Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[Ajidica]

Hey, Miles is back!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Hillary Clinton: If she wants it, she'll take it. This isn't like 2008, when there was a huge section of the party that was against her. She's paid her dues.

Joe Biden: He's the only potential candidate that we know wants the job, because he hasn't been shy about making it clear. But he'd lose to Clinton, and I don't think he'd sweep the field if she didn't run. He's kind of let himself be pigeonholed into the comedy sidekick role, I'd like to see how he handles himself when running for office again.

Andrew Cuomo: If the first two don't run, he's considered the frontrunner. I'm kind of reminded of Giuliani though. New Yorkers with lots of name recognition, one big achievement that brought them scads of national attention, initial leads, and issues records too close to the center for the party to actually nominate them.

Martin O'Malley: His name comes up a lot and he seems like decent presidential material to me, but there's got to be a reason that he's getting such tepid support from his own party in Maryland after a string of liberal victories (death penalty, pot, gas taxes, gun control, offshore wind).

Deval Patrick: Like O'Malley, only with more scandals and less accomplishments. Pass.

Brian Schweitzer: Depends on how things go when he runs for Senate in 2014. On the one hand it's Montana, on the other he's crazy popular there. If he wins, he'd have pretty solid liberal credentials (gun control excepted) and still have won a very red state. Granted his style is pretty much the opposite of Obama, but if the hipster set wants another candidate they can vote for 'em.

John Hickenlooper: Worth talking about, and he's got some impressive policy successes under his belt. But it looks like he's going to have a serious fight against some not serious candidates in 2014. If he loses to Tom Tancredo, he's not going to go national.

Elizabeth Warren: Kind of the Ron Paul for internet liberals, only she's probably sane enough not to listen.

Antonio Villaraigosa: Almost certainly not going to happen, but he's the leading Hispanic candidate unless downtown jumps in.

I can't bloviate as much about Republicans because I pay less attention there and they're in a really chaotic space right now. But here goes nothing:

Bobby Jindal: We all know why he'd be good (big education, distinctive background) and why he wouldn't (Answering the SOTU speech is hard, but not that hard). What I'd add is that his approval ratings back in Louisiana polled at 38% back in April, way worse than they should be in such a red state. Obama actually runs stronger than him there.

Scott Walker: Not making a huge splash, but he's got chops. He pushed some really conservative bills past a light blue state, and survived the mother of all union backlashes.

Paul Ryan: Only House member elected to the White House was Lincoln. Paul Ryan isn't Lincoln.

Ted Cruz: I don't think the fact that's he's ridiculously conservative will hurt him, not given the base's hunger for Youtube-ready quips and the ability to prove that they aren't racist because they have a Mexican best friend. No, I think it's the fact that he's turned most of his Republican colleagues that will sink his chances in the end.

Rick Perry: I fell hard for the idea that Perry was the only plausible anti-Romney candidate, so I kind of want him to do well this go around and vindicate me. He's not the idiot that he came across as, and he might find a way to do it. With that said, I think Cruz is going to be sucking up all the oxygen in Texas.

Nicki Haley: Currently making noises about going to spend more time with her family after the one term. And as a mother with young children and a husband in the military, that's actually pretty plausible. Some people really do bow out of running for president to spare their families.

When it comes to the Republican nomination, I'm going to be watching high-profile endorsements like a hawk, specifically elected officials currently in office. They were a more reliable indicator than the news cycles in 2012, although that may have been unique to the facts of that election.

Really? No mention of Rand Paul, yet you mention Ryan, Cruz, Jindal, and those other two who nobody even knows?

I think Miles Teg IS the media. He literally just ignored the frontrunner, at least as of right now...

 

[madviking]

Martin O'Malley: His name comes up a lot and he seems like decent presidential material to me, but there's got to be a reason that he's getting such tepid support from his own party in Maryland after a string of liberal victories (death penalty, pot, gas taxes, gun control, offshore wind).

I dunno either. This is maybe due to familiarity? After a while new guys just get kinda dull. O'Malley, despite being a filthy Marylander, would be on the short list of my preferred candidates.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Wilson? FDR? Obama? I might admire each for different reasons, especially FDR, but I wouldn't call them champions of liberty. How does Rand Paul rate more poorly on a liberty scale than a man who ran a loyalty campaign and threw anti-war protesters in jail, or a man who supports a litany of abusive legislation (PATRIOT act, NDAA, FISA, the whole sad laundry list) and drone warfare?

