OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

User Forum Topic
Submitted by svelte on December 11, 2015 - 7:41am

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!

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 30, 2016 - 10:36am.

Vermin supreme got shut out of a debate just because he sprinkled glitter on another candidate during a prior debate.

Life is unfair.

I prefer sanders to trump but I'd vote a trump sanders tkt. With either as pres.

Submitted by spdrun on January 30, 2016 - 11:03am.

Trump-Sanders ticket? Only if it's turned into a reality TV show with all of their conversations broadcast for posterity.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 30, 2016 - 11:12am.

I'm a lot more worried about Cruz than Trump. The ideological are the people one should be worried about.

I could deal with Trump. He's a businessman, so in the end, he'll do what's good for the economy. Isn't that what we do already?

I want to see the parties Melania throws at the white house. It's gonna be HUGE!

Submitted by utcsox on January 31, 2016 - 9:29am.

We are less than 48 hours until Donald Trump wins his first delegates....

Submitted by livinincali on February 1, 2016 - 8:09am.

zk wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean by massively (nor am I sure why you seem to imply that it's not important what happens when a candidate wins by a solid but not massive margin), but it would be very easy to win the popular vote in a 3-candidate race by a solid margin and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

To have congressmen choose a president is really bad. To have them choose a president in a way that a Wyomingan’s vote essentially counts 65 times as much as a Californian’s is a travesty of democracy.

It's happened once in the country's history so it's not common. Jackson won the popular vote by a significant margin but congress elected Quincy Adams. I wouldn't call it a travesty though. It split the one party system of the Democratic-Republican party into 2 parties. Jackson won the 1828 election by a landslide. In some respects it woke the voters up. Maybe that's exactly what we need in our current political process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...

Submitted by zk on February 1, 2016 - 9:59am.

livinincali wrote:
zk wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean by massively (nor am I sure why you seem to imply that it's not important what happens when a candidate wins by a solid but not massive margin), but it would be very easy to win the popular vote in a 3-candidate race by a solid margin and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

To have congressmen choose a president is really bad. To have them choose a president in a way that a Wyomingan’s vote essentially counts 65 times as much as a Californian’s is a travesty of democracy.

It's happened once in the country's history so it's not common. Jackson won the popular vote by a significant margin but congress elected Quincy Adams. I wouldn't call it a travesty though. It split the one party system of the Democratic-Republican party into 2 parties. Jackson won the 1828 election by a landslide. In some respects it woke the voters up. Maybe that's exactly what we need in our current political process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

Whether it's common or not is completely irrelevant.

How it changed the political parties in that particular instance is also irrelevant.

Jackson got 41% of the popular vote to Adams's 31% (and won the electoral vote 99-84), and Adams was "elected" president.

How is that not a travesty of democracy?

How would it not again be a travesty of democracy if Bloomberg or Sanders won a solid plurality of both popular and electoral votes, but republican nominee and third-place finisher in the general election Ted Cruz was elected president?

Submitted by livinincali on February 1, 2016 - 2:18pm.

zk wrote:

How is that not a travesty of democracy?

How would it not again be a travesty of democracy if Bloomberg or Sanders won a solid plurality of both popular and electoral votes, but republican nominee and third-place finisher in the general election Ted Cruz was elected president?

Well first of all our government isn't a pure democracy. It's a constitutional republic and it was specifically designed that way to prevent tyranny. The founders decided that if you couldn't manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.

Assume for a moment that you had 5 candidates running with 3 somewhere in the middle, 1 extremely left and 1 extremely right, what if the hard core right managed 30%, the hard left managed 25% and the rest in the middle split the vote of the majority of american's core ideology. Would you want the hard core right to rule because they got the majority vote? In that case you probably want congress to elect the more middle 3rd place finisher.

Some countries solve that issue with a run off. But then again would you want to be forced to chose between the hard right and hard left of which neither really represents your core values because they ended up being the top 2.

