Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[Cutlass]

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.

This is the argument that I'm making

 

[Gucumatz]

Theoretical here, could George Bush be elected as VP or do current restrictions prevent that? Or theoretically could he become speaker of the House and say both the President and VP die, could he become President again?

Obviously I am not forecasting any of the above.

Also Anti-Logic, I am curious - why do you put Scott Walker in your tier 1 category?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think they could do that. But a lawyer might be able to parse the actual language of the amendment in such a way as to make a case that it is legal.

Amendment XXII

1: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

It does not explicitly say that no person who has been elected president twice cannot be vice president, or to fill out the term of office of a president who dies in office.

 

[JollyRoger]

Being elected President is different than becoming Presidint via being next in line, so I think he could.

 

[Antilogic]

Theoretical here, could George Bush be elected as VP or do current restrictions prevent that? Or theoretically could he become speaker of the House and say both the President and VP die, could he become President again?

Obviously I am not forecasting any of the above.

Also Anti-Logic, I am curious - why do you put Scott Walker in your tier 1 category?

He was borderline 1/2, but I left him in the first tier. He's keeping a lower national profile but is still making policy speeches and doing fundraisers in Iowa and other early primary/caucus states, which is usually an indication the person has some interest in running for president. He comes from an area where the Republicans need to do well in to offset Democratic gains elsewhere in the country--if the demographics keep shifting as they are, the Republicans are doomed if they cannot start reliably winning Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He was politically astute in his recall campaign (by running against the recall rather than on his record, which got him in the sticky situation). He's been able to pass a Republican agenda in a blue state kind of like Christie, but without the same level of bombastic profanity which might play better nationally. He's not as scandal-ridden as McDonnell, who was the conservative hero and a potential presidential candidate a few years back. Finally, I think he would have an easier time than Christie and other moderate Republicans getting the nomination. He could play well in Iowa, and hold steady for a Midwestern/Western route to victory.

I don't know if he's stated publicly whether he would step aside if Paul Ryan wanted to run, but I doubt we would see two candidates from Wisconsin in the Republican primaries. Basically, they would run into all the problems I was describing with the Gillibrand/Cuomo situation in New York, except with an even smaller base to draw from.

I probably should have added Mike Pence and Kelly Ayotte as fellow sleeper candidates to the Republican list, but I forgot to. I think either of them could be decent second-tier challengers as well. Ayotte seems to be following McCain's lead as an establishment/foreign policy hawk-type Republican, so she might serve that role as a candidate.

 

[Antilogic]

So, PPP polled in Montana, which hasn't been included in their prior batch of polls. Here's the breakdown:

Democrats:
9% - Joe Biden
3% - Cory Booker
52% - Hillary Clinton
1% - Andrew Cuomo
1% - Kirsten Gillibrand
0% - Martin O'Malley
17% - Brian Schweitzer
0% - Mark Warner
3% - Elizabeth Warren
13% - Someone else/Not sure

Republicans:
13% - Jeb Bush
12% - Chris Christie
12% - Ted Cruz
6% - Bobby Jindal
3% - Susana Martinez
21% - Rand Paul
10% - Marco Rubio
9% - Paul Ryan
1% - Rick Santorum
13% - Someone else/Not sure



So basically Clinton is still dominating everyone including those with a home state advantage. Rand Paul looks to be leading by 8%, with Bush, Christie, Cruz, Rubio, and Ryan all in the mix. I think this is interesting from the Republican side because none of the Republican candidates are from Montana or nearby, so this really shows us where the name recognition is for Republican primary voters right now. Ryan is doing wayyy better than Santorum (polling within the margin of error of zero), so the next-in-line dynamic might favor Paul Ryan in the upcoming election over Santorum.

Despite lying low in the news, Ryan isn't doing so bad here. People are still remembering him from 2012.

 

[Cutlass]

Jeb Bush really hasn't been that much in the spotlight since stepping down as governor. Other than the family connection, how well can he be said to be known right now?

 

[Antilogic]

He had his big book tour on immigration (which I would characterize as a flop since he basically came out for more right-wing stuff but the party actually moved towards him and it was really awkward). He's been giving a few low-key speeches, but I don't think of him as a big national figure like I do the Senate Republicans or Chris Christie who seems to find his way into the national broadcasts on a weekly basis.

 

[Miles Teg]

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.

Not sure what Gillibrand's bringing to the table that gets her so much speculation. She's pretty deftly transitioned from the Blue Dog caucus into the party mainstream and she's got some fundraising chops (every pol from New York has fundraising chops).

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.

I agree with you that Kasich has potential, but I'm pretty sure than Huntsman could propose a -10% capital gains tax and still be seen as a liberal commie Obama lover. Generally, I think that with Huntsman and Christie you're overestimating how much value there is in being the centrist candidate. Parties rarely nominate centrists as the face of the party. You could cite Clinton as an exception, but that happened after a string of losses where the Democrats blamed themselves for tacking to the left. Republicans seem to attribute their losses to some mix of bad luck, voter fraud, the uniqueness of Obama, and not nominating a true enough believer. I doubt they're going to be looking to change course.