Don't forget Harry "Union Members who strike are subject to the Draft" Truman.

 

[Miles Teg]

Really? No mention of Rand Paul, yet you mention Ryan, Cruz, Jindal, and those other two who nobody even knows?

I think Miles Teg IS the media. He literally just ignored the frontrunner, at least as of right now...

From the polling I've seen, Rubio has a lead right now, Christie's probably second, and then either Bush or Paul is third.

If you think Rand Paul will win because he is the rightfully guided conservative prophet, that's fine. But you'll notice that I didn't mention any of the other people I consider front runners, because I didn't feel like I had anything super interesting to say. But if you're desperate for a certified Miles Teg opinion...

Marco Rubio: There's a reason he's in the lead right now. Despite a taste for crazy on the statewide level, Republicans have actually been really good at picking the most electable presidential candidate available. He'll be in trouble if no immigration deal is struck, but as long as something passes he has the conservative street cred to survive, and then he'll have bona fide "not a racist" credentials AND be the only Republican to get stuff done in Washington in living memory.

Chris Christie: I'm going back to the Giuliani well of analogies, because it fits. The media likes candidates that it perceives as centrist (in a socially liberal, economically conservative way), and he's got personality, but he's burnt bridges with the Republican activists he'd need to win.

Jeb Bush: It's been a while since he's been in office, and not long enough since his brother was. But if the party decided that he would be a better fit with the electorate than someone like Cruz, he really could win.

Rand Paul: His challenge is going to be proving to every major party bloc that he isn't his father. Can he pull it off? Maybe! I'd wait to see what members of the religious right have to say about his candidacy, as well as the neocons. The positions he's taking on Snowden and Syria won't endear him there, but he might get an "opposing the president" pass. If they're all willing to play ball, he's got a shot.

 

[ParkCungHee]

@Milestag

A thing to consider is whether or not the republicans will actually be trying to win in 2016.

 

[bhsup]

How does that play out if Jeb gets the nomination? Florida knows him, knows he's not his brother, and liked him well enough as Gov. Does he pretty much auto-lock Florida in the EC? That could be huge.

 

[downtown]

Assuming no scandals, I'd have a hard time envisioning a scenario where Jeb Bush doesn't win Florida

 

[mangxema]

How does that play out if Jeb gets the nomination? Florida knows him, knows he's not his brother, and liked him well enough as Gov. Does he pretty much auto-lock Florida in the EC? That could be huge.

Well that's one state. The problem I see Jeb having is that nothing will bring back memories of the sins of the Bush administration like the prospect of a Bush administration. Florida might go for him based on his history, but he's going to have fight constantly to disavow his brother, and I wouldn't be surprised if he just passes on that.

Plus, if he did win, then the last three presidents from one party would all be from the same family. That just feels kind of weird to me.

 

[JollyRoger]

Really? No mention of Rand Paul, yet you mention Ryan, Cruz, Jindal, and those other two who nobody even knows?

I think Miles Teg IS the media. He literally just ignored the frontrunner, at least as of right now...

RoPaul always wins the early GOP straw polls and is never a threat in the primaries. No reason to expect that RaPaul would be any different. Their fanboys just don't show up on election day. Maybe they think the straw polls are the real deal.

 

[duckstab]

RoPaul always wins the early GOP straw polls and is never a threat in the primaries. No reason to expect that RaPaul would be any different. Their fanboys just don't show up on election day. Maybe they think the straw polls are the real deal.

I think the fanboys probably do show up on election day. It's just that the noise they generate early in a campaign hides the fact that there are simply not that many of them.

 

[Miles Teg]

@Milestag

A thing to consider is whether or not the republicans will actually be trying to win in 2016.

I think that if Republicans wanted to nominate the Shrieking White-Hot Sphere of Pure Rage they would have done it in 2012. There are real problems with Republican incentives to get elected, but the White House is probably the only race important enough that the party will absolutely nominate an electable candidate.

