OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[svelte]

Well. Since I was surprised to see Cruz win a couple of primaries this weekend, decided to find a site that predicts outcomes of upcoming primaries.

This is a pretty good site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-republican/

Its surprising to see that Rubio isn’t predicted to win Florida, his home state. That will be an interesting one to watch.

[Coronita]

[quote]
Then again, maybe we’re not that close, as one of my bigger concerns about a Cruz presidency is the prospect of super-conservative supreme court appointments. I’d be ecstatic with moderates if he were president, but I don’t think we’d get anything close to that.
[/quote]

Yeah, that’s terrifying as well. We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.

[zk]

Maybe an Evan Bayh type. He’s “president-shaped,” as Stephen Colbert hilariously called Mitt Romney.

That’s my guess.

My wish would be Elizabeth Warren.

[zk]

[quote=flu]We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.[/quote]

Concur.

[zk]

dup

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=zk][quote=flu]We need more moderates in our government. This extremism really has to stop, on both sides.[/quote]

Concur.[/quote]

Extremism is not symmetrical.

Take climate change. Denial is kookoo. Trying to do something about it is reasonable, if only to stretch out the earth’s carbon fuel reserves over a longer period of time.

[svelte]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Extremism is not symmetrical.

[/quote]

Pretty much it is.

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Take climate change. Denial is kookoo.
[/quote]

And now I see why you say that.

It’s kookoo for folks to use the terms “climate change” and “man-made environmental change” interchangeably.

[FlyerInHi]

Why is trying to conserve carbon fuels and reduce pollution an extremist position?

Wanting to drill baby drill and use everything we can take out of the ground without conserving for the future is reckless.

Wanting to save money while people toil in poverty and go without seems reasonable, right? That because money is limited. But, in reality, money is a human invention. We can create it and manage it however we want.

But conserving the earth fuel resources (for whatever reason) is extremist? In reality , humans can’t create anymore oil once we use it all. Seems reasonable to conserve our God given bounty.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=svelte]Well. Since I was surprised to see Cruz win a couple of primaries this weekend, decided to find a site that predicts outcomes of upcoming primaries.

This is a pretty good site:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-republican/

Its surprising to see that Rubio isn’t predicted to win Florida, his home state. That will be an interesting one to watch.[/quote]

The fact Rubio has struggled in Florida has been a pretty good indicator both of his struggles and Trump’s strength. Compare it to Ohio, where John Kasich, who has struggled in most of the country, actually has a lead in his home state.

[FlyerInHi]

Rubio was the establishment’s second choice after Jeb! It’s not turning out well at all.

You get what you sow. There, the results are objective measures of assymetric extremism.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Why is trying to conserve carbon fuels and reduce pollution an extremist position?

Wanting to drill baby drill and use everything we can take out of the ground without conserving for the future is reckless.

Wanting to save money while people toil in poverty and go without seems reasonable, right? That because money is limited. But, in reality, money is a human invention. We can create it and manage it however we want.

But conserving the earth fuel resources (for whatever reason) is extremist? In reality , humans can’t create anymore oil once we use it all. Seems reasonable to conserve our God given bounty.[/quote]

It’s not extremist to want to preserve fossil fuels but some of the purposed solutions could be considered fairly extremist and devastating to an economy that relies on inexpensive energy. This idea that we can just replace our power grid with wind and solar so simply ignores the complexities of how a power grid works and dynamics of supply and demand (i.e. peak power demand does not coincide with peak solar and wind generation). Carbon credits which rewards the currently existing companies at the expense of new companies starting up is certainly going to stifle innovation.

In addition it’s becoming clear that we don’t have this whole global warming thing figured out as well as we thought. Most of the climate models built years ago are not working out as predicted. Obviously the climate has a lot of complexity and numerous factors that we don’t control and probably don’t understand. Unfortunately we don’t really understand man’s influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible. Are we going to go back to living like we did in the 1800’s because we figure out we need to cut emissions by 80% to restore the climate. Do we know that restoring the climate to what it was in the 1800’s is better for the planet or worse?

[FlyerInHi]

Nobody is talking about restoring the planet to the 1800s.

But would banning large engine cars (not work trucks), says anything larger than 2 liter be extreme?

[zk]

[quote=livinincali] Unfortunately we don’t really understand man’s influence on the climate. Is it a lot, a little, negligible. [/quote]

I saw this chart the other day:
I can’t figure out how to load the chart. It’s the one on this page:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

The one that shows CO2 levels fluctuating between 180 and 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years before spiking to 380 over the last 65 years. When I saw it, I wondered how climate change deniers explained it, but I didn’t think I knew any. livinincali, are you saying that “we” aren’t sure that man caused this spike, or that that spike didn’t cause climate change, or that there is no climate change, or something else?

[utcsox]

[quote=svelte]I apologize in advance for bringing up the topic (it is sure to be over-discussed next year!), but now is a good time to make predictions.

The primaries start in just a few weeks and bring clarity to who will be the final candidates.

So now is the opportune time to make predictions: who will be the final, post-convention candidate selections for US President of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and any other party you which to mention?

Bonus points for specifying who their running mate will be![/quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/politics/marco-rubio-campaign-weighs-getting-out/index.html

I think Rubio is on fume now. CNN released this extremely damaging report late this afternoon that his advisers are recommending him to drop out before 3/15 so he won’t get embarrassed at his home state. We will see what happen tomorrow. I think his campaign is about to collapse.

[paramount]

It’s interesting in that all the PC garbage that’s been forced on us by is now backfiring.

Go Trump!

[Author]

Posts