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 Coronita on February 28, 2016 - 9:12am.

.

Submitted by utcsox on February 28, 2016 - 9:05am.

Trump was quoted that if he won the presidency, he will nominate Judge William Pryor and Judge Diane Sykes as Supreme Court justices. The next president of the United States will probably get to choose three new justices to the court. Hugh Hewitt, the influential conservative talk radio host, has made this argument to support Trump if he is the Republican nominee.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 28, 2016 - 1:02pm.

utcsox wrote:
Hugh Hewitt, the influential conservative talk radio host, has made this argument to support Trump if he is the Republican nominee.

Hugh Hewitt is more influential among the political class, I heard.

Trump is a product of talk shows like glen beck and Rush Limbaugh. The loud squawking of tv personalities (wolf blitzer of cnn does it too). Talking about tv shows, I'm surprised that male audiences like aggressive squawking women (many peroxide blondes).

I like Hillary. I don't mind a tough woman politician. I believe it's subliminally sexist to dislike Hillary because she's just like her male counterparts. Those of you who dislike Hillary, try to objectively think of the reasons you dislike her.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 28, 2016 - 2:13pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
. . . Trump is a product of talk shows like glen beck and Rush Limbaugh. The loud squawking of tv personalities (wolf blitzer of cnn does it too). Talking about tv shows, I'm surprised that male audiences like aggressive squawking women (many peroxide blondes). . . .
LOL, FIH, one of my most "Trump-fanatical" friends (Hispanic, of course) texts me almost every day with links to FOX-TV newswomen squawking loudly and at warp speed from a teleprompter. ALL of them were "peroxide blondes" (with no roots visible) and very easy on the eyes so I can see how they would appeal to male audiences. IIRC, most appeared to me to be "Southern" or "Texan" and at least one of them was so young that she must have just graduated from college very recently. I don't remember her name but she could definitely walk it and talk it and manage to successfully incite anger in her viewers in a matter of minutes without missing a beat :=0

Edit: The texts turned out to be from a Fox News Network that I don't have. I only get Fox 5 SD and those days are numbered if I am to believe the messages covering a lot of my channels that Cox will soon be going ALL DIGITAL.

I turned in my cable box in January of this year KNOWING it was an election year but at that time, I didn't realize the campaigning for POTUS would become so entertaining and distracting, lol. I still won't go to Cox and get my cable box back. I have the internet and can look at what happened during the day on Yahoo or some other sites so all is good :=)

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 28, 2016 - 2:27pm.

It seems the Fox News channel has been valiantly trying to appeal to the millenial voting base, many of whom have likely never even registered to vote. Hence, their numerous "squawking (millenial) blonde bevy of beautys" now gracing their recent newscasts and shows. They're obviously trying mightily to expand their preferred "voting bloc." These ladies are a breath of fresh air to the millenial red-state set as opposed Fox's same-old, same-old gray-haired, stodgy, loudmouthed old folks who have been hanging out on the streets all these years, leaving their footprints in the concrete in front of our nation's capitol :=0

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 28, 2016 - 3:21pm.

BG, put an antenna in your roof.
And if you can get your brethren to share their cable/satellite passwords, you can stream most of it using a Roku. Since I maintain several homes, I save a lot money not having cable anymore. I kinda like having CNN or CNBC in the background, with the sound turned softly, of course.

Submitted by harvey on February 28, 2016 - 4:49pm.

AN wrote:
I still don't know what Trump would do.

He would make America great again.

Apparently he believes that it's not great now.

One has to question the judgement of somebody that gives noncomtal answers about the KKK. Those questions were softball.

When the gloves come off in the general election, Trump would get his ass whipped by the Clinton political machine.

Submitted by svelte on February 28, 2016 - 10:13pm.

svelte wrote:
Man.

Now Rubio says that Trump "wet his pants".

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

Trump: "He {Rubio} has really large ears, the biggest ears I've ever seen."

Rubio: "Trump likes to sue people, he should sue whoever did that to his face."

Come on! Am I watching a Presidential campaign or WWF?

Submitted by utcsox on February 28, 2016 - 10:30pm.

svelte wrote:
svelte wrote:
Man.

Now Rubio says that Trump "wet his pants".

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

Trump: "He {Rubio} has really large ears, the biggest ears I've ever seen."

Rubio: "Trump likes to sue people, he should sue whoever did that to his face."

Come on! Am I watching a Presidential campaign or WWF?

Check out the latest video posted from Marco Rubio youtube channel from 0:45.. I kid you not.

"Trump has small hands for how tall he is.. and you know what they say about men with small hands...you can't trust em!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7bT0ik3Wg

Submitted by svelte on February 29, 2016 - 7:06am.

utcsox wrote:
svelte wrote:
svelte wrote:
Man.

