Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[madviking]

Yep...

 

[bhsup]

This is actually more 2014 I guess, but looks like the Senate is GOP, yo! Got an email from my homey Big R himself.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I might be going to college in South Carolina, and if that is the case, Lindsey Graham will not be getting my vote. It would also put me in a situation where I am an important primary voter, something that most of CFC would find unfortunate.

Paul/Carson 2016!

 

[Antilogic]

This is actually more 2014 I guess, but looks like the Senate is GOP, yo! Got an email from my homey Big R himself.

Spoiler :

at "liberal prognosticators" and "Obama campaign's favorite number cruncher"--it's like anyone who didn't predict a Romney landslide is automatically on the big blue payroll.

Although far more seriously, Mitch McConnell has now seen two elections where he should have had a shot at majority leader but poor candidate quality kept seats out of reach. It's not just about money in the general election, though--this email seems to be from the national campaign and not Rove's PAC that is trying to handle the rash of Tea Party challengers.

 

[bhsup]

Well I have no intention of giving regardless, for reasons I've stated before about interfering with non-Missouri elections. Yeesh... donate a couple of times to Romney and you never get off those lists.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

I might be going to college in South Carolina, and if that is the case, Lindsey Graham will not be getting my vote. It would also put me in a situation where I am an important primary voter, something that most of CFC would find unfortunate.

Paul/Carson 2016!

That is a very intriguing ticket. Two surgeons on a Presidential ticket. I'd take that over lawyers any day.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Wyoming
July 19-21, 2013
780 Republican primary voters
+/-3.5%

Paul 19%
Christie 14%
Bush 13%
Ryan 11%
Cruz 9%
Rubio 9%
Santorum 4%
Jindal 3%
Martinez 1%


Montana
June 21-24, 2013
340 Republican primary voters
+/-5.3%

Paul 21%
Bush 13%
Christie 12%
Cruz 12%
Rubio 10%
Ryan 9%
Jindal 6%
Martinez 3%

 

[Antilogic]

Well I have no intention of giving regardless, for reasons I've stated before about interfering with non-Missouri elections. Yeesh... donate a couple of times to Romney and you never get off those lists.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were. It is interesting to see the campaign mail, though--given I haven't lived in a swing state since I was in middle school and I don't register with the national parties, I don't have many chances to see them. Not that I'd want the barrage of email spam in my inbox, though, especially during a campaign year.

That is a very intriguing ticket. Two surgeons on a Presidential ticket. I'd take that over lawyers any day.

Intriguing, yes, but I'm not sure if it is realistic. I think there would be some effort towards region-balancing with a swing-state governor or senator, or maybe some tokenism to try and win over a particular group of voters.

Sad thing to say, but it's probably true.



So Paul also has a lead in Wyoming, it's looking like he will have strong support in the Mountain and Plains states. Given the crowding of potential candidates in the South (Rubio, Bush, Jindal, Cruz, McDonnell before his scandal, arguably Paul), it's essential for those guys to establish a second region of support. There's also a bit of crowding in the Midwest if you consider Walker and Ryan are from the same state like Bush and Rubio are.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hell I never even donated to Obama and I still can't stop the Obama e-mails. They keep routing round my spam filters somehow.

No mailers though.

 

[JollyRoger]

Karl Rove is back in the prediction game? Maybe that can put him in the same division as Dick Morris.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were. It is interesting to see the campaign mail, though--given I haven't lived in a swing state since I was in middle school and I don't register with the national parties, I don't have many chances to see them. Not that I'd want the barrage of email spam in my inbox, though, especially during a campaign year.



Intriguing, yes, but I'm not sure if it is realistic. I think there would be some effort towards region-balancing with a swing-state governor or senator, or maybe some tokenism to try and win over a particular group of voters.

Sad thing to say, but it's probably true.



So Paul also has a lead in Wyoming, it's looking like he will have strong support in the Mountain and Plains states. Given the crowding of potential candidates in the South (Rubio, Bush, Jindal, Cruz, McDonnell before his scandal, arguably Paul), it's essential for those guys to establish a second region of support. There's also a bit of crowding in the Midwest if you consider Walker and Ryan are from the same state like Bush and Rubio are.

