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 spdrun on February 24, 2016 - 11:10pm.

Rubio is neocon filth, Cruz is Jeebus-jumper filth. Neither is better than Trump.

The only GOP candidate that's not a turd this time around might be Kasich.

Submitted by paramount on February 25, 2016 - 1:23am.

A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on February 25, 2016 - 6:22pm.

paramount wrote:
A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He's taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don't like him. Swing voters HATE him. He's very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn't been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 25, 2016 - 6:46pm.

paramount wrote:
A professor of political science at Stony Brook University has forecasted that Donald Trump has a minimum 97 percent chance of winning the general election as the Republican nominee.

“The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”

Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

Well, I just had to look this up cuz I didn't believe it but it is actually "real" and coming from an academic, no less, lol ...

“Trump beats Hillary 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent” in terms of popular vote, Norpoth prophesied. “This is almost too much to believe,” he told audience members described by the student as nervously laughing. But he is convinced his model won’t be wrong.

“Take it to the bank,” Norpoth confidently suggested.

http://coed.com/2016/02/25/helmut-norpot...

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 25, 2016 - 6:57pm.

There is really nothing to be "scared of" as the article intimates. All this huffing and puffing is going to disappear if Trump is ever inaugurated. He's will mobilize the best people in the country to do all the "dirty work" on his agenda and then immediately take to following around seasoned bureaucrats assigned to him as well as heads of Federal agencies to learn the "lay of the land" and will prove to be a "quick study." This was (inexperienced) Arnold Schwarzenegger's MO after he was elected Governor of CA and it worked.

Submitted by paramount on February 25, 2016 - 8:25pm.

Quote:

Sounds like a truly awful model.

I don't think so...you might as well start calling him President Trump now.

Submitted by XBoxBoy on February 25, 2016 - 10:31pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
He's will mobilize the best people in the country to do all the "dirty work" on his agenda and then immediately take to following around seasoned bureaucrats assigned to him as well as heads of Federal agencies to learn the "lay of the land" and will prove to be a "quick study." This was (inexperienced) Arnold Schwarzenegger's MO after he was elected Governor of CA and it worked.

BG, you've made the claim that Trump will hire experts and follow their advice thus we needn't worry several times, but there are a couple problems with this.

1) Every president hires a crew of experts. There is nothing different about Trump that will cause him to hire "better" experts. You pick Arnold as your example of this working, but I can pick G.W.Bush or Barack Obama as counter examples. (Both hired experts and ended up being fairly ineffective presidents largely due to the experts they surrounded themselves with.)

2) Even experts make serious mistakes. Henry Kissinger was always regarded as one of America's foremost experts on foreign relations. Yet he's one of the last people I want my president to rely on for advice. And you do remember Alan Greenspan (The Maestro) don't you?

3) There is nothing in Trump's business experience to support the idea that he will hire experts and develop them into a cohesive well functioning team. Quite the contrary. His business (real estate) is largely one with small staffing requirements, mostly of people who follow direction well. As far as I can see, there is no evidence that Trump has real leadership skills. (Unless you consider bullying the same as leadership)

Submitted by harvey on February 25, 2016 - 10:51pm.

paramount wrote:
Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

LOL, it's backtested!

Submitted by svelte on February 26, 2016 - 8:11am.

harvey wrote:
paramount wrote:
Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.

LOL, it's backtested!

Yeah, when I saw the article online that was my prediction! :-)

I too can write an algorithm that is about 100% accurate for anything that has happened in the past.

Next!

Submitted by livinincali on February 26, 2016 - 8:20am.

poorgradstudent wrote:

Sounds like a truly awful model.

Trump wins the nomination, the Hillary Machine grinds him under her heels. He's taken advantage of quirks in the Republican party and republican primary system. Moderate republicans don't like him. Swing voters HATE him. He's very poorly positioned to pivot to the middle for the general election campaign. He lacks the strong ground game Barrack Obama had in certain key swing states that helped give him the edge in 2008.