Now Rubio says that Trump "wet his pants".

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

Trump: "He {Rubio} has really large ears, the biggest ears I've ever seen."

Rubio: "Trump likes to sue people, he should sue whoever did that to his face."

Come on! Am I watching a Presidential campaign or WWF?

Check out the latest video posted from Marco Rubio youtube channel from 0:45.. I kid you not.

"Trump has small hands for how tall he is.. and you know what they say about men with small hands...you can't trust em!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv7bT0ik3Wg

Wow. Just wow.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 29, 2016 - 10:50am.

Marco Rubio was funny in that video. Little Marco does have huge ears and a pot belly. But it's good to see him dish some out to Trump. Too late tough. I have a feeling Rubio will lose and lose big.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 29, 2016 - 12:47pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Marco Rubio was funny in that video. Little Marco does have huge ears and a pot belly. But it's good to see him dish some out to Trump. Too late tough. I have a feeling Rubio will lose and lose big.
And I would add that Rubio has a "cheeky" baby face.

Little (slight) Billionaire H. Ross Perot (running as an Independent on his first run for POTUS) had huge ears and even an annoying voice but none of his opponents teased him about it. However, his infamous (WIN 3.1) Power Point Presentations mostly discussing how Federal entitlements were spiraling the National Debt out of control (which he proudly displayed and explained ad nauseam in his rallies and lengthy TV ads) were heavily dissected by his opponents in debates and in their own campaigns.

He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $12.3 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign advertisements; this advertising garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.

Perot foreshadowed many of the same issues (if the status-quo remained) which Trump is now stating has rendered the US virtually "broken" and which need fixing and he is just the man to "make America great again." Among several other issues, one example Perot was vociferously opposed to was the NAFTA, which had not yet been passed into law.

Based on his performance in the popular vote in 1992, Perot was entitled to receive federal election funding for 1996. Perot remained in the public eye after the election and championed opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), urging voters to listen for the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico should NAFTA be ratified.

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

For me, there hasn't been a general election season this fun since '92. And this is coming from someone who spent many a (late) election night at SD Election Central (Golden Hall) in an era where humans were posted in shifts armed with giant white boards and colored white-board markers to change the results as they came in. Another bank of humans were seated to the left of the white boards in an elevated row of phones with a direct line to the Registrar of Voters Office as county polling sites' precinct workers reported in ... one by one. The local new anchors were always seated at the left of the phone bank at more elevated long tables with mics sitting on them and trapped in their folding chairs in a mess of electrical cords. The whole thing formed a big "quarter to half-circle" of mostly bleacher-type risers, much like what choirs use in church and schools. :=0

Submitted by all on February 29, 2016 - 12:43pm.

Trump serves important purpose, kind of like the Occupy and the Tea party movement, or soccer games in the rest of the world. He gives losers (socio-economic, not character reference) a chance to yell for a while, feel important and then go home thinking that they gave it all the had, came close to winning, but alas...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 29, 2016 - 12:52pm.

BG, I support nafta and tpp. Trade makes the world better.

About trump, I think it's true about small hands on a tall guy. But he has the personality to compensate. Poor Melania. But she has an expense account to compensate.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on February 29, 2016 - 5:56pm.

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.

Submitted by spdrun on February 29, 2016 - 6:59pm.

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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 12:42pm.

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.

Submitted by ltsddd on March 3, 2016 - 11:36am.

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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 12:41pm.

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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 12:51pm.

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.

Submitted by livinincali on March 3, 2016 - 12:59pm.

zk wrote:
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.

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.

zk wrote:
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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 2:04pm.

livinincali wrote:

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.

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.

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 3, 2016 - 2:10pm.

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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 5:11pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
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.

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

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 7:38pm.

From December 11:

zk wrote:

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.

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/l...

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.

Submitted by no_such_reality on March 3, 2016 - 7:20pm.

zk wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
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.

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

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.

Submitted by zk on March 3, 2016 - 7:40pm.

dup

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 4, 2016 - 4:56pm.

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."

Submitted by FlyerInHi on March 4, 2016 - 5:13pm.

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on March 4, 2016 - 5:23pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
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.
I think he'll appoint Christie to the AG post if elected. Yeah, some of his successful business friends and contacts will get cabinet posts as well at least one of his relatives (sons?). He'll find a position for them that doesn't involve a lot of policy knowledge and experience. However, I think Trump would prefer the bulk of his extended family remain back in NY running the family biz.

I also think he may cross party lines for 1-2 cabinet posts ... if elected.

Comment viewing options

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