 

[GhostWriter16]

RoPaul always wins the early GOP straw polls and is never a threat in the primaries. No reason to expect that RaPaul would be any different. Their fanboys just don't show up on election day. Maybe they think the straw polls are the real deal.

I'm not saying this is a done deal for Rand, and by all means you can argue that he won't be the winner.

That said, he IS winning right now. To completely fail to mention him is just to fail.

Like it or not, Rand Paul is important right now.

I think the fanboys probably do show up on election day. It's just that the noise they generate early in a campaign hides the fact that there are simply not that many of them.

He probably won't win, I get that. But he's the current frontrunner. And as such deserves mentioning.

 

[Antilogic]

The more I listen to this, the more I wonder if Rand Paul really will win this thing after all.

I just don't see anyone else winning. Rubio, for better or worse, killed himself over immigration. I don't think anyone wants another Bush, other than George W. and Jeb himself (Heck, even Barbara Bush says "We've had enough Bushes, I think 98% of the country agrees with her.) Christie would do well in a general election, but I just don't see him holding together in a primary, considering how liberal he is compared to the average Republican. Let's be real, Ted Cruz is not going to run: His eligibility is questionable, and I think he wants Rand as an ally rather than direct competition. Rick Santorum might try again, but there's no way he gets nominated, and if he does, I can almost imagine a shutout by Hillary. MagisterCultuum mentioned Amash awhile ago, but he's in the House and even more "radical" If you want to call it that than even Rand Paul.

Its early, and I'm almost certain something is going to change, but if I had to bet on any single candidate, I honestly feel like it might have to be the senator in Ky (And I don't mean Mitch)

Rubio's still gambling on immigration, the cards haven't all fallen yet. He could end up going from the tea party wing of the party to the centrist/establishment candidate in 2016 if the deal still works out and he manages his public statements carefully. I think he's been a bit sloppy so far, especially on radio interviews where he's attacking the bill and basically trying to pander to whoever is listening at the time.

Spoiler Miles Teg's large posts :

Hillary Clinton: If she wants it, she'll take it. This isn't like 2008, when there was a huge section of the party that was against her. She's paid her dues.

Joe Biden: He's the only potential candidate that we know wants the job, because he hasn't been shy about making it clear. But he'd lose to Clinton, and I don't think he'd sweep the field if she didn't run. He's kind of let himself be pigeonholed into the comedy sidekick role, I'd like to see how he handles himself when running for office again.

Andrew Cuomo: If the first two don't run, he's considered the frontrunner. I'm kind of reminded of Giuliani though. New Yorkers with lots of name recognition, one big achievement that brought them scads of national attention, initial leads, and issues records too close to the center for the party to actually nominate them.

Martin O'Malley: His name comes up a lot and he seems like decent presidential material to me, but there's got to be a reason that he's getting such tepid support from his own party in Maryland after a string of liberal victories (death penalty, pot, gas taxes, gun control, offshore wind).

Deval Patrick: Like O'Malley, only with more scandals and less accomplishments. Pass.

Brian Schweitzer: Depends on how things go when he runs for Senate in 2014. On the one hand it's Montana, on the other he's crazy popular there. If he wins, he'd have pretty solid liberal credentials (gun control excepted) and still have won a very red state. Granted his style is pretty much the opposite of Obama, but if the hipster set wants another candidate they can vote for 'em.

John Hickenlooper: Worth talking about, and he's got some impressive policy successes under his belt. But it looks like he's going to have a serious fight against some not serious candidates in 2014. If he loses to Tom Tancredo, he's not going to go national.

Elizabeth Warren: Kind of the Ron Paul for internet liberals, only she's probably sane enough not to listen.

Antonio Villaraigosa: Almost certainly not going to happen, but he's the leading Hispanic candidate unless downtown jumps in.

I can't bloviate as much about Republicans because I pay less attention there and they're in a really chaotic space right now. But here goes nothing:

Bobby Jindal: We all know why he'd be good (big education, distinctive background) and why he wouldn't (Answering the SOTU speech is hard, but not that hard). What I'd add is that his approval ratings back in Louisiana polled at 38% back in April, way worse than they should be in such a red state. Obama actually runs stronger than him there.

Scott Walker: Not making a huge splash, but he's got chops. He pushed some really conservative bills past a light blue state, and survived the mother of all union backlashes.