The system was designed to keep a weak majority from claiming the power of the executive branch and in the US the executive branch as a lot of power. It has some flaws but every system of elected government has it's flaws.

Submitted by XBoxBoy on February 1, 2016 - 3:01pm.

livinincali wrote:

[W]ould you want to be forced to chose between the hard right and hard left of which neither really represents your core values because they ended up being the top 2.

Ummmm.... And that is different from the current two party system how? Just sayin'...

Submitted by zk on February 1, 2016 - 6:02pm.

livinincali wrote:

Well first of all our government isn't a pure democracy. It's a constitutional republic and it was specifically designed that way to prevent tyranny. The founders decided that if you couldn't manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.


You’re going to have to explain to me how that last sentence relates to the first two sentences.

Yes, I get that our government isn’t a pure democracy. The world hasn’t seen one of those in thousands of years, if ever. I get that it’s a constitutional republic, where the people elect representatives.
How does that translate to, or lead to, or result in, “The founders decided that if you couldn't manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.”

When I say, “it’s a travesty of democracy,” and you respond with, “our government isn't pure democracy," that’s missing the point. The point isn’t that our country is technically a democracy and this goes against that. The point is that about the will of the people. In a constitutional republic, our representatives should be elected by the people. And if you give equal vote to 600,000 Wyomingans and 40 million Californians (which is the best-case scenario - the house members are not obliged to cast their state's vote for the candidate who won that state...worst case scenario, the house members pick whomever they want to pick out of the three), then our representatives are not being elected by the people.

livinincali wrote:

Assume for a moment that you had 5 candidates running with 3 somewhere in the middle, 1 extremely left and 1 extremely right, what if the hard core right managed 30%, the hard left managed 25% and the rest in the middle split the vote of the majority of american's core ideology. Would you want the hard core right to rule because they got the majority vote? In that case you probably want congress to elect the more middle 3rd place finisher.

That’s what I, personally, would want in that particular case. But what I, personally want is not what’s important. Also, in your example, what makes you think congress would elect the middle-of-the-road, 3rd-place finisher?

Let’s use a different example. Let’s say it’s Sanders/Cruz/Bloomberg. Sanders and Bloomberg get 40% each, and Cruz gets 20%. The red states don’t count for many electoral votes because they don’t have many people. That’s why Cruz only got 20%. But, if nobody gets a majority of the electoral vote, each red state counts as much as each blue state in the house vote, despite the fact that Wyoming has 600,000 people and California has 40,000,000 people. Bloomberg and Sanders split the blue and purple states, and Cruz gets all the red states. Cruz gets “elected.”

livinincali wrote:

Some countries solve that issue with a run off. But then again would you want to be forced to chose between the hard right and hard left of which neither really represents your core values because they ended up being the top 2.

That’s kinda how it is now in most elections. And that’s preferable to a vote where a heavier vote is given to some citizens than others.

livinincali wrote:

The system was designed to keep a weak majority from claiming the power of the executive branch and in the US the executive branch as a lot of power. It has some flaws but every system of elected government has it's flaws.

Better that the president is chosen by a weak majority of the people than not by the people at all.

Submitted by Coronita on February 1, 2016 - 8:33pm.

Well it looks like Cruz is going to win Iowa.

Submitted by paramount on February 1, 2016 - 10:02pm.

flu wrote:
Well it looks like Cruz is going to win Iowa.

Thankfully...

BTW, pay no attention to Iowa.

The Iowa process is ridiculous, focused on ethanol and not much more.

Does anyone even understand how the Iowa 'voting' process truly works?

Submitted by svelte on February 1, 2016 - 10:14pm.

Let's see.

Iowa didn't pick the eventual Republican nominee in 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primar...

Or in 2008:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui...

And did in 2004 only because Bush ran unopposed in the Republican party.

Not so sure Iowa's results tell us much.

