Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[GhostWriter16]

I don't really follow enough politicians closely in order to know whom I think would make the best libertarian leaning presidential candidate.

I've heard a lot of libertarians saying good things about Justin Amash, the current Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, but he'll probably want to wait a few election cycles and gain more experience before running for the highest office. He just turned 33 years old last week, and so would barely meet the minimum age requirement in 2016. In the unlikely scenario that he actually manages to be elected then, he would be the youngest president in US history. He is also an Arab, of Palestinian descent, just in case being so young is not weird enough for mainstream Republicans. (He and his family are definitely not Muslims though, but Eastern Orthodox Christians.)

I don't think Amash would run against Rand Paul. That would be counterproductive.

I think Rand is the best option we've got. I know he's not perfect, but a start is a start, isn't it?

 

[JollyRoger]

Russ Feingold should be on the short list of those that want civil liberties respected.

 

[_random_]

I'd love Feingold, but it probably won't happen. Maybe he can get a cabinet slot if the Dems win.

(He and his family are definitely not Muslims though, but Eastern Orthodox Christians.)

I guess it'd be cool to see him go far for personal reasons, but not for political ones. Michael Dukakis was our first Orthodox President in my idealized alternate history. But hey, this guy's young. He has some legitimately sensible positions. Maybe he'll grow more moderate in the years to come and become a solid Republican candidate.

 

[ImperialChaos]

Russ Feingold should be on the short list of those that want civil liberties respected.

Hmm never heard of him. I'll have to keep that in mind.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd love Feingold, but it probably won't happen. Maybe he can get a cabinet slot if the Dems win.
I guess it'd be cool to see him go far for personal reasons, but not for political ones. Michael Dukakis was our first Orthodox President in my idealized alternate history. But hey, this guy's young. He has some legitimately sensible positions. Maybe he'll grow more moderate in the years to come and become a solid Republican candidate.

Amash is, I think, the best Republican on foreign policy left. he's even better than Rand Paul on the issue...

I really, REALLY like Amash right now.

 

[Antilogic]

So, anyone else want to use this thread to follow the polls?

Rand Paul just won the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference poll at 38%, Rubio came in at 18%, Cruz was at 16%, and everyone else filed in at 6% or below. Of course, it's a straw poll and I don't think that's really indicative of the Pennsylvania GOP, they tend to be more moderate and establishment-type Republicans.

But I found it very interesting that Christie couldn't even break the double digits, even with all these other right-wingers around. He might be just another RINO when 2016 rolls around instead of a potential savior of the party.

 

[Gucumatz]

Perhaps and its quite possible he fails to make real headway in the primaries, but its waaay too early to deduce anything from polls yet. Thank god too, straw polls come up with ridiculous results

 

[Ajidica]

Pity. If the dems lacked a strong candidate I might have voted for Christie because I would love to see a civil war in the their party between the sane and insane.

 

[Antilogic]

Sorry, guys, I forgot the link. Was going to edit it in, but I'll make a longer response anyway so the link is here.

Perhaps and its quite possible he fails to make real headway in the primaries, but its waaay too early to deduce anything from polls yet. Thank god too, straw polls come up with ridiculous results

Pity. If the dems lacked a strong candidate I might have voted for Christie because I would love to see a civil war in the their party between the sane and insane.

I am split on this--there is still a lot of time for events abroad, disasters, controversial votes, gaffes, scandals, the list goes on that can affect the policy questions that will be the focus of the campaigns as well as the candidates on short lists for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

However, there is a so-called invisible primary stage going on right now. Lesser-known candidates are trying to build up their national profile for a run, potentially tipping us off to their intentions now. The party apparatuses are already looking at who could potentially run, and potential candidates want to build up their support in key places now rather than later. With the current laws regarding political action committees, donations could be banked now for later campaigns (yeah yeah, they aren't supposed to collaborate with the formal campaign, but there isn't one yet so the potential candidate can just put one of his supporters in charge and wink-wink nudge-nudge their way to an understanding). Single-issue political action committees are already vetting candidates, grading their positions, and figuring out who they will support.

Straw polls usually show greater results for the most energized factions within a party--to borrow a phrase, we know this is more CPAC than RNC. But even then, 5% for Christie? Given his national profile? Ouch.

 

[Gucumatz]

Didn't Romney fail to crack 5% at the Iowa straw poll last go around and Bachman win (or Paul/Pawlenty)

I don't have any data to back this up (nor will I look for any right now), but it seems like that branch of the Rep party is too fickle for any early polling to matter. If this were a poll of say big spending donors, that would be another thing

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't Romney fail to crack 5% at the Iowa straw poll last go around and Bachman win (or Paul/Pawlenty)

Romney flat-out didn't compete in the Iowa Straw Poll and in a clash of GOP candidates in Iowa Mittens was never going to do well.

However, this straw poll was in Pennsylvania (I thought the GOP was less nutty there) and Christie has regional cred due to the proximity of New Jersey.

 

[ZeletDude]

Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll lol, and here she is in 2013 barely having gotten reelected..lol.

My dream is for Rand Paul to win the GOP primary and have the dem sweep the floor with him. I know plenty of mainstream and even a bit more conservative republicans say they'd rather vote for Clinton or another dem than ever vote for Paul.

 

[Cutlass]

Any word on who the Republican behind the scenes kingmakers are backing?

 

[downtown]

Rand Paul just won the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference poll at 38%, Rubio came in at 18%, Cruz was at 16%, and everyone else filed in at 6% or below. Of course, it's a straw poll and I don't think that's really indicative of the Pennsylvania GOP, they tend to be more moderate and establishment-type Republicans.

