Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
I double-checked the maps and you are right, it was an either/or and not a double requirement.
What will be interesting is how the electoral college falls after a very close election (say, within 1% of the popular vote), which states the campaigns focus on, and whether the Republicans can pull off their Midwestern expansion they have been gunning for since who knows when.
Talk about an echo chamber... echo chamber... echo chamber...
GhostWriter16
Deity
Apparently my link didn't work. For shame. Summary: Rand Paul didn't unilaterally praise Lincoln, but offered a nuanced take, and said he liked Grover Cleveland.
And yeah, I usually prefer posting on RPF compared to here nowadays. Arguing with people who have zero common philosophical foundation isn't really something that you can win...
And yeah, I usually prefer posting on RPF compared to here nowadays. Arguing with people who have zero common philosophical foundation isn't really something that you can win...
I found it, don't worry.
Even browsed some of the other threads.Walker is an interesting inclusion, not sure I agree with him on the short list without some more discussion. I can see Kasich as having a good chance, I think wild card is a good way to describe him. He's more popular than the average GOP governor, and I don't think he has burned as many bridges as Christie.
The other names they listed we've had on our list for awhile now. I'm not quite sure I agree with all their characterizations of the candidates--for example, I don't think we know for sure whether or not Paul Ryan is a dynamic campaigner since his only national campaign was on the Romney ticket--if he was at the top, would he have pursued a different and more dynamic strategy?
Ayotte and Pence were not mentioned in the article, both of whom I consider dark horse/wild card candidates for the Republicans. It's not clear they would want to run yet.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Its not as much of an echo chamber as you'd think at first glance. We agree a lot more than people on here agree. We all like Ron Paul, of course. But there's quite a bit of variety in political opinion. We all want limited government, but exactly how limited (This ranges from "No government at all" to "Constitutional conservatism"), how best to attain that, and specific policies aren't always agreed on.
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
Sounds like a terrible place.
Back on topic, who have we missed? I found it interesting Jeb Bush wasn't on the UVA list--seems like his star has fallen pretty hard since his book release and the whole immigration-confusion thing. And Rick Perry was actually included as a third-tier candidate, although is prior stance on immigration, formerly a big minus, may actually be a plus this time.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Jeb Bush? Do you really think the American People want the Bush Oligarchy for a THIRD TIME?
Rick Perry is actually interesting. At least he knows what Social Security is... His foreign policy sucks just like most Republicans though.
How many people actually pick a candidate based on immigration policy? Something tells me that anyone who would can't legally vote
In seriousness, however, Rand Paul's immigration stance will probably help him with Hispanics.
Rand Paul's stance on civil rights will probably help him with subscribers of his daddy's newsletters.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
How many people actually pick a candidate based on immigration policy? Something tells me that anyone who would can't legally vote
In seriousness, however, Rand Paul's immigration stance will probably help him with Hispanics.
Immigration was a big issue during last year's primaries.
Jeb Bush? Do you really think the American People want the Bush Oligarchy for a THIRD TIME?
Rick Perry is actually interesting. At least he knows what Social Security is... His foreign policy sucks just like most Republicans though.
How many people actually pick a candidate based on immigration policy? Something tells me that anyone who would can't legally vote
In seriousness, however, Rand Paul's immigration stance will probably help him with Hispanics.
It's not necessarily what the American people want, it's what the Republican base voting in the primaries want.
There is, of course, a hope these two are one in the same.Jeb Bush was always seen as a savvier politician than his brother and as a two-term governor of Florida, a tougher state for Republicans than Texas, was likely a better campaigner. As for immigration, both he and Perry are on the more popular side of this now and would be pulling from the same base as Rubio. I don't seriously think any Republican candidate can pull off a victory in the Hispanic vote unless a lot of serious changes are made to their policies, but if they manage to hold the Democratic advantage to, say, 10 points like during 2000 and 2004, they have proven they can carry key states like Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, which are a hefty chunk of the EVs they need to win to get to 270.
Long story short, I think the old-school/moderate/Beltway-type Republicans view immigration as an issue to concede on for the votes they are not alienating amongst actual voters. They see it as worth the 44 EVs, and if they can sway Virginia's 13 back and maybe Iowa's 6 like Bush did, they are up to 63 EVs of Obama states they can try to pull off. That would have tied the 2012 election, add in Ohio (or even New Hampshire) and you have a Republican victory not requiring upsetting Democratic holdouts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota. Or any of the other long-shot strategies.
I kinda figured Jeb Bush's record as Gov had built him enough goodwill with many Latino voters that he could hypothetically survive an immigration misstep, something that say, Rick Perry, or virtually any other top-tier Republican can't say.
ImperialChaos
President
I'd really like to see John Huntsman grab the Repub. nomination. One of the more moderate candidates.
Beautiful daughters, too.
Beautiful daughters, too.
I'd really like to see John Huntsman grab the Repub. nomination. One of the more moderate candidates.
Beautiful daughters, too.
I was posting on him awhile back, glad I'm not the only guy who remembers him.
He was always one of those candidates that seemed moderate in the voters' eyes, largely I think because he served in a Democratic administration in China. But the policies he was advocating in the primary, especially on economic issues, were right-wing bread-and-butter. I think he was on board for a 0% capital gains tax, and a 25% maximum marginal income tax rate. I could never tell if he was serious about those proposals, or if he was a moderate trying to pander to a Republican electorate and his natural inclinations were more towards the middle.
However, I think the main reason he fizzled in 2012 was because his campaign got started too late. He was fighting an uphill battle with Romney for the same group of nearly locked-down supporters while guys like Santorum and Gingrich (and of course, Paul) already had different bases to draw donations and volunteers from. Without Romney crowding out the field early on, he has a chance if he wants to try again.
Jon Huntsman's campaign pitch was "I'm a republican for people who don't like Republicans!"
It is unsurprising that he didn't catch on in a GOP primary, even though, like Antilogic said, most of his stuff was actually *really* conservative. I don't think any other guy in the 2012 primary race could claim strong, practical pro-life credentials, his tax proposals were straight out of Heritage, and he was a very successful (and popular) Governor of perhaps the reddest of red states....which gave him zero political help because, you know, Mitt Romney (Huntsman, weirdly enough, wasn't very popular within the LDS activist wing because he's kind of a Jack Mormon).
Without a reliable base constituency, and with being more in line with "centrist" reporters than any actual activist, I'm not sure how Huntsman has much of a future in electoral politics.
It is unsurprising that he didn't catch on in a GOP primary, even though, like Antilogic said, most of his stuff was actually *really* conservative. I don't think any other guy in the 2012 primary race could claim strong, practical pro-life credentials, his tax proposals were straight out of Heritage, and he was a very successful (and popular) Governor of perhaps the reddest of red states....which gave him zero political help because, you know, Mitt Romney (Huntsman, weirdly enough, wasn't very popular within the LDS activist wing because he's kind of a Jack Mormon).
Without a reliable base constituency, and with being more in line with "centrist" reporters than any actual activist, I'm not sure how Huntsman has much of a future in electoral politics.
So, I (maybe naively) figured that Huntsman didn't really get strong backing from the Mormon communities because Romney already had them locked into supporting him. What's a Jack Mormon, and why does it sound like something I wouldn't want to be?
I think Huntsman would have a chance of receiving the nomination if this was back in the good ol' days of convention politics where the party bosses could pick a guy who might not be as strong with the base but would have a good chance in the national election.
I think Huntsman would have a chance of receiving the nomination if this was back in the good ol' days of convention politics where the party bosses could pick a guy who might not be as strong with the base but would have a good chance in the national election.
Similar threads
