Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[dutchfire]

Also, if the Supreme Court rules in favour now, and the Democrats manage to make some progress on it in legislation, a mild pro-SSM-position could become more of the default/status quo.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well it seems Republicans are gonna dig themselves a ditch by the time 2016 rolls around.

How many people do you seriously think vote solely on this issue? How many of them would have voted Republican anyway?

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.

I would think that there are more soc cons that wouldn't think of voting for a pro-SSM candidate than there are social liberals who wouldn't think of voting for an anti-SSM candidate.

So two guys from overwhelming liberal states....

Yeah, those two states aren't really representative of the nation. I could imagine a pro-civil unions guy getting it but not pro-SSM...

 

[madviking]

How many people do you seriously think vote solely on this issue? How many of them would have voted Republican anyway?

What's the motto for every presidential election? Win the independents.

If, in three year's time, most independents are pro-SSM, then many of them would be alienated by the GOP even if SSM is not one of their main issues, since SSM stance correlates strongly to other social issues, e.g. birth control; this would snowball into quite a few issues that independents and the GOP would disagree over.

If the GOP fails to adopt these more liberal measures, then it would become harder and harder to win a general election since you're counting more and more on the evangelical vote which, like dt said, is in decline; a perfect ditch-digging scenario.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I guess it depends on how many Evangelicals make SSM their main issue VS pro-gay marriage centrists who do so.

Don't really have a serious stake in this fight, I just don't think that its actually going to happen in 2016...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Evangelucals treat every social issue like the important social issue; that's part and parcel of being evangelical. They will all be anti-SSM for a long time.

 

[RobAnybody]

What's the motto for every presidential election? Win the independents.

If, in three year's time, most independents are pro-SSM, then many of them would be alienated by the GOP even if SSM is not one of their main issues...

I think this is kinda it. In 2004, Karl Rove put a lot of anti-SSM issues on the ballots. It greatly helped GWB (granted Kerry was the Romney of his time, so that also helped GWB).

The polls show that SSM has erecte... er, grown in support, to the point that the majority of Americans support it nowadays. In just 8 years, which is something, & somewhat surprising, because us Americans generally don't swing that way...er, I mean, change our opinions that fast.

Which is why I bet you'll see more & more Republicans magically come out of the clos... I mean, evolve their stance on SSM between now & 2016. I hate to be all jaded about politicians & such, but IMO, most politicians don't really care about SSM, they just blow... er, ok, blow, that's fine... whichever the way the wind is going on this particular subject.

 

[dutchfire]

The polls show that SSM has erecte... er, grown in support, to the point that the majority of Americans support it nowadays. In just 8 years, which is something, & somewhat surprising, because us Americans generally don't swing that way...er, I mean, change our opinions that fast.

To be honest, most of the change in support is because old people died and young people think differently, not actual people changing their opinion.

 

[downtown]

I don't think that's true either actually. I'll try to find a poll, but the most recently commissioned poll showed that about 30% of the people who actually support SSM now used to oppose it. The indicator most closely associated with changing your mind? Actually knowing gay people.

Once the argument is personalized from "should gays get married" to "should my friend Steve get married", it changes things a lot.

 

[dutchfire]

I'll try to find a poll, but the most recently commissioned poll showed that about 30% of the people who actually support SSM now used to oppose it.

Well, that leaves 70%

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the movement within the gay community to pressure themselves to all come out has paid enormous dividends. They have always existed but it's much harder to belittle, demean and attack them when they are no longer the unknown 'other' but your son or daughter, etc.

Useless anecdote: My grandmother (age 69) went from anti-gay to anti-SSM to pro-SSM in the space of about 10 years and she is very religious. It may seem silly but having gay people on tv (and a live-in grandson for a few years who is very pro-SSM) overcame decades of prejudice.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Evangelucals treat every social issue like the important social issue; that's part and parcel of being evangelical. They will all be anti-SSM for a long time.

Not every Evangelical, just most of them. I'm an Evangelical and to me our awful foreign policy is more important to me than all of the social issues put together. And I don't always take the conservative position on the social issues either, I side with liberty. But then, you probably knew that. Incidentally, my view on marriage is that its a private contractual matter and that government should not have anything more than that to do with it.

I think the movement within the gay community to pressure themselves to all come out has paid enormous dividends. They have always existed but it's much harder to belittle, demean and attack them when they are no longer the unknown 'other' but your son or daughter, etc.