Is that actually true? I mean, PA' GOP Senator used to head the Club for Growth and ran an insurgent campaign, and the strength of their party comes from Western and Central PA, which are kinda rednecky. I'm not sure it's an especially moderate group.

I think Christie is basically done though, especially now that he's backed gun control in NJ. He's embraced the more "moderate" image and won't be able to survive a national GOP primary, although it looks like he'll be around NJ for a while.

To the extent that a frontrunner exists, I think it's Rubio.

 

[Gucumatz]

I still think the money side of the party will try and look for a 'moderate' moderate. I think we could still see an outside competitor like Romney 2.0 [Huntsman] squeak in. Rand Paul I see having no chance in the primaries, Rubio is a legitimate possibility (and he would sure lose though in the general election), Christie I feel regardless though should still be classified as the frontrunner at this stage

 

[GhostWriter16]

Any word on who the Republican behind the scenes kingmakers are backing?

Anyone but Rand Paul is who they want....

I still think the money side of the party will try and look for a 'moderate' moderate. I think we could still see an outside competitor like Romney 2.0 [Huntsman] squeak in. Rand Paul I see having no chance in the primaries, Rubio is a legitimate possibility (and he would sure lose though in the general election), Christie I feel regardless though should still be classified as the frontrunner at this stage

of course Rand has a chance. The party won't let him win the general (The GOP party bosses would indeed prefer Hillary) but he could definitely win the votes in primary.) He's winning right now...

 

[Gucumatz]

Irrelevant (that hes winning right now garbage numbers). No one cares about Rand Paul [Well no one that matters]

 

[ZeletDude]

Rand would never win a General Election, I would love to see him win the primary for that very reason.

I've kind of concluded that unless the Republicans move alot more towards the center they will continue to lose presidential elections. (They need to at least appeal to minorities more)

 

[Antilogic]

Any word on who the Republican behind the scenes kingmakers are backing?

I'm still trying to figure that out. The post-primary/caucus delegate allocation rules that enabled Ron Paul to pick up several delegates after 2012 have been rolled back or otherwise changed to better match the delegates to the primary results. So the backroom guys clearly don't support the scrappy insurgency candidate. Also, water is wet.

Is that actually true? I mean, PA' GOP Senator used to head the Club for Growth and ran an insurgent campaign, and the strength of their party comes from Western and Central PA, which are kinda rednecky. I'm not sure it's an especially moderate group.

As far as the rural areas in the state, that's true. Maybe I was thinking of the requirements for Republicans to ultimately carry the state, which necessitates carrying the more moderate suburbs.

I think Christie is basically done though, especially now that he's backed gun control in NJ. He's embraced the more "moderate" image and won't be able to survive a national GOP primary, although it looks like he'll be around NJ for a while.

To the extent that a frontrunner exists, I think it's Rubio.

Ouch, backing gun control? Is there a bigger gaffe in Republican presidential politics?

Anyone but Rand Paul is who they want....

of course Rand has a chance. The party won't let him win the general (The GOP party bosses would indeed prefer Hillary) but he could definitely win the votes in primary.) He's winning right now...

The Republicans wouldn't intentionally sabotage themselves in the general election, not with a potential 12-16 year continuous Democratic administration on the line. When it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices, they would still rather have Rand Paul picking than Hillary Clinton. Scalia and Thomas can't last forever, I'd put down some good money they retire or pass away before 2024.

I wouldn't say that anyone is winning or losing at this moment, but that Rand Paul is building up more national name recognition and guys like Christie and Rubio are fading. Immigration reform getting bogged down has battered Rubio's perceived chops as a smart, forward-looking legislator. Plus, stuff like the filibuster puts Paul's name in the news and keeps Rubio out, which increases the name recognition factor in these polls.

Rand would never win a General Election, I would love to see him win the primary for that very reason.

I've kind of concluded that unless the Republicans move alot more towards the center they will continue to lose presidential elections. (They need to at least appeal to minorities more)

That, or they need to change the topic of conversation. The social-right wedge issues are a liability now as far as the Electoral College is concerned.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Antilogic- You'd be surprised how many Republicans support gun control...

The Republicans wouldn't intentionally sabotage themselves in the general election, not with a potential 12-16 year continuous Democratic administration on the line. When it comes to appointing Supreme Court Justices, they would still rather have Rand Paul picking than Hillary Clinton. Scalia and Thomas can't last forever, I'd put down some good money they retire or pass away before 2024.

I wouldn't say that anyone is winning or losing at this moment, but that Rand Paul is building up more national name recognition and guys like Christie and Rubio are fading. Immigration reform getting bogged down has battered Rubio's perceived chops as a smart, forward-looking legislator. Plus, stuff like the filibuster puts Paul's name in the news and keeps Rubio out, which increases the name recognition factor in these polls.

I know its not exactly the same thing, but I KNOW they would have sabotaged Ron Paul. Obama is closer to what they want than Ron Paul was. Rand is more moderate, and I admit he could go with the libertarians or the establishment at this point, time is going to tell. But if he sticks to his guns, I can't imagine the GOP establishment letting him win. Then again, I'm REALLY cynical, and I think "Endless War" is really the only reason the establishment guys have to be GOP anyway.

Just curious, what's your personal take on Rand? I can tell you lean liberal but I'm not really sure how much, and you might appreciate some of the stuff Rand is saying on civil liberties.

How much of a chance do you think Rand would actually have in the general?