A Trump nomination could be catastrophic to Republicans down-ticket. Right now, if the Republicans nominate Rubio, I can see them keeping the Senate with 51 votes to 49 Democrats (and keeping the House by a healthy margin until 2020 because of gerrymandering). With Trump? The Democrats are likely to take the Senate and might even give the House a fight.

There hasn't been a candidate quite like Trump before, so any model is likely going to have some issues.

I don't know about this analysis. Doesn't Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don't know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn't seem to excite the liberal base. Those that want to preserve the status quo like her but that's about it. Trump may be pompous and a bully, but policy wise he's pretty in the middle. Maybe his rhetoric on illegal immigration is a little extreme but doing something to prevent more illegal immigration is certainly popular. He's not going to be calling for banning gay marriage or abortions as far as I can tell.

Also does Hillary even have a machine. I mean you lost to Obama the last go around when you were the sure thing. You're scrapping by Sanders this go around and you have the potential to be indicated for improperly handling classified information. I'd almost be willing to bet Trump is the Republican nominee before I'd bet Hillary is the Democratic nominee at this point.

Submitted by svelte on February 26, 2016 - 8:25am.

livinincali wrote:

I don't know about this analysis. Doesn't Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don't know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn't seem to excite the liberal base.

That's my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.

Submitted by zk on February 26, 2016 - 8:31am.

svelte wrote:

That's my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.

If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I don't think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody's super-excited about Hillary, but because they'd be super-excited about making sure Trump didn't win.

To me, though, the brokered convention looks more likely than ever, with Rubio the nominee.

Submitted by livinincali on February 26, 2016 - 9:31am.

zk wrote:

If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I don't think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody's super-excited about Hillary, but because they'd be super-excited about making sure Trump didn't win.

I suppose that's possible, but I think you'd have to really really hate Trump to be motivated to vote just so he doesn't win. Depending on how the campaigns end up I could see that as a late selling point. Go vote somebody other than Trump because he will ruin America. The 25 years olds and blacks were really excited about voting for Obama, are they really going to be motivated by don't vote for Trump or are they just not going to care and not show up.

I could certainly make the argument that for many Trump v Clinton, who really cares. What difference does it make.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 10:34am.

zk wrote:
If it's Hillary vs. Trump, I don't think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody's super-excited about Hillary, but because they'd be super-excited about making sure Trump didn't win....
I see the predominantly blue precincts in "problem spots" (such as population centers adjacent to the Int'l Border) as turning from blue to purple or red in the coming months. In other words, a portion of registered dems will re-register in states with closed primaries before their respective primary elections take place. It's not going to affect the dem base much in solid dem locales such as SF and the peninsula (north and south, incl SV and Marin Co) or the front range of CO but it will affect the million + population in precincts along the Rio Grande Valley (likely 1M+ total pop in the "metropolises" of El Paso/Juarez, McAllen/Reynosa and Brownsville/Matamoros who are tired of putting up with flood of poor Mexican immigrants into their communities.

I believe the precincts in the states of NM and AZ are already mostly red, and, in any case, the population along the border in these states is negligible. I predict El Centro/Mexicali will stay mostly blue and South County SD (pop ~400,000 in five cities) will slowly turn purple/red in the coming months). Tijuana has a population of over 3M which is contributing to a lot of residential "spillover" within four miles of the border on the US side.

I don't know if this phenomenon is enough to "convert" longtime registered dems to Repubs and I haven't investigated which states have closed primaries, thus causing registered dems/independents to actually have to make the effort to re-register in order to vote for Trump in the primaries. It's going to be interesting to see how all this pans out.

Of course, it's a crapshoot what voters will decide in the general election (regardless of their registration).

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 26, 2016 - 11:49am.

BG, I think people in border towns don't want a wall. They would prefer ease of travel so they can go back and forth. Let see how they vote.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 1:05pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
BG, I think people in border towns don't want a wall. They would prefer ease of travel so they can go back and forth. Let see how they vote.

They'll still be able to have "ease of travel" with a wall (if they are properly documented). The existence of a wall is not going to affect the officer-controlled checkpoints which are already in existence (~24 at the SD/Tijuana border crossing).

The wall will specifically be to prohibit foot traffic across the border in all areas except those which are part of the existing checkpoints.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 26, 2016 - 1:12pm.