Submitted by livinincali on February 2, 2016 - 8:31am.

zk wrote:

Let’s use a different example. Let’s say it’s Sanders/Cruz/Bloomberg. Sanders and Bloomberg get 40% each, and Cruz gets 20%. The red states don’t count for many electoral votes because they don’t have many people. That’s why Cruz only got 20%. But, if nobody gets a majority of the electoral vote, each red state counts as much as each blue state in the house vote, despite the fact that Wyoming has 600,000 people and California has 40,000,000 people. Bloomberg and Sanders split the blue and purple states, and Cruz gets all the red states. Cruz gets “elected.”

The problem is our election process wasn't created under a 2 major political party system. They had to take into account a variety of possibilities including multiple strong political parties. Nobody wants a president with only 30% of the popular vote. Especially if the other 70% really really dislike their position. Look at Europe. Most of those countries elect their government leader via collations of the representatives. Most countries in Europe don't directly elect their president. They elect their political party with the knowledge of whom would be president if that political party has a majority. Some countries have weak presidents elected by a popular majority. All countries feared this rule by weak majority so almost every constitutional republic puts something in place to prevent it.

We decided to essentially give each state an equal vote. We did the same with the senate, it was an important principle that small states still got a say in the government. We could have done it by population in a winner take all fashion but the electoral college already handles this for the most part. We could give the representatives in congress (you did vote for this person to represent you) an equal vote but then again your feared scenario of the 3rd place guy winning the election happens anyways under the current makeup of congress. We could do a run off and maybe this is your preferred solution, but again you can end up with some extreme candidates.

I think out founders thought of a variety of election mechanisms and settled on this one even with it's flaws. I can't think of an election mechanism that doesn't have at least some flaws in certain scenarios.

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 2, 2016 - 8:51am.

svelte wrote:
Let's see.

Iowa didn't pick the eventual Republican nominee in 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primar...

Or in 2008:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui...

And did in 2004 only because Bush ran unopposed in the Republican party.

Not so sure Iowa's results tell us much.

Actually Iowa told Us tons. It effectively identified three candidates on the repub side with the rest not garnering 25% collectively and the highest 9%. It also showed Rubio strong in the population centers.

Rubio today looks much stronger for the eventual nomination, as does Trump. Carson could hang on for a VP spot, possibly a Rubio/Carson ticket. Fiorina got 2%, effectively putting a hole in ambitions and possibly cratering a VP slot.

On the Dem side Sanders was strong, both rurally and in the population center.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 2, 2016 - 12:59pm.

Jeb, fiorina and O'malley are the biggest losers.

Fiorina flew out and didn't even attend her own rally. Her supporters must feel like suckers.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on February 2, 2016 - 4:23pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Jeb, fiorina and O'malley are the biggest losers.

Fiorina flew out and didn't even attend her own rally. Her supporters must feel like suckers.

Well, unless you count Huckabee as an obvious loser. But going from a zero percent chance to Out isn't a big loss.

Fiorina not attending her own rally is a classless move.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on February 2, 2016 - 4:24pm.

I'm going to call Ben Carson a big winner, because, seriously, how did he ever get 9% of the vote in Iowa?

Submitted by paramount on February 3, 2016 - 12:52am.

Interesting in that I think that the best dem lost: O'Malley.

Submitted by livinincali on February 3, 2016 - 8:04am.

Rand Paul just did the smart thing and dropped out. No point in burning up more money on a fruitless campaign. I don't know how anybody donates anymore money to the Republican non-top 4 but maybe Jeb's cash furnace will run long enough to get him back into a the mix a bit. The best thing for the establishment, that doesn't want Trump, is to get these not going anywhere campaigns out of the way quickly.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on February 3, 2016 - 2:48pm.

livinincali wrote:
Rand Paul just did the smart thing and dropped out. No point in burning up more money on a fruitless campaign. I don't know how anybody donates anymore money to the Republican non-top 4 but maybe Jeb's cash furnace will run long enough to get him back into a the mix a bit. The best thing for the establishment, that doesn't want Trump, is to get these not going anywhere campaigns out of the way quickly.