I tend to agree. Rand is the most national candidate. Almost all the other republicans are regional candidates or one trick ponies winning their home state. Rubio was a national candidate for a time, but his star has fallen considerably.

 

[JollyRoger]

Rand would seem to be a candidate that can nationally win everything but the actual votes on election day.

 

[Antilogic]

So, instead of putting the Christie & Paul OP here, I figured I'd just leave a link for those still following this thread.

As far as political implications go, I thought we would see this kind of fighting break out as the primaries started. It's not even midterms yet and we have two 2016 heavyweights going at it. If this debate is somehow settled now and the Republicans are unified in 2016, it may help the party, but I don't see this issue being settled decisively any time soon.

 

[Cutlass]

That debate isn't going to tip the balance in the presidential election in any case. And is unlikely to change any of the Congressional races.

 

[Antilogic]

I'd say very few states (DT and I were talking about this awhile back) put foreign policy as the #1 issue they vote on nowadays. If it comes to tiny margins of enthusiasm and turnout, then maybe Colorado and New Hampshire would be affected?

There is an outside chance this debate could affect the Congressional races in the sense that it could affect who runs in and wins Republican primaries for 2014 and 2016. The primary fight in Wyoming with Liz Cheney might go large-scale.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

I'd say very few states (DT and I were talking about this awhile back) put foreign policy as the #1 issue they vote on nowadays. If it comes to tiny margins of enthusiasm and turnout, then maybe Colorado and New Hampshire would be affected?

There is an outside chance this debate could affect the Congressional races in the sense that it could affect who runs in and wins Republican primaries for 2014 and 2016. The primary fight in Wyoming with Liz Cheney might go large-scale.

It definitely seems to be going that way. The libertarians are battling the neocons in Wyoming via proxy war trying to snuff out Liz Cheney early. Nancy Mace, another liberty orientated candidate, announced she is primarying Lindsey Graham in SC. Greg Brannon is battling the establishment in the NC primary. This seems to be the trend shaping up for 2014.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hopefully, the libertarians and teahadists will win their little battles against the GOP establishment. That tends to keep the Senate in the hands of the Dems.

 

[Antilogic]

It definitely seems to be going that way. The libertarians are battling the neocons in Wyoming via proxy war trying to snuff out Liz Cheney early. Nancy Mace, another liberty orientated candidate, announced she is primarying Lindsey Graham in SC. Greg Brannon is battling the establishment in the NC primary. This seems to be the trend shaping up for 2014.

You missed McConnell's primary challenger.

It's an interesting story to talk about (and a lot more time-appropriate!), but as much as I want to delve into it here we should probably move discussion of the 2014 midterms and all these individual races to a separate thread.

Here, though, the big story will be how these primary challengers impact the presidential race. I think we are seeing some parallels to the Democratic shift between the 2004 and 2008 elections where the lines were drawn over who supported the war resolutions (and arguably, this is the major reason why Obama beat Clinton in the primaries). If the more libertarianish primary candidates win, then I think it bodes well for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and those types of candidates (vice-versa of course for Christie and I would think Republican governors in general).

Depending on where you stand, you might hope for or dread Christie going the Giuliani route. Side note: Miles Teg, I think the recent spat between Christie and Paul only shows how appropriate your analogy was.

 

[Antilogic]

That's right, the thread never dies because we are sick election-watchers that still have problems!

Since the last posts, we've had a government shutdown complete with a fauxbuster by a major Republican candidate, a problematic healthcare rollout (please only talk about the 2016 implications here), and off-year elections where another major Republican candidate pulled off a 20ish point win. Cruz and Christie both had their polling bumps around their respective events.

As for scandals, Rand Paul was caught up in the speech plagiarism scandal for a week or two. Apparently Scott Walker dropped out of college his senior year because he found a job.

The Democratic side is quite as usual. Hillary Clinton is the obvious frontrunner and now elected people are endorsing her. Lizzy Warren isn't making any moves that would indicate she is going to run for the office--no visits to early primary states or stuff like that.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I really don't see why it should be a big deal that Rand Paul copied some lines from a (Public Domain) Wikipedia article in a speech.

I think it is much more damning that he admitted to intentionally sabotaging other medical students in order to help him do better relative to them in the school's competitive exams, and that he encouraged other students at his alma mater to use the same tactic.