Jeb Bush really hasn't been that much in the spotlight since stepping down as governor. Other than the family connection, how well can he be said to be known right now?

Well he's pretty much the only person in the country who doesn't have to worry about name recognition after being out of office for the last six years.

 

[Cutlass]

I agree with you that Kasich has potential, but I'm pretty sure than Huntsman could propose a -10% capital gains tax and still be seen as a liberal commie Obama lover. Generally, I think that with Huntsman and Christie you're overestimating how much value there is in being the centrist candidate. Parties rarely nominate centrists as the face of the party. You could cite Clinton as an exception, but that happened after a string of losses where the Democrats blamed themselves for tacking to the left. Republicans seem to attribute their losses to some mix of bad luck, voter fraud, the uniqueness of Obama, and not nominating a true enough believer. I doubt they're going to be looking to change course.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama have all come from the center-right part of the Democratic party.

Well he's pretty much the only person in the country who doesn't have to worry about name recognition after being out of office for the last six years.

The name Bush is known, and that has both positives and negatives for him. The name Jeb, not so much.

 

[Miles Teg]

Carter, Clinton, and Obama have all come from the center-right part of the Democratic party.

I explained why Clinton was a special case, Carter was closer to his party than you think and ran in the super-weird first primary after the Democrats reformed their system, and I'm pretty sure you're projecting dissatisfaction with 2013 President Obama onto 2008 candidate Obama.

 

[Antilogic]

Not sure what Gillibrand's bringing to the table that gets her so much speculation. She's pretty deftly transitioned from the Blue Dog caucus into the party mainstream and she's got some fundraising chops (every pol from New York has fundraising chops).

Same here, which is why I put her in the third tier. I think her name is floated as a potential candidate largely because there is a push to have the first female candidate for president be from the Democratic Party, and if Hillary Clinton doesn't run then they are looking at Klobuchar and Gillibrand to take up that mantle.

I read she is pretty well-connected as far as fund-raising and Democratic Party insiders are concerned, so that's a plus if she's trying to secure endorsements and run up wins in the caucus states. It's not inconceivable she could win the nomination if both Hillary Clinton and Cuomo don't run.

I agree with you that Kasich has potential, but I'm pretty sure than Huntsman could propose a -10% capital gains tax and still be seen as a liberal commie Obama lover. Generally, I think that with Huntsman and Christie you're overestimating how much value there is in being the centrist candidate. Parties rarely nominate centrists as the face of the party. You could cite Clinton as an exception, but that happened after a string of losses where the Democrats blamed themselves for tacking to the left. Republicans seem to attribute their losses to some mix of bad luck, voter fraud, the uniqueness of Obama, and not nominating a true enough believer. I doubt they're going to be looking to change course.

I cannot figure out why Republicans won't believe the Governor of Utah, who governed as a fairly right-wing pro-life Republican, is not on their side. I am assuming it's the taint of being associated in any way with the Obama administration. I place Huntsman in the right wing of the Republican Party but he appears to be good at confusing people into thinking he's a centrist by not saying dumb stuff about science (thinking of his evolution tweet amongst others).

It's true that right after the election the Republicans associated their loss as you described, but establishment and electable-type Republicans seem to have an empirical leg-up in the nomination process. Ford held off Reagan for a cycle in 1976, Bush Senior was able to hold off Buchanan in 1992, Dole wasn't a far-right candidate in 1996, McCain in 2008 wasn't as far right as guys like Huckabee and Tancredo, and Romney in 2012 wasn't the right-wing alternative he was in 2008--Santorum ended up taking that mantle in the end, but we had no shortage of further-right candidates in that contest. I'm not as familiar with the 1988 and 2000 Republican primaries, I'd have to research them a little more to see if the trend holds for those two cases.

It might not be a function of how the party prefers centrist, but rather the donors preferring a candidate they perceive as more electable or the machines those candidates can put together are simply more durable over the course of the primary season. Both of those factors could be changing for 2016 given how much campaign finance has changed since the 1970s, though.

That all being said, though, I think the Giuliani analogy may be appropriate for Christie. I think too many want a return to the traditional Republican party, especially in the Northeast and in some media outlets, and they just can't resist a story that puts that narrative back on track. But when it comes to the actual voters in Republican primaries and caucuses, he might not go as far.

I'm also concerned about the Pawlenty problem in my tiers--guys like Walker and O'Malley look like solid candidates on paper, but if they are lackluster in the early debates then they won't go far. Kind of like what Downtown said a week or so ago about Jindal, I know I'm holding Walker and O'Malley stock that might end up being worthless.

I explained why Clinton was a special case, Carter was closer to his party than you think and ran in the super-weird first primary after the Democrats reformed their system, and I'm pretty sure you're projecting dissatisfaction with 2013 President Obama onto 2008 candidate Obama.

On the 2008 primaries, I think guys like John Edwards and Joe Biden ran further to the left than Obama and Clinton both did before they were knocked out. I'm having a hard time remembering who was further left out of those two--I think regional and age differences played a larger role.

