like a fairly standard strategy to me.

What I want to know is what his electoral college strategy would be--what his battleground map looks like. I think too many Republicans are just wishing they could return to George Bush's maps from 2000/2004, or are praying for a Reaganesque landslide. Instead, they should be asking where their new coalition is and how to build it now.

Side note: I think this is why immigration, of all the potential issues to tackle, is getting the big push from the mainstream Republican leadership. Bush split the Hispanic vote with Gore and Kerry about 45/55 or so. I think those leaders want to split the vote like that again in the next election, and take their old western core states back (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico) and Florida.

 

[GhostWriter16]

War, maybe. Privacy plays with some. But the "libertarians" are as pro-debt and anti-economy as all the other conservatives, and in many cases worse. So unless the libertarian message gets a hell of a lot more separated from just ordinary extreme conservatism, it isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

This isn't entirely true.

I'll give you that "extreme" conservatives are closer to us, at least fiscally and sometimes socially, than moderate ones. However, we definitely aren't the same.

Libertarians and conservatives don't necessarily have the same economic approach.

For conservatives, cutting taxes is about "Fairness" or about trying to bring in more revenue. So conservatives will often support tax cuts without spending cuts because they believe revenue will increase anyway.

I don't claim to know where the top of the Laffer Curve is, but most libertarians would agree with me that it doesn't matter. We want to cut taxes and spending. We generally recognize that our policies would reduce government revenue, but we generally think this is a good thing.

So its not really the same at all.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That would be the only one, because of their large military presence. There is no reason to think, at this time, that foreign policy would even crack the top 3 reasons for a candidate preference.

I think there's a handful of topics that could reach national prominence by 2016, but those depend on how Obama plays them out.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Stop posting about libertarianism, GW. This includes posting about the proponents of libertarianism.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Moderator Action: Stop posting about libertarianism, GW. This includes posting about the proponents of libertarianism.

Is this a joke? Promoting liberty gets you censured?

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator action certainly will.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Antilogic]

You might want to edit that a bit to avoid a PDMA infraction, but the problem isn't the content, it's where it is.

None of the discussion earlier about Rand Paul's presidential chances were infracted because it was on-topic and relevant.

EDIT: Here's that map of early primaries, mostly PPPs and Quinnipacs over the last few months. Credit goes to the USElectionAtlas which keeps up with this stuff.

Red: Rubio
Blue: Christie
Green: Ryan
Yellow: Bush
Brown: Paul
Pink: Cruz

 

[Murky]

You might want to edit that a bit to avoid a PDMA infraction, but the problem isn't the content, it's where it is.

None of the discussion earlier about Rand Paul's presidential chances were infracted because it was on-topic and relevant.

EDIT: Here's that map of early primaries, mostly PPPs and Quinnipacs over the last few months. Credit goes to the USElectionAtlas which keeps us with this stuff.

Red: Rubio
Blue: Christie
Green: Ryan
Yellow: Bush
Brown: Paul
Pink: Cruz

Of that lot probably Christie or Bush would be the top contenders.

 

[Antilogic]

I find it interesting there wasn't a lot of polling to draw on for South Carolina and Nevada yet. Rubio and Paul are within a couple points of each other in New Hampshire, the lead shifts every other month. In South Carolina, we wouldn't expect a guy like Christie to do well, it's closer to Rubio and Bush's home area, whichever one runs. But if Paul can pull off a #1 or #2 in South Carolina after winning Iowa and New Hampshire, then other guys are going to start dropping out and he could potentially lock up the nomination by Super Tuesday. When's the last time somebody didn't win the first 3 or 4 contests then came back to win the nomination?

 

[downtown]

With name recognition so low right now, I have a hard time believing how accurate some of these polls are right now. It's more of a function of "how many people in this state have heard of X"

 

[Murky]

Polls taken years in advance of an election are useless really.

 

[Cutlass]

Is this a joke? Promoting liberty gets you censured?

No, constantly derailing threads to promote his own brand of politics as rudely as possible gets you censured.

 

[Antilogic]

With name recognition so low right now, I have a hard time believing how accurate some of these polls are right now.

Oh, they probably aren't "accurate" in the sense of predicting the exact outcomes in 2015 and 2016. They are conducted amongst registered party voters and give an indication of where the general enthusiasm is and who the donors might back.

Regarding name recognition, I would argue some guys like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum should have fairly high name recognition since they ran in the last election cycle--and the fact they aren't leading in a large number of states doesn't bode well for them. All it takes is a big event or two to put a guy in the news favorably or unfavorably and thus build name recognition too--Paul only started breaking through after his filibuster, and Rubio might be leading in several because he was and still is out-front on immigration.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

No, constantly derailing threads to promote his own brand of politics as rudely as possible gets you censured.

Bound to happen when discussing politics in a political thread. Even more so when one of the leading contenders for the republican nomination identifies as being a libertarian and would be the most libertarian President in, what, a century perhaps? You'd have to go back to Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland to find someone comparable.