Rand Paul is also up for Senate re-election in 2016, and he probably wanted to shore up his position there, and not spend too much time looking like a loser on the national stage.

Paul's supporters may split up in more interesting ways than some other candidates. I imagine there's a few "Paul or Bust!" younger Republicans. I also imagine a few may side with Trump.

Small as their support was, the Huckabee and Santorum voters almost certainly won't like Trump; although he panders to the religious right, for a true Social Conservative his positions are going to look muddled. Cruz or Rubio could both gobble up their support, but even Carson could.

Submitted by livinincali on February 3, 2016 - 6:03pm.

poorgradstudent wrote:

Small as their support was, the Huckabee and Santorum voters almost certainly won't like Trump; although he panders to the religious right, for a true Social Conservative his positions are going to look muddled. Cruz or Rubio could both gobble up their support, but even Carson could.

Huckabeee just dropped out as well. I expect Santorum to be not too far behind him. Looks like Cruz just admitted to get caught for spreading false information about Carson dropping out right before the caucus. Not sure what the fallout will be.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/t...

Submitted by svelte on February 3, 2016 - 7:21pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
svelte wrote:
Let's see.

Iowa didn't pick the eventual Republican nominee in 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primar...

Or in 2008:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui...

And did in 2004 only because Bush ran unopposed in the Republican party.

Not so sure Iowa's results tell us much.

Actually Iowa told Us tons. It effectively identified three candidates on the repub side with the rest not garnering 25% collectively and the highest 9%. It also showed Rubio strong in the population centers.

Top three candidates were Cruz, Trump, Rubio. Rest in the noise. Exactly what the polls told us before Iowa.

As I said, didn't tell us much.

Submitted by temeculaguy on February 5, 2016 - 12:41am.

paramount wrote:
flu wrote:
Well it looks like Cruz is going to win Iowa.

Thankfully...

BTW, pay no attention to Iowa.

The Iowa process is ridiculous, focused on ethanol and not much more.

Does anyone even understand how the Iowa 'voting' process truly works?

True that!!! And what svelte said about Iowa's track record. Iowa has about as many people as San Diego County and does not have a demographic representation of the country as a whole. This thread was not about your personal choice nor was it about what might happen if congress gets to pick, it was a prediction thread.

When I make predictions, I try to take my emotions out of it and make observations. I have an advantage, I have a mother who has voted in every election she was eligible to and she has never not voted for the winner in the presidential election, can't say the same about myself or my father. She's nearing 70 so that's 50 years of a perfect record. Dad and I both picked Ross Perot and pops liked Ron Paul. But mom is a flip flopper, changing her party affiliation before primaries and for 50 years she's picked correctly. I'll let you know who she picks, but thus far she has issues with Hillary so I'm doubting that will be her pick. My suspicion is Bernie if he holds up. She's lucky because she has lived in California her whole life and our primary is like picking the Superbowl winner in the 4th quarter.

But my new observation is the future Mrs. TG, she's the opposite of mom in that she is in her late 40's and this will be her first time voting despite being born in California. She watched the 1st republican debate and registered as a republican because she loved it and fell for some of the candidates. She had seen debates in the past but this one inspired her and scared her at the same time. I just watched, knowing I had another person to observe and learn from. I know what I think, but I'm smart enough to know I am not the majority. Observing others helped me time the real estate market and make other financial choices, mostly to my benefit. Observing without judging will help you make predictions.

But the night of the Iowa caucus she began to fully understand the primary process and she started to get angry. She got angry that Cali goes near the end and places like Iowa and New Hampshire have undue influence. I believe she said "screw it, by the time I get to vote, my favorite might already be out, that's crap, we should all vote at the same time."

