OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[poorgradstudent]

I’m stunned, but at this point Trump has a pretty good shot at the nomination. *If* the party elites can somehow get Cruz to back down and drop out Rubio might have a shot, but since when does Ted Cruz listen to the rest of the Republican Party? But then again, money talks, and the right cash payment might change his mind?

Republicans in California may actually get a chance to actually vote in a real, competitive primary this year.

It looks like Hillary will probably all but lock down the Democratic Nomination on Super Tuesday. Sanders will probably limp forward past that, but Clinton looks to have a decent SEC firewall, and Sanders has only performed strongly in his essentially native New Hampshire.

[spdrun]

Personally, I think:
1. Trump is still better than Cruz. At least we can sort of guess where a self-interested ass stands, as opposed to someone with delusions of having a private phone like to Glub and his only son Jeebus.
2. Hoping the rumors about Clinton’s health are true, and how. Or that she’s marched out of a debate in cuffs after being charged with official secrets violations.

[ltsddd]

the republicans may still have a chance if the gop can convince either cruz or rubio to drop out and run on the same ticket. I think rubio-cruz would appeal to more voters than cruz-rubio.

[zk]

Another (slim, but not super-slim) possibility: The republican primary in California actually matters. The last day of primary voting is June 7. Winner-take-all republican primaries in California, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota. Also voting in D.C., North Carolina, and New Mexico. If Trump needs some of those states to reach the number required to win the nomination on the first ballot, that would be interesting. The GOP would probably working hard to prevent him from getting those votes. And he’d be working hard to get them. And we’d be eating popcorn and watching.

[zk]

Possible scenario:

Trump falls just short of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot. On a subsequent ballot, the republican party nominates Rubio (or Bush, or Romney, or Ryan, etc). Trump, having pledged not to run as a 3rd party candidate, does so anyway. The republican party nominated somebody else despite the fact that he, Trump, got far more votes than anyone else, so why would he abide by a pledge he made to them? Probably, at this point, Hillary would win the general election.

If the republicans nominate Rubio, (or maybe one of the others), and Trump doesn’t run, the republican nominee would have a decent shot at beating Hillary. Maybe… What about this:

If Trump ends up with a solid plurality of delegates, but not quite enough to win on the first ballot, and the republicans nominate somebody else, and Trump doesn’t run as a 3rd party candidate, what are all those Trump voters going to do? They’re already angry. They already feel like they don’t have a voice (research is showing that feeling like you don’t have a voice in the direction of this country is the most accurate predictor of whether you’re a Trump fan or not). You take millions of angry people who don’t feel like they have a voice, and then you TELL them that they don’t have a voice by nominating someone other than the candidate that got the most votes. Someone other than their candidate, the one that was speaking for them, giving them a voice. Who got more votes than anyone else, by a large margin. You tell them: Your vote doesn’t matter. You don’t matter. Fuck off. We, the republican elite, will decide who your president will be. And you, you go ahead and go back to not mattering. You go back to being nothing.

I’m not a guy who sees revolt around every corner. And, even in the above scenario, I don’t think much would come of it, other than futile, impotent, raging, short-lived anger. But if ever there were a recipe for revolt, short of hunger and imprisonment, it seems to me that would be it.

[zk]

This is just crazy, and highly unlikely, but a 4-way race would be fascinating. Clinton vs. Rubio vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would have a real shot in that race. Or any race he’s in, really.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]This is just crazy, and highly unlikely, but a 4-way race would be fascinating. Clinton vs. Rubio vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would have a real shot in that race. Or any race he’s in, really.[/quote]

You do remember this factor correct? In a 4 person race the odds are probably even higher for congress to get the privilege of electing the next president.

[quote=zk]Then I read the about the twelfth amendment, which includes this:
The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote…
Am I reading that wrong? If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, than it no longer matters who the people voted for? And even if the representatives from each state were conscientious enough to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, Wyoming and Alaska and Alabama added up would count the same as California, New York, and Texas added up?
Please tell me I’m reading that wrong.[/quote]

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

You do remember this factor correct? In a 4 person race the odds are probably even higher for congress to get the privilege of electing the next president.

[/quote]

Yes, I do remember. It’s a shame that, in any 3-or-more-way race, it’s not unlikely that the people will not end up electing the president. When something as important as the selection of the president is involved, an outdated amendment (or provision of the original constitution) that takes away the power of the people’s votes should be fixed.