I watched the entire republican debate last night. I like Kasich but he looked hunchback and unpolished. I like Carson's health plan. Cruz is consistently conservative. Rubio is very corporate republican.

Trump won. Does not matter what the press thinks. Republicans seem to love trump's hardass CEO style of shutting up people. The other guys looked incredulous at what Trump gets away with.

So today Trumps get Christie's endorsement.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 1:27pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I watched the entire republican debate last night. I like Kasich but he looked hunchback and unpolished. I like Carson's health plan. Cruz is consistently conservative. Rubio is very corporate republican.

Trump won. Does not matter what the press thinks. Republicans seem to love trump's hardass CEO style of shutting up people. The other guys looked incredulous at what Trump gets away with.

So today Trumps get Christie's endorsement.

LOL, I missed all that. I'll have to catch up tonight. I've got more folks coming over for help to find out why they were bumped from their CC plans after paying their February premium. One just found out at the doctor's office this morning. These people are just two of many thousands out there :=0

I checked my CC acct just now and I am apparently still covered as of today. However, I was bumped off my plan twice during my last long (3600+ mile) road trip ending mid-November. I didn't find out about it until I arrived back home and got my mail. It would have been disastrous for me had something happened to me on my road trip and my Blue Shield membership card was no longer good.

My premium is automatically deducted on the 1st of every month, as are 95% of CC participants.

Submitted by harvey on February 26, 2016 - 1:27pm.

If it comes down to Donald vs. Hillary it will really come down to Trump vs. Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Trump has it easy now because other Republicans have to play nice and can't bring up his long history of ... well ... being Donald Trump.

The negative campaign ads will be interesting.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 1:42pm.

harvey wrote:
If it comes down to Donald vs. Hillary it will really come down to Trump vs. Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Trump has it easy now because other Republicans have to play nice and can't bring up his long history of ... well ... being Donald Trump.

The negative campaign ads will be interesting.

Um, it's "legal" to have had three wives (and to prefer a much-younger eastern European spouse). It's actually quite common for someone in his age group (rich or poor). He supported (and is still supporting one) all of his children (private school) and sent them all to college. Whatever Cruz and Rubio can come up with ... more power to them.

Edit: oh, and he "created" (executive) jobs for three of his children and is likely still supporting the fourth in college.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 26, 2016 - 1:54pm.

Why didn't trump marry native women? He imported his wives.

BG, I'm not defending all of obamacare. I would prefer VA or Medicare for all.
But I know at least 20 people who now have health care. They went without before.

Despite your problems, ACA is an incremental improvement for all.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 2:40pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Why didn't trump marry native women? He imported his wives.

BG, I'm not defending all of obamacare. I would prefer VA or Medicare for all.
But I know at least 20 people who now have health care. They went without before.

Despite your problems, ACA is an incremental improvement for all.

FIH, Trump's second spouse was from GA, USA. He didn't have to "import" his first and third spouse as they were both already present in NY when he met them. However, they both eventually became US citizens due to marrying him.

I know an older plumber and also a cabinetmaker in his late forties (both Americans) who "imported" their latest spouses from Russia and they seem to be very happy. It's not only the "rich" who do this.

CC is specifically targeting heads of households and single filers who are over the age of 55 for forced Medi-Cal placement. It doesn't matter what income they reported or what the nature of their income is (ie W-2, 1099, etc). It doesn't matter if they have an income $15K or $20K above the Medi-Cal threshold, their tax returns show this to be true and they proved it last year and the year before. They must prove it every year and often two or three times per year on very short notice or they can be bumped off their healthplan arbitrarily (yes, after paying their premium for that month). Our great state of CA has been "lawyering up" for nearly six months now to begin massive collection efforts for the purposes Medi-Cal recovery on the estates of the "over-55" set. I cannot emphasize enough here that CA wants EVERYBODY they can possibly get who is over 55 on Medi-Cal ASAP so they can start running up their estate tabs with mandatory ~$625 month Medi-Cal premiums, whether they ever go to the doctor or not.

