2016 Presidential Election - 2 years out
 

Who do you think will be elected President in 2016? Poll to come! I will list everyone who is listed at 50-1 or better on this page.

Man I wish Jim Webb would win, but it's going to be Hillary.

I'd rather see Elizabeth Warren, but Hillary would have to stumble to blow this one. Which did happen 8 years ago, so who knows?

I don't see the hurricane force that was Barack Obama arising again in 2016. That was just one of those 'right moment' type of things.

The only one out there I can think that would be able to have something like that happen would be Julian Castro. But he hasn't made any inkling he'd be interested in running.

Not a lot of people saw that in 2006, if you look back at presidential prediction threads here from that time.

But hopefully someone comes out of the woodwork, a top 3 of Clinton/Warren/Biden doesn't inspire a ton of confidence on the Dem side. (Clinton could win, but I think a lot of people just really don't like her). But I guess that's what these betting lines look like a few years out. Someone less famous will make a run and get more famous in a hurry.

I believe around this time, prior to 2008, Hillary Clinton was going to beat Rudy Guliani.

SI

Don't know? Don't care.

LOL at some of these odds...

Rand Paul 12:1 (Could never win the general)
Elizabeth Warren 14:1 (see above)
Mitt Romney 25:1 (not getting nominated again, they didn't want him the first time)
Andrew Cuomo 40:1 (not getting through the primary)
Kathleen Sebelius 80:1 (More like 80 billion to 1)

But sure, I'll take a flyer on Eva Longoria at 750:1. She certainly has a better shot than Sebelius.

The point being, an Obama like wave is a fairly rare thing. Out of left field stars don't usually materialize in Presidential elections. You have in the 20th & 21st Century, what... Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Reagan (in 1976), and Obama?

If any of that list gets elected as POTUS we'll get what we deserve and not in a good way.

I'd like to nominate the resurrected corpse of Harry S Truman with a running mate of Barry Goldwater.

I don't think we knew much about Bill Clinton in 1990. And Bush seemed unbeatable at that time. Even Carter was far from a retread, I wasn't around then, but it looks like he was pretty obscure nationally in the early 70s.

Bill Clinton had been in the Democratic party apparatus for a while. Bush had a 90% approval rating in 1990 which cleared the way for Clinton, but he was in no way a surprise.

It's true that nobody thought Clinton would lose to Obama (myself included), but he didn't come out of nowhere. He had already made a name for himself after his memorable 2004 convention speech. It's not impossible that someone else comes around to beat Hilary, but there's no one out there who's at Obama's 2006 level.

Do you think Clinton would have been in the top 3, or top 5 of Dems if betting lines existed in 1990? I'm not talking total left-field. But it seems like Dems do best in presidential elections if they seem new to the masses.

In 1988 there was lots of media speculation that Clinton was going to throw his hat into the ring in the Democratic Primaries after Cuomo decided not to run and Gary Hart had to bow out due to the infidelity scandal (oh, the irony!). He was also the Opening Night Speaker at the DNC (where he famously bombed). He was as new to the masses as John Kerry was in 2004.

Clinton isn't the upstart who knocked off the certain front-runner. He won the nomination because the Hillary of that year (Mario Cuomo) didn't run. Carter largely got elected because of Watergate and an "obscure" candidate was more appealing than ever.

Who is the #5 Dem in the betting lines even though he said he's retiring. Surely there's a governor or young legislator who is more likely to make noise in 2018 then him. I'm just saying at this point, these lines, and the media speculation, will always be biased in favor of famous retreads.

I do agree that it's hard to see anyone, let alone anyone remotely obscure to the masses, challenging Clinton this time (though I think we've thought that before), but if the Democratic party decides to discourage those kinds of organic challenges from taking hold and everyone just decides it's going to be Hillary's time - that's one of the few ways I could imagine the Dems losing the white house. I think Hillary has trouble connecting with voters and she could lose to a non-scary Republican (again, I'm hoping that such a candidate is someone besides the front-runners in the poll here)

Also the 1976 Democratic Primary was like the 2012 Republican Primary - everyone and their mothers were running. The best known candidates were probably Jerry Brown from California and George Wallace from Alabama (both of who were never going to win).

It's strange that all this comes from one election where Obama, who also won in a landslide over John McCain, ran a picture perfect campaign on the ideals of hope and post-partisanship. And the guy could give one Hell of a speech (though one wonders where that went).

Does such a thing exist? :lol:

It was so hard to refrain from making that comment :)

It really all comes from looking at these betting lines before every election and thinking, "seriously, these are the best candidates?" People want to be inspired when they vote. Retreads don't inspire like fresh faces, especially with current approval ratings of the legislature and executive branches the way they are. Dems are going to turn out in droves to vote for Hillary? I'll believe it when I see it. She certainly didn't excite them in 2008.

Republicans come across as scary and Democrats come across as spineless wieners.

For the record, I'm a Democrat.

I think the election results tonight will be partly due to the Dems' arrogance and strategy of mocking and looking down on anyone who isn't them. Edit: That may burn them in 2018 too, if they think Hillary is invincible.

If Hillary hires Marc Penn, it's 50/50 she'll lose.

I know this really bothers you, but I doubt there's even a handful of other people that would change their senate vote if only Dems on blogs were nicer.

I think the failure to stand for anything is a much bigger problem.