Paul Ryan: Only House member elected to the White House was Lincoln. Paul Ryan isn't Lincoln.

Ted Cruz: I don't think the fact that's he's ridiculously conservative will hurt him, not given the base's hunger for Youtube-ready quips and the ability to prove that they aren't racist because they have a Mexican best friend. No, I think it's the fact that he's turned most of his Republican colleagues that will sink his chances in the end.

Rick Perry: I fell hard for the idea that Perry was the only plausible anti-Romney candidate, so I kind of want him to do well this go around and vindicate me. He's not the idiot that he came across as, and he might find a way to do it. With that said, I think Cruz is going to be sucking up all the oxygen in Texas.

Nicki Haley: Currently making noises about going to spend more time with her family after the one term. And as a mother with young children and a husband in the military, that's actually pretty plausible. Some people really do bow out of running for president to spare their families.

When it comes to the Republican nomination, I'm going to be watching high-profile endorsements like a hawk, specifically elected officials currently in office. They were a more reliable indicator than the news cycles in 2012, although that may have been unique to the facts of that election.

From the polling I've seen, Rubio has a lead right now, Christie's probably second, and then either Bush or Paul is third.

If you think Rand Paul will win because he is the rightfully guided conservative prophet, that's fine. But you'll notice that I didn't mention any of the other people I consider front runners, because I didn't feel like I had anything super interesting to say. But if you're desperate for a certified Miles Teg opinion...

Marco Rubio: There's a reason he's in the lead right now. Despite a taste for crazy on the statewide level, Republicans have actually been really good at picking the most electable presidential candidate available. He'll be in trouble if no immigration deal is struck, but as long as something passes he has the conservative street cred to survive, and then he'll have bona fide "not a racist" credentials AND be the only Republican to get stuff done in Washington in living memory.

Chris Christie: I'm going back to the Giuliani well of analogies, because it fits. The media likes candidates that it perceives as centrist (in a socially liberal, economically conservative way), and he's got personality, but he's burnt bridges with the Republican activists he'd need to win.

Jeb Bush: It's been a while since he's been in office, and not long enough since his brother was. But if the party decided that he would be a better fit with the electorate than someone like Cruz, he really could win.

Rand Paul: His challenge is going to be proving to every major party bloc that he isn't his father. Can he pull it off? Maybe! I'd wait to see what members of the religious right have to say about his candidacy, as well as the neocons. The positions he's taking on Snowden and Syria won't endear him there, but he might get an "opposing the president" pass. If they're all willing to play ball, he's got a shot.

My thinking isn't too far off from yours on some of the candidates. If I had to rank by tiers like Sabato's CB, The Run, or other sites like that do, I'd say:

Democrats
1st Tier - Hillary Clinton
2nd Tier - Joe Biden, Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo
3rd Tier - Deval Patrick, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar
Wildcards - Brian Schweitzer, John Hickenlooper
Not Running - Elizabeth Warren (I just don't see it happening, I think she might be Cabinet material if the Dems win.); Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayors don't go far in presidential races.)

Republicans
1st Tier - Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker
2nd Tier - Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal
3rd Tier - Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval
Wildcards - Jon Huntsman, John Kasich
Not Running - Bob McDonnell (This guy blew it, almost as bad as George Allen did.); maybe Rick Perry and Rick Santorum as well.

I think O'Malley is a bit of a technocratic-type guy, a bit dry at times but is the kind of guy who doesn't make claims if he doesn't have the figures to back them up. I'm only rating Gillibrand in the third tier because New York is pretty crowded with both Clinton and Cuomo drawing from the same core of donors and volunteers for the early phase of the campaign, and I don't think she has the national name recognition those two do. Without Clinton in the mix, New York could be a dead heat between Cuomo and Gillibrand if they both run, which might improve the chances of guys like O'Malley or Warner.

I think the Western Dems are the wildcards--if Hickenlooper loses his re-election he's toast but could otherwise be good VP material at least. Brian Schweitzer is the same way but with the Senate race--I could see a Clinton/Schweitzer ticket, for example, if he's not running for president himself.