THOUSANDS of CC enrollees have already gotten Medi-Cal cards in the mail that they never applied for only to call their carrier and find out they have been bumped from their plans.

CC and Social Service agencies of CA's 58 counties have access to the the CA EDD computer and Franchise Tax Board records of CC participants. For example, if a CC participant is a Realtor who makes $8K in commissions one month and then doesn't make any money for four months and then makes $34K the next month in commissions, they could find themselves force-placed into Medi-Cal. Unlike CC, Medi-Cal does not use annual income and does not recognize military pensions as "income." (I know a military retiree whose pension is over $4K month.) Medi-Cal only uses MONTHLY income to determine eligibility. If you have months where no income is reported to the EDD or don't have legitimate documentation to prove when income was paid to you, you could easily be bumped into Medi-Cal. I doesn't matter if your income for the year was over $40K. If you reside in CA, are receiving a subsidy to pay your premium (however small) and you are over 55, you are a moving target for forced Medi-Cal placement behind your back. You will find yourself "proving your income" to CC over and over and over again and will be given very little notice to do so before being bumped. Their personnel doesn't have the expertise to properly read the numbers on your tax return and doesn't have access to your backup documents from entities which paid you income. You could have an income of $45K (or $65K if a couple) and have an AGI on Line 37 of your tax return) of $15K or $20k due to writeoffs and they don't understand how you got to that number and want to know all the particulars ... all the time.

If you are over 55, my advice to EVERYONE is to STAY OFF CC and get your healthplan elsewhere if you want to preserve your estate. It's NOT WORTH IT!!!

Submitted by spdrun on February 26, 2016 - 2:51pm.

bearishgurl -- the Covered California thing doesn't make sense. At least in NY, you can buy insurance through the exchange WITHOUT asking for a subsidy. At that point, they don't really care about your income.

Also, with the realtor example, aren't most salesmen paid on 1099? That's not reported till the end of the year, not reported monthly.

Trump's wives -- I'm much happier dating 1st and 2nd generation people. That's all I can say. Mail-order would be a bit of a stretch, but it's easy to meet women who aren't American in a city like NY or LA.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 26, 2016 - 4:16pm.

BG, Trump will get a pass from his supporters because he's a billionaire... But his life is not at all wholesome American apple pie. How come his kids speak Czech and Slovenian? Wouldn't English only be better if the goal is complete assimilation?

On ACA... if I remember well, all the state stuff is concessions to Republicans who didn't want national plans and public options.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on February 26, 2016 - 4:31pm.

spdrun wrote:
bearishgurl -- the Covered California thing doesn't make sense. At least in NY, you can buy insurance through the exchange WITHOUT asking for a subsidy. At that point, they don't really care about your income.

Apparently even covered california allows you to apply for private insurance without Medi-cal or subsidies.

This is from their website:

"When you apply for coverage through Covered California, your application is automatically checked to see if your family is eligible for financial help through Covered California or for free or low-cost Medi-Cal. If you are not interested in financial help, Covered California also has a separate application you can use, for consumers who do not want financial assistance for a Covered California health insurance plan or coverage through Medi-Cal. Most consumers choose to apply for financial assistance to help pay for health coverage.

http://www.coveredca.com/individuals-and...

Also, covered california is NOT the only place where you can buy health insurance. "off-the-exchange" personal health insurance plans are allowed under ACA and widely used. Here is one example:

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/
https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacar...

Submitted by La Jolla Renter on February 26, 2016 - 4:59pm.

Chris Christie endorses Donald Trump for Republican party nomination.

Any sliver of hope Rubio thought he picked up in the debate last night, just got erased.

Like him or not, Trump sure knows how to play the game.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/201...

Submitted by Coronita on February 26, 2016 - 5:42pm.

I can't wait for someone that looked into trump corporations using illegal aliens also uncover his corporations used the h1b system or , worse, abused it.

It's not a question of if they find out. Its a matter of when.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 26, 2016 - 6:17pm.

Okay, my peeps (both over 55) are gone now and had documentation in their CC accounts that they had proved their (W-2) incomes to CC in January and early February and have been reinstated ... for now, retroactive back to 2/1. CC had bumped them off their plans without even reading their uploads, which is typical.