I haven't followed the races too closely. But here in the Tri-State area, there is plenty of looking down and mocking from both sides judging from the TV ads.

Obama's got his 3rd term locked up. I heard he was running again.

I think one difference also is that while Elizabeth Warren has become something of a left-wing darling in the last few years, she's just that - a left-wing darling. She doesn't, at this point in time, have the kind of crossover appeal that got Barack Obama elected in 2008.

Maybe she doesn't need it to win; Obama had been beaten up one side and down the other by shrill Republicans trying to make something, anything, stick. Independents did drift away from him in '12. Didn't matter - he still beat Romney comfortably.

That said, I also think liberals who are calling for Elizabeth Warren to run for President are missing one key point: she can do so much more for liberal causes in the Senate for the next 30-40 years than she could as President. As a Senator, she can get onto key committees, have a voice in how the legislation is crafted, and have an impact on judicial nominees.

As President, she would, conceivably, face the same obstructionism Barack Obama has faced since 2010. It's one thing to have the ideologically "correct" worldview in the seat of power. It's quite another for that President to be sign enact your legislative wishlist into law.

And that's true of Republicans, as well. The goal for both parties shouldn't be, necessarily, to take a conservative or liberal scion out of the Senate and make him or her President. What you want - especially now that the Republicans have spent the last 4 years showing us a roadmap for how the Senate is going to operate going forward - in an ideological sense, is to build an ideological firewall in the Senate. You want, if you're a Republican, conservative Senators who send conservative legislation to a friendly President to sign. If that President is *also* conservative, so much the better. If he's at least got the "right" letter by his name, though, it's unlikely he's going to veto your legislation.

Same with Democrats. If you get liberal Senators, you want to hold onto those. Better a Ted Kennedy career in the Senate than one Senate term, one or possibly two Presidential terms, and then you're out of politics because where do you go from there?

I'd maybe feel differently if Senate races hadn't effectively been nationalized. I have been bombarded with emails in the last six months trying to get me to donate to races in Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, and a handful of others. I'm a Wisconsin resident. Yes, I care about what the ideological makeup of the Senate looks like, but even if I were inclined to donate to a campaign (I'm not), I still feel as though the Senate races should be about Kentucky politics, or Kansas politics, or what-have-you. Not what people in the other 49 states care about. How can you effectively represent your constituency if you're courting money from the rest of the country in order to get elected?

Maybe that's naive of me. I don't know. But this is the world we live in now. Senate races are about national politics, not state politics. Given that, Democrats and Republicans shouldn't necessarily be courting ideologues to run in a given state, but the liberal and conservative voices that make it to the Senate, the party base should be insistent on keeping in the Senate. Ted Cruz has his admirers. They should be horrified at the thought of him running for President. That would put a 'sell-by' date on his impact on American politics, unless he was able to successfully nominate conservative SCOTUS jurists, and not have to compromise to get his nominees through the Senate.

Same on the liberal side for Warren.

That diatribe aside, give me Jim Webb. He won't even be the nominee, but he's who I'd like to see.

She excited them as much as Barack Obama did in 2008, who was the rising superstar. Or has the media narrative now decided that Hillary Clinton got stomped?

Have people forgotten that Clinton actually won the Popular Vote in the Democratic Primaries in 2008?

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ya, that's also why I don't understand why a real lawyer like Martha Coakley would rather be a Senator or Governor than the state AG. Except for a thirst for prestige or something. AG was the logical culmination of everything her career had been about to that point - I think it was such a waste to try politics, and I'm glad that she's failed miserably.

Or, perhaps because the Senate races that have come up are being held in areas that are traditionally red?

If the 2012 election was only in the states voting for Senate today, Romney would have won - Vox

Not saying the Dems have governed very well since 2012, but let's get real here. And acknowledge that the Senate map in 2016 is as advantageous to Dems as this years is to Reps.

If she tries to run for President in 2018, that's some real arrogance and I expect she will badly lose the next election.

SI

Nicely played, sir!

Don't blame me, I voted for you

SI

That would be pretty arrogant to run for president in the mid-terms.

I think I got the election confused with the Winter Olympics. I'm skeptical of Hillary's chances in Pyeongchang as well.

I voted for Kang; who wants to get shot at by lunatics?

I hate to go here, but (well, not really)



SI

Is it 100% assumed that Clinton is running? She's getting up there and there was some bad health rumors at some point. If she drops out, is Elizabeth Warren really the favorite?

If Hillary drops out either Jim Webb or Andrew Cuomo are the favorites, not Elizabeth Warren.

I'm sure Biden would make a play at that point. But, if Hillary doesn't run, it looks more like the 2012 GOP primary with a somewhat vulnerable front runner in Biden and a bunch of goofs trying their chance to be in the lead for a week or two.

SI

I mean, seriously: Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich polled in the lead for a while. At some point, didn't each of Romney, Paul, Santorum, and Perry also have leads? That's like 2/3rds of a political clown car, at least.

SI

Either Webb or Biden would be the oldest ever president at inauguration. It's just kind of hard to see that happening.

Edit: And Clinton would be the 2nd oldest, less than a year younger than Reagan, which kind of makes me feel old.

I remembered posting this back during the election. It was a Nate Silver tweet:

4 people for Rand Paul? Really? He's about as unelectable as they come.