IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
*adds VRWC to the exception list*
Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
*adds VRWC to the exception list*
Zack
99% hot gas
thatsthejoke.jpg
Yeah, should have been obvious, right?
In other news, does anyone think that a religious right-type candidate can still lead the party? There seems to be (at least according to Nate Silver, 5) several factions within the Republican coalition, but if you listen to the talking heads or read the columns, they seem to broadly fit into two groups following 2012.
One, consisting of the religious right, the tea party types, and many of the libertarians insist on an adherence to conservative principles however their factions define them. They are focused on base turnout for 2016 and believe in nominating very conservative, however they define it, candidates.
The other group, consisting of the small remainder of the moderate reformers as well as the establishment-type guys, favor broader-appeal electable candidates. The key push here seems to be on immigration, although policies like background checks for firearms might also fall into the moderate/reform group.
I don't think that anyone will be surprised that I think focusing on base turnout with a narrowing base is doomed in the long-term. I've been hunting down numbers on turnout to see if this hypothesis carries any weight, and it's been surprisingly difficult. Some news commentators and bloggers are looking only at the headline numbers from wikipedia, which doesn't really tell us what we need to know--yes, Romney and McCain got fewer votes than Bush did back in 2004, but that doesn't tell us about the Republican turnout if a lot of people stopped being Republicans. Voter turnout in the swing states (as a % of population) is much higher than it was the decade before, but this is also due to the increasing Democratic turnout. I can find plenty of sources showing the Republican base turnout during the primaries is lower now than in 2000 or 2008, but that's also not quite what I want to know.
So long story short, no conclusion yet and that's why I'm asking. Say the Republican percentages amongst minorities and women are not significantly different in 2016 but they have a very charismatic candidate who can (effectively, not actually) maximize base turnout. Can they carry 2016?
In other news, does anyone think that a religious right-type candidate can still lead the party? There seems to be (at least according to Nate Silver, 5) several factions within the Republican coalition, but if you listen to the talking heads or read the columns, they seem to broadly fit into two groups following 2012.
One, consisting of the religious right, the tea party types, and many of the libertarians insist on an adherence to conservative principles however their factions define them. They are focused on base turnout for 2016 and believe in nominating very conservative, however they define it, candidates.
The other group, consisting of the small remainder of the moderate reformers as well as the establishment-type guys, favor broader-appeal electable candidates. The key push here seems to be on immigration, although policies like background checks for firearms might also fall into the moderate/reform group.
I don't think that anyone will be surprised that I think focusing on base turnout with a narrowing base is doomed in the long-term. I've been hunting down numbers on turnout to see if this hypothesis carries any weight, and it's been surprisingly difficult. Some news commentators and bloggers are looking only at the headline numbers from wikipedia, which doesn't really tell us what we need to know--yes, Romney and McCain got fewer votes than Bush did back in 2004, but that doesn't tell us about the Republican turnout if a lot of people stopped being Republicans. Voter turnout in the swing states (as a % of population) is much higher than it was the decade before, but this is also due to the increasing Democratic turnout. I can find plenty of sources showing the Republican base turnout during the primaries is lower now than in 2000 or 2008, but that's also not quite what I want to know.
So long story short, no conclusion yet and that's why I'm asking. Say the Republican percentages amongst minorities and women are not significantly different in 2016 but they have a very charismatic candidate who can (effectively, not actually) maximize base turnout. Can they carry 2016?
I would be proud to be that candidate. I know, I've been slipping occasionally over the last few years, but don't worry, it's only the bad infectious influence of my exposure to #fiftychat. Once I am on the campaign trail and away from that evil influence, I'll be back where I belong, as .38 special would say.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
I think Governor Jindal's prospects will improve about as well that sinkhole in his state will...
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Or several. They don't seem to have learned from any of their mistakes. Take Preibus's 'autopsy' of the 2012 election. It basically says they need to do the same thing they were doing, but nicer and with more celebrities.
To be honest though, I don't think their brand is damaged enough to matter if they just got a really good candidate to run such as Chris Christie.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I seriously doubt it. SSM is popular on the left, somewhat popular on the middle, but I have seen very, very little support for it on the right. The closest I've seen is libertarians (Including myself) wanting the government to get entirely out of marriage. But I've only seen a few isolated examples where right-wingers on any stripe have actually supported government recognition of same-sex marriage. While it may be that the middle continues to change on this issue, I think the socially conservative vote is probably too important for a Republican candidate to flip on this issue, since those are the people that tend to freak out the most over it.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Wow, you actually complimented me on something
madviking
north american scum
Well it seems Republicans are gonna dig themselves a ditch by the time 2016 rolls around.
Actually, that isn't really true. From the most recent data, per the Washington Post:
I suspect that if you limited that to Republicans under 40, a straight up majority favor Gay Marriage. The momentum is unquestionably shifting towards the pro-SSM crowd, as prominent Republican commentators (Bill O'Rielly) and Senators (Rob Portman) are shifting. In 3, 4 years, that 49% could easily be 55, 56, 57%.
What's also important is that SSM support is a big wedge issue. There is a not insignificant population that will completely refuse to consider voting for a candidate that is against gay marriage, even if they're more conservative on other issues. The only group that is unabashedly still against SSM are evangelicals, and that's a shrinking group. Conservatives have lost this culture war battle front. It's over.
I'm not saying its a sure thing, but I can certainly see a scenario where a candidate who already had stronger conservative chops decided to try and outflank his opponent by coming out in favor of SSM. I don't really see how a guy like Rick Perry wins another primary.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Just because the culture and the populace at large have moved firmly to the pro SSM side doesn't necessarily mean the elected Republicans and Republican candidates will follow. They certainly aren't now at the very least and I'm not sure it's entirely certain that they will by 2016. They could, though.
sophie
Break My Heart
Judging by the Party's reaction to Portman's shift I think dt's got it on the nose. I'd even put it slightly higher than a 50% shot.
I'm not sure about sitting members of Congress, but the president of the Illinois GOP came out in favor of it and has kept his job, and I believe Gov Christie of NJ has said he's pro civil union (although anti SSM).
Similar threads