CC has access to both of their tax return numbers until 2020 and has had that access since the beginning of last year.

However, one of them is likely going to have to "re-prove" her income to CC come June or July. We'll see what happens. She's going to check her CC account the 2nd business day of every month (after her premium is paid) to make sure her plan is still active.

enron, yes, the people who create an account on CC and state they are not seeking a subsidy and purchase a CC plan without a subsidy don't have any problems. But why would anyone want to go thru a bureaucratic gubment middleman (CC) to buy a healthplan if they weren't eligible for subsidy? What would be the purpose of doing that? They could just log onto a carrier's website or "ehealthinsurance" as you listed here and probably get the same plan for $14-15 month less because the plan isn't paying any monthly "commissions" to CC!

I know about all those ways to purchase healthplans off the exchange and will be doing so myself for 2017. I actually purchased my former ("grandfathered") healthplan online in 2004 but they bumped me off the plan at the end of 2013 when they left CA's individual market (with 5 other large carriers) because they refused to offer "ACA compliant" plans in CA.

spdrun wrote:
. . . Also, with the realtor example, aren't most salesmen paid on 1099? That's not reported till the end of the year, not reported monthly. . . .
If a CC enrollee who is accepting a subsidy is over 55 and DID NOT prove their income last year with W2's, then they will likely find themselves having to prove their income several times annually to keep their subsidy. If any of their reported income was through commissions, then yes, they wouldn't get that 1099 until the following January and CC knows this. The commissioned salesperson over 55 years of age will be required to prove when they were paid commissions by scanning and uploading their (dated) commission stmts or checkstubs into the CC website.

An "over-55" CC enrollees' CC file is automatically sent electronically to their County SS Dept who will "work it up" for Medi-Cal eligibility at the same time the enrollee is covered with a subsidy helping to pay their premiums. County Medi-Cal workers have the authority to go into a CC enrollee's CC case and change their income numbers as they see fit, without informing the enrollee and often do. (For instance, remove military retirement income, adjust interest or dividend income or a remove a deduction they don't feel qualifies for MAGI, etc). For those who have reported W-2 income in the previous year and/or listed it in their current income on CalHEERS, the Medi-Cal worker in their county will cull the state EDD index beginning one month after every quarter (4/30, 7/31, 10/31 and 1/31, after employers have reported earnings) to try to match CC enrollees' reported or projected earnings with what their employer reported. If employers reported less monthly earnings than the Medi-Cal threshold for the enrollee's filing status (or in any months leading up to the current month), that is cause for Medi-Cal forced placement. It doesn't matter if the employee may have been on FML or ran out of leave and that is why their paycheck(s) were short for that month or a period of months. It only matters that their gross pay for one or more months fell below 138% of the "poverty level," rendering them "Medi-Cal eligible."

CC enrollees below 55 years of age aren't scrutinized as closely and their tax returns (usually reporting W-2 income) are accepted at face value because for them, their Medi-Cal premium may cost just as much or more than the subsidy they are receiving and more importantly, the law does not provide for Medi-Cal estate recovery for CC enrollees under the age of 55. There is little incentive for CC or County SS Depts to go through all that extra work of constantly monitoring younger CC enrollees' CC accounts and hassling them for proof of income when the state wouldn't be allowed to place any liens on them for the cost of Medi-Cal managed care premiums. In most cases, it's cheaper to give them a subsidy if they have an easily proveable W-2 income within $15K annually of the Medi-Cal threshold.

Boomers are an absolute cash cow for states who adopted expanded Medicaid under the ACA and CA is wasting no time making sure they are going to get their cut. Our homes and other properties are sitting ducks for attachment and the state is chomping at the bit to obtain the right to start their tab running and lay claim on them.

Submitted by svelte on February 26, 2016 - 6:31pm.

Man.

Now Rubio says that Trump "wet his pants".

Not very presidential. He just joined Trump in the gutter.

Submitted by an on February 26, 2016 - 8:24pm.

Not that it matter since I'm in CA, but if Trump is the nominee, I would actually vote for a Democrat.

Comment viewing options

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