 

[bhsup]

because there is a push to have the first female candidate for president be from the Democratic Party.

I hate to rain on your parade there, but WHAT? Lenora Fulani even made it on the ballot in all 50 States.

 

[Antilogic]

I hate to rain on your parade there, but WHAT? Lenora Fulani even made it on the ballot in all 50 States.

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I should have added a caveat about being realistically able to win or from one of the major two parties.

 

[Cutlass]

I explained why Clinton was a special case, Carter was closer to his party than you think and ran in the super-weird first primary after the Democrats reformed their system, and I'm pretty sure you're projecting dissatisfaction with 2013 President Obama onto 2008 candidate Obama.

I disagree. Those paying attention before the 2008 election were not expecting Obama to be a liberal.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=284016

As to Carter, he came from what was at the time the conservative wing of the party, but not the Dixiecrat wing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I cannot figure out why Republicans won't believe the Governor of Utah, who governed as a fairly right-wing pro-life Republican, is not on their side. I am assuming it's the taint of being associated in any way with the Obama administration. I place Huntsman in the right wing of the Republican Party but he appears to be good at confusing people into thinking he's a centrist by not saying dumb stuff about science (thinking of his evolution tweet amongst others).

I don't really like Huntsman precisely because his foreign policy is "Too conservative." But yeah, he's definitely way more conservative on actual policy than Romney, at least fiscally. He's just "Nicer" about it, if that makes sense.

 

[Antilogic]

So a question - as of now I would like to hear from you all who you all think will win the Democratic/Republican primaries on either side. I know it will change over the years as we get closer to 2016, but I just want to have it archived now and here in this thread for future reference to see how we change.

Pick only one winner per party:

Republicans: Bush III is my current pick
Democrats: Hillary

Hillary Clinton leads between 30 and 50 points on most polls of Democrats, if she runs she is the instant front-runner and only first-tier candidate. I'd give her around a 49% chance of being the eventual nominee, most of that is determined by the coin flip if she runs or not.

For the Republicans, it's harder to say and it's not my style to hazard a guess yet.

What the hell, I'm feeling like a gambler today and I convinced myself in my last post. Put me down for Governor Scott Walker winning the Republican nomination, and I hope he doesn't have a scandal in the next three years that makes me look like an idiot.

I don't really like Huntsman precisely because his foreign policy is "Too conservative." But yeah, he's definitely way more conservative on actual policy than Romney, at least fiscally. He's just "Nicer" about it, if that makes sense.

I think the politeness is part of it, as well as his less-fundamentalist views on science, and the fact that he was in the Obama administration. Given he was never a leading anti-Romney in 2012 and he dropped out after New Hampshire, people just got a flavor for his personality and not his policies. I think he'd be a good, viable candidate if he chooses to run again.



Side note, I really wish the Democrats were moving a little faster with their primary/caucus scheduling, but since Hillary Clinton has the super-frontrunner status it has put the party in a holding pattern.

 

[sophie]

I don't really like Huntsman precisely because his foreign policy is "Too conservative." But yeah, he's definitely way more conservative on actual policy than Romney, at least fiscally. He's just "Nicer" about it, if that makes sense.

That's nice. It's not really a topic for this thread though.

What is the situation of the Democratic party in Montana? As I understand it the state is undergoing a political/demographic transformation? (Or I vaguely remember Nate Silver saying something similar to that...could be a different Western-North state though). With the minority status of the democratic party in Montana how representative could Clinton's total dominance be interpreted? Is her 40-point lead indicative of national Democratic opinion?

 

[Antilogic]

That's nice. It's not really a topic for this thread though.

What is the situation of the Democratic party in Montana? As I understand it the state is undergoing a political/demographic transformation? (Or I vaguely remember Nate Silver saying something similar to that...could be a different Western-North state though). With the minority status of the democratic party in Montana how representative could Clinton's total dominance be interpreted? Is her 40-point lead indicative of national Democratic opinion?

That poll was of registered Democratic voters for the Democratic candidate (and registered Republicans for the Republican candidate), and it's pretty consistent with nation-wide polling on the subject. Hillary Clinton leads by 30-50 points in just about every state, and then the native son or Joe Biden comes in second place with around 10-20%. For the Republicans, as the map and polls imply, it's a lot more divided and thus actually interesting.

The status of the Democratic Party in Montana is weird--although they cannot flip the state blue for the electoral college, they have two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Governor (who has a solid chance to become the next Democratic Senator in 2014 when Max Baucus retires). I think you were thinking of this presidential geography blog post on Montana, which is still good reading. The short version: similar forces are at work here like in Nevada with West Coasters moving east into the conservative state, with college towns and native American reservations but fewer Hispanic groups.

 

[Ajidica]

Side note, I really wish the Democrats were moving a little faster with their primary/caucus scheduling, but since Hillary Clinton has the super-frontrunner status it has put the party in a holding pattern.

Is Hillary even going to run? IIRC she said that she wasn't considering any political jobs after she was done being Sec State and she will be getting a bit old in 2016.