After an hour of explanation, her was response was "It's still crap." To which I have no argument, it is crap. An hour later my daughter called from college to brag about Bernie's results, enter woman # three for my non scientific observational experiment. She's volunteering to sign up voters and will probably campaign for Bernie.

Here are the informal results, Fiance likes Trump, Rubio, Christie and Kasich on the repub side, Bernie on the Dem side. Daughter is Bernie all the way and mom is still deliberating (but she is key, the other two are rookies). Daughter hates everyone not named Bernie, Fiance hates Rand Paul, Huckabee, Fiorina and Hillary. Mom has issues with Hillary, but she keeps her opinion quiet until almost post time.

All 3 were disgusted by Cruz' shady tactics in Iowa.

My predictions, Cruz gets some serious backlash and Hillary falters as time goes on, the more people hear her, the less they trust her or like her.

My wager-Bernie vs. Rubio or Trump, yet I think hillary's machine may get her the nomination. so I would hold back any real wager.

What I want, that doesn't matter and I do not need to tell you because I do not live in Iowa so I do not caucus. I would love to see trump and bernie go head to head or on the same ticket so we can try an experiment in either direction and see if it works. But I'll wait for mom to weigh in since she has a better track record than the state of Iowa.

Submitted by utcsox on February 6, 2016 - 10:09pm.

Bump. Here is what Senator Marco Rubio did tonight. I still think he will win the nomination and the presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNRNHgi1RzU

Submitted by equalizer on February 6, 2016 - 11:19pm.

utcsox wrote:
Bump. Here is what Senator Marco Rubio did tonight. I still think he will win the nomination and the presidency.

Nothing but soundbites from this guy, but hey that's what wins.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie joined the chorus.

"We know who the boy in the bubble is up here who never answers your questions, who's constantly scripted and controlled because he can't answer your questions," Christie said. "So when Sen. Rubio gets here, when the boy in the bubble gets here, I hope you ask him some questions."

Host: Why are you in third place in your own state of FL?
Rubio: "Hillary is bad, Bernie should run in Sweden".
Rhodes Scholar material.

Newscorp and friends have started an all out attack on Trump and are pushing Rubio spin. Tough to fight the MSM that Newscorp has become.

Trump needs to go back to
mid-August (2015) statement on his campaign website: "Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities." Did Zuckerberg scare Trump into denial of his statement??

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 8, 2016 - 11:42am.

utcsox wrote:
Bump. Here is what Senator Marco Rubio did tonight. I still think he will win the nomination and the presidency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNRNHgi1RzU

I watched the whole republican debate last night.
Rubio is clearly not that bright.

If we're talking intelligence, Ted Cruz is clearly superior.

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 8, 2016 - 12:37pm.

equalizer wrote:
utcsox wrote:
Bump. Here is what Senator Marco Rubio did tonight. I still think he will win the nomination and the presidency.

Host: Why are you in third place in your own state of FL?
Rubio: "Hillary is bad, Bernie should run in Sweden".
Rhodes Scholar material.

Newscorp and friends have started an all out attack on Trump and are pushing Rubio spin. Tough to fight the MSM that Newscorp has become.

Trump needs to go back to
mid-August (2015) statement on his campaign website: "Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities." Did Zuckerberg scare Trump into denial of his statement??

Sweden with a Southern California climate sounds pretty appealing.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 8, 2016 - 4:19pm.

wow, I'm surprised how much money Ben Carson raised. Who the heck are his supporters?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/...

Submitted by utcsox on February 8, 2016 - 10:26pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
wow, I'm surprised how much money Ben Carson raised. Who the heck are his supporters?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

Evangelical.

Submitted by svelte on February 10, 2016 - 7:45am.

Now the Republicans should hit the big red Panic button, as New Hampshire has chosen the correct Republican nominee for at least the last 4 elections.

Of course, the same can be said on the Democratic side...maybe they'll both hit Panic at the same time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.