Christie is a guy who I might drop to the second tier if not for the Guiliani analogy, but also because I don't know how his abrasive style will play nationally. It might fly, it might sink him because people won't treat him as a serious or dignified candidate and go for someone else. But he's about the only guy who is shooting for the centrist/establishment wing of the Republican vote, so I put him in the top group. I am putting Susanna Martinez and Brian Sandoval in the third tier because they aren't making as many moves as the top guys indicating they want to run and their potential route to the nomination is even more difficult than Christie's. However, much like the Western Dems, I think they would be prime VP material and possibly good candidates for the Republicans to run. I was debating on whether to drop Jindal to the third tier, but left in the second because I think he's a little more likely to go for it than most of the third tier candidates and it felt unbalanced otherwise.

That's also where the Republican wildcards would affect the race. I think Jon Huntsman should take a second stab at it now that Mitt Romney isn't crowding out that part of the field, and John Kasich is a swing-state governor who has remained incredibly popular (unlike his Pennsylvanian neighbor). Don't know how the interplay between Kasich and Walker will turn out if they both run, though. Since Walker has been making more quiet pre-presidential race moves, I put him in the top tier and gave the wildcard to Kasich.

How does that play out if Jeb gets the nomination? Florida knows him, knows he's not his brother, and liked him well enough as Gov. Does he pretty much auto-lock Florida in the EC? That could be huge.

Assuming no scandals, I'd have a hard time envisioning a scenario where Jeb Bush doesn't win Florida

The historical home-state advantage, as best as can be determined by data-divers like Nate Silver, is that a home-state advantage is worth an average of about 7 points if it's the top of the ticket, and maybe 2-3 points if it's the second slot.

Given Florida leans about +3 R, it would give the Republicans an estimated advantage of +10 points in the state, which would mean we would have to see a Johnson-esque/Reagan-esque landslide for the state to flip blue.

Plus, if he did win, then the last three presidents from one party would all be from the same family. That just feels kind of weird to me.

You aren't alone. The fact that another Clinton v. Bush election is strongly possible (esp. given Clinton's advantages on the Dem side) is mind-boggling.

I'm not saying this is a done deal for Rand, and by all means you can argue that he won't be the winner.

That said, he IS winning right now. To completely fail to mention him is just to fail.

Like it or not, Rand Paul is important right now.


He probably won't win, I get that. But he's the current frontrunner. And as such deserves mentioning.

Don't get too far ahead of the data, now. He's leading polls in three states and is starting to build up a national base. Granted, two of those states are up-front (hell, Iowa's the first), but there is a long way to go.

 

[JollyRoger]

That said, he IS winning right now.

He has the same number of votes that I do.

 

[Cutlass]

I think the problem is that the actual perfect candidate for the Republicans is not available.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You aren't alone. The fact that another Clinton v. Bush election is strongly possible (esp. given Clinton's advantages on the Dem side) is mind-boggling.

It is indeed..

Don't get too far ahead of the data, now. He's leading polls in three states and is starting to build up a national base. Granted, two of those states are up-front (hell, Iowa's the first), but there is a long way to go.

I'm not saying this is a done deal, on the contrary, I think someone will likely beat him before its over. That said, he's currently polling the highest. To flat out fail to mention the guy who's polling the highest, especially while mentioning Ted Cruz (Who won't even run against Rand) is fail...

 

[bhsup]

naw Cut, he was far from perfect. I came ever so close to voting against him in 2004 in favor of Peroutka. It was only because we were at war and the Constitution Party didn't support it at all that I stayed with Bush.

EDIT: what the... Patroklas > Peroutka. Fixed

 

[Antilogic]

I think the problem is that the actual perfect candidate for the Republicans is not available.

Although that might be interpreted as a joke, a guy like George Bush would be a really good candidate for the Republicans to run. His numbers amongst minority (especially Hispanics) and women voters weren't nearly as bad as McCain's and Romney's.

You could also argue to a large extent his election and administration contributed to the transformation of the Republican Party away from a Bob Dole-type party, so maybe it wouldn't work a second time.

 

[Cutlass]

naw Cut, he was far from perfect. I came ever so close to voting against him in 2004 in favor of Patroklas. It was only because we were at war and the Constitution Party didn't support it at all that I stayed with Bush.

Ah, but he is still the best candidate to fill the desires of the Republican party as a whole. He appeals to both major wings of the Republican party without sounding like a lunatic, and he's electable.