Useless anecdote: My grandmother (age 69) went from anti-gay to anti-SSM to pro-SSM in the space of about 10 years and she is very religious. It may seem silly but having gay people on tv (and a live-in grandson for a few years who is very pro-SSM) overcame decades of prejudice.

AKA "Liberal brainwashing"

eek

nuke

 

[hobbsyoyo]

AKA "Liberal brainwashing"

eek

nuke

Funny, I thought that was just private enterprise giving people what they wanted, 'free market ftw' and all that.

 

[sophie]

I'd say the media shift has really changed things to a large degree. Portrayal of gays on television has shifted from objectifying stereotype (the token gay on Survivor-type shows, Queer-eye, and Will and Grace) to more type a.1.

Shows like Glee and Project Runway, the portrayal of homosexuality in many sitcoms, the prominent, openly-out nature of many homosexual actors/tresses (Ellen, Day-Lewis, Penn, and the coming out of Jodie Foster this year) has really promoted the idea of gays not as bizarre aliens existing in a counter culture, but as normal, everyday people whose romantic interests are of same sex rather than opposite. I think in particular the portrayal of characters like Kurt and Blaine in Glee is a good example of this. There's a lot less "coded gay" on television and more "outed gay". Moreover Television is a lot more neutral in their portrayal of gays these days whereas in decades past they were shown either in a negative light or in such a bizarre, stereotyped manner that they are almost alienating.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Funny, I thought that was just private enterprise giving people what they wanted, 'free market ftw' and all that.

It is possible to be both at the same time

I wasn't proposing that it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wasn't proposing that it shouldn't be allowed.

You save that for the 'indoctrination agents of the state' threads.

 

[duckstab]

The polls show that SSM has erecte... er, grown in support, to the point that the majority of Americans support it nowadays. In just 8 years, which is something, & somewhat surprising, because us Americans generally don't swing that way...er, I mean, change our opinions that fast.

Nate Silver had a recent column where he showed that support for marriage equality has, in fact, been rising slowly and steadily by about 2% per year across the nation since 2004. But it's only recently passed the tipping point where "defense of marriage" ballot initiatives can no longer be reliably passed. That's why it seems like there's been a sudden sea change. If this trend continues, then he projects that by 2020 it'll be impossible to pass such an initiative in all but a handful of the deepest red states.

 

[Antilogic]

Okay, I picked this thread for my long-post.

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.

My question is whether Chris Christie can win the Republican primaries. He occupies a similar policy space as Mitt Romney (somewhat more moderate, a Republican governor working in Democratic state), but has the advantage of being seen as more honest and forthright. However, he doesn't have the organization from 2008 that Romney had, and the nomination contest ended up being dragged out over several months because Romney couldn't close the deal quickly and ended up moving to the right on several issues that he then tried to walk back with varying degrees of success. Can Christie build an effective organization with no prior national-level experience and seal his nomination before Romney did?

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.

If I were a Republican strategist, I would be concerned with bolters. It's very possible that assuming too moderate a stance on gay marriage will cause an evangelical to run on a third-party ticket with the hopes of preventing an electoral college majority, forcing the election to the House (where they will exact concessions from the more moderate Republicans in exchange for their votes to guarantee the presidency).

Sounds unreasonable? Reactionary Democrats bolted for a third-party candidate (largely over civil rights, a social issue) and carried EVs in 3 post-WW2 elections, and I'm not even counting guys like Anderson and Perot who ran serious national third-party challenges and received a significant fraction of the popular vote (or Nader, who didn't). We've had 4 national elections without a major third-party challenger--I'd almost say we were overdue.

What's the motto for every presidential election? Win the independents.

If, in three year's time, most independents are pro-SSM, then many of them would be alienated by the GOP even if SSM is not one of their main issues, since SSM stance correlates strongly to other social issues, e.g. birth control; this would snowball into quite a few issues that independents and the GOP would disagree over.

If the GOP fails to adopt these more liberal measures, then it would become harder and harder to win a general election since you're counting more and more on the evangelical vote which, like dt said, is in decline; a perfect ditch-digging scenario.