If it’s Clinton vs. Trump vs. Rubio, and Clinton (or Trump) wins the popular vote, with Rubio coming in a not-very-strong third, and Rubio ends up being elected by the house (not unlikely), I think you’ll see a lot of people surprised that that’s the process, and then I think you’ll see a lot of consternation that that’s the process, and then I think you’ll see an outcry about that being the process, and then I think you’ll see a strong push to fix that part of the election process. But, with Rubio in office, and that process heavily favoring conservatives, I think you’ll see that push fail. Until a democrat is in office, at which point it will succeed. It shouldn’t be about democrat vs. republican, it should be about the will of the people. But it’s not about the will of the people. And that needs to be fixed.

[no_such_reality]

IMHO, in a Clinton v. Trump v. Rubio/Cruz: Clinton wins in a Reaganesuqe electoral landslide as Trump/RubioCruz splits the Repub votes and Clinton takes all expect for probably Texas.

We’ve already seen it before with Clinton, Perot and Bush with Clinton claiming all the electoral votes of Georgia with 43% of the vote. All of California’s electoral votes with 46% of the vote. etc.

[zk]

[quote=no_such_reality]IMHO, in a Clinton v. Trump v. Rubio/Cruz: Clinton wins in a Reaganesuqe electoral landslide as Trump/RubioCruz splits the Repub votes and Clinton takes all expect for probably Texas.

[/quote]

You’re probably right. But a lot of people really don’t like Hillary.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=zk][quote=no_such_reality]IMHO, in a Clinton v. Trump v. Rubio/Cruz: Clinton wins in a Reaganesuqe electoral landslide as Trump/RubioCruz splits the Repub votes and Clinton takes all expect for probably Texas.

[/quote]

You’re probably right. But a lot of people really don’t like Hillary.[/quote]

In a three party race, it’s like 70% have to dislike her more than dump after eight more months of dumping.

That or maybe they’re smart and they’re thinking just make a blowhard cuckold of a president to gridlock everything.

[zk]

From December 11:
[quote=zk]

I wonder if part of the GOP’s anti-Trump strategy is to encourage (behind the scenes, of course) most of the candidates to stay in the race. That will reduce the chances of Trump winning on the first ballot, after which the establishment can relatively easily install their favorite candidate. I don’t know much about the political parties or their workings, so this scenario could be totally far-fetched. I’d be interested to hear other opinions on it.

[/quote]

From the L.A. times today:

The Hail Mary pass would abandon their old plan — a failed attempt to coalesce around a single anti-Trump candidate — in favor of a new tactic that would involve keeping each of his three remaining competitors alive in hopes of preventing Trump from obtaining a majority of convention delegates needed to secure the nomination.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-republican-party-fracture-20160303-story.html

I guess it’s not far-fetched at all. They shoulda done it before Bush and Carson and the rest of them dropped out. We’ll see if they’re too late.

If they succeed, the anger among Trump voters could be spectacular.

Christie, from the same article:

“If people don’t believe in democracy, they should come out and say that,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a former presidential candidate now backing Trump, said during a news conference. “But the fact is, we’ve had 15 contests and Donald Trump has won 10 of them. The people of the Republican Party who vote in primaries have the right to pick the nominee.”

He scoffed at efforts to choose a nominee at the convention.

“You want to see the party break up? That’s when you’ll see the party have a big problem.”

The republicans have been stoking this irrational fear and anger for decades, and when it turns on them (on their establishment candidates), they’re all, “this isn’t right!” “What’s wrong with these people, voting for an irrational fear-and-angermonger?” It’s kind of funny to me. They did it to themselves, and it serves them right.

[zk]

dup

[bearishgurl]

I just got done watching parts of Carson, Kasich and Cruz speaking at CPAC. Honestly, in spite of all the bluster and “lyin’ Ted” animosity between Trump and Cruz we’ve seen of late, I see Trump ultimately asking Cruz to be his running mate about two weeks from today and Cruz accepting. I’ve only been paying attention to this circus for about ten days now, but I think that deep down Trump and Cruz have a lot in common and really like each other.

If Trump should get elected, I predict he will find a cabinet post for every . single . one of his Republican opponents … yeah, even “little Marco.”

[FlyerInHi]

Trump is not the type to make nice with people who dissed him.
Christie is more likely the running make. And Jeff Sessions might be attorney general. His in-laws and his business friends will get administration posts.

[Author]

Posts