One of the consequences of the last few presidential elections has been a re-alignment in who calls themselves independents. A lot of the formerly moderate independents now openly identify with the Democratic party, leaving behind a far more reactionary and right-leaning tea-esque group of independents. This was demonstrated in those party ID polls that were conducted in the lead-up to the last election--more people answered they were Democrats.

Remains to be seen whether or not the same trend holds in 2016 that was started in 2008 and 2012.

Not every Evangelical, just most of them. I'm an Evangelical and to me our awful foreign policy is more important to me than all of the social issues put together. And I don't always take the conservative position on the social issues either, I side with liberty. But then, you probably knew that. Incidentally, my view on marriage is that its a private contractual matter and that government should not have anything more than that to do with it.

One of the big hypotheses I am toying with is whether the evangelical community will bolt with the teahadists and form a significant third-party challenge in 2016. The questions I have are whether or not social-issue evangelicals can align with the fiscal-issues tea-ists. Foreign policy-wise, is there enough overlap in those two communities to form a working coalition if the key issues in 2016 are mostly non-domestic with maybe one or two social issues?

 

[dutchfire]

If I were a Republican strategist, I would be concerned with bolters. It's very possible that assuming too moderate a stance on gay marriage will cause an evangelical to run on a third-party ticket with the hopes of preventing an electoral college majority, forcing the election to the House (where they will exact concessions from the more moderate Republicans in exchange for their votes to guarantee the presidency).

Sounds unreasonable? Reactionary Democrats bolted for a third-party candidate (largely over civil rights, a social issue) and carried EVs in 3 post-WW2 elections, and I'm not even counting guys like Anderson and Perot who ran serious national third-party challenges and received a significant fraction of the popular vote (or Nader, who didn't). We've had 4 national elections without a major third-party challenger--I'd almost say we were overdue.

If the Rs split their votes, the Ds will have a cakewalk. All the competitive states have a vote percentage difference of 5-ish %, any serious right wing 3rd party will turn that state D.

 

[Antilogic]

If the Rs split their votes, the Ds will have a cakewalk. All the competitive states have a vote percentage difference of 5-ish %, any serious right wing 3rd party will turn that state D.

This is what prevented a President Humphrey, although he nearly overcame his party split like Truman did. From WW2 to 2008, we had more years of Republican control of the White House than Democratic, and the civil rights issue was a key factor in the breakdown of the New Deal Coalition. We may be observing another shift of the same magnitude, just with the opposite party taking the losses.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My question is whether Chris Christie can win the Republican primaries. He occupies a similar policy space as Mitt Romney (somewhat more moderate, a Republican governor working in Democratic state), but has the advantage of being seen as more honest and forthright. However, he doesn't have the organization from 2008 that Romney had, and the nomination contest ended up being dragged out over several months because Romney couldn't close the deal quickly and ended up moving to the right on several issues that he then tried to walk back with varying degrees of success. Can Christie build an effective organization with no prior national-level experience and seal his nomination before Romney did?

While I have no idea whether or not Christie can put together an effective organization, as far as being not-hardcore conservative enough:
Well, I think a lot of the problem with the Republicans in the last cycle was that they hated Obama so much and perceived him to be so hard left that their immediate reaction was to go hard right and could never be fully comfortable with someone less hardcore than their ideal.

I think that with Obama out of the picture (and with the massive shift wrt SSM going on) that they won't be nearly as idealogically pure in 2016 as they were in 2012. Plus, Christie really isn't that moderate, he's a rightie's rightie alright but he comes across as more moderate than he is because he isn't an assclown and gives credit where it's due (Obama's handling of that Hurricane, for example).

I have nothing to back any of that up though, it's all a hunch.

One of the consequences of the last few presidential elections has been a re-alignment in who calls themselves independents. A lot of the formerly moderate independents now openly identify with the Democratic party, leaving behind a far more reactionary and right-leaning tea-esque group of independents. This was demonstrated in those party ID polls that were conducted in the lead-up to the last election--more people answered they were Democrats.

I wonder if the realignment has anything to do with the parties themselves though? The Dems haven't moved drastically to the left (IMHO) while the Republicans and the teahadists have pulled sharply right. Independents who haven't shifted themselves are left facing a choice between a basically stationary Dem party and a radical Rep party, and they drift toward the lesser of two evils. Those that are left claiming 'independent' are really just teahadists who don't the Republican party hates the gays and taxes enough as is.

Again, nothing to back that up.