Cruz will win Iowa just because of organization and the heavy amount of evangelicals. The real race is in New Hampshire. Cristie is up now but if Trump doesn't win there he's done as front runner. Even Hillary thinks it's going to be Cruz which will be better than Trump for republicans but probably won't change the electoral math next fall. My prediction is Hillary wins somewhere between 273-311.

Trump is back up in Iowa; Sanders still challenging Clinton.

Cruz will not be the nominee.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Trump is back up in Iowa; Sanders still challenging Clinton.

Sounds like the Friday night card on the boxing channel. lol

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Sounds like the Friday night card on the boxing channel. lol

Presidential politics in the USA is a spectator sport; and just like one, it is also non-stop.

Trump is up to 40% in a new national poll of Republican primary voters. It's like, how much bigotry can they tolerate? Is there any limit, seems to be the question now. It's OK with them as long as it comes from someone who is audacious and confident enough to convince them that he's some kind of "leader." And I repeat, to call what Trump does "populism" defames the word, which means a movement to give power back to the people. Just appealing to popular prejudices is not populism.

W.J. Bryan was a populist. Huey Long was a populist. Many Democratic candidates have been populists, and continue to be. And Trump is much more of an establishment figure than any Democrat currently running-- by far and unapproachably so! Establishment in America = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$......................... .

Carson's self-inflicted fall from grace and Cruz's rise to replace him as front runner poses a big problem for the GOP, i.e., closer to Trump either being the nominee or a 3rd party runner. The immediate problem for the GOP is time is now running out.

After the holidays, there's just 4 weeks left before the Iowa Caucus. One could definitely see Cruz knocking himself out of contention ala Carson, but with each passing day, the probability decreases. If Cruz takes Iowa, the combination of his and Trump voters versus the combined total for all non-Cruz/Trump candidates (i.e., Rubio, Carson, Christie, Bush, Kaisch, minor players) is sufficient to keep any of the non-Trump/Cruz candidates out of contention. With a win in Iowa, Cruz may take away votes from Trump but it's hard to see that either he'll get enough to beat Trump in NH (there's little if any Evangeline vote there) or that enough former Trump votes will go to any non-Trump/Cruz candidates for them to pull out a win. A Cruz win in Iowa, seals a Trump win in NH.

Only two things can stop this. First, either Cruz or Trump makes a major mistake in the debate this evening - for Trump, as we have learned, what most sane people would think as being a mistake will not be it. It is not impossible - Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all criticized Trump over his maniac characterization of Cruz as a mistake ("Ted's not the maniac, Harry Reid is the maniac!!!").

Second possibility is a major player leaves after Iowa for the good of the Party. It cannot just be someone in the low single digits (Paul, Fiorina on down to Gilmore), it has to be a Carson or Rubio, number-wise, or a Bush or Christie, from a shock-and-awe angle. It's got to be an earthquake. Given egos, no place else to go, and some odds-making, I just don't see any of the bigger clowns hitting the eject button on their clown car seat before New Hampshire votes - afterwards, most definitely yes, but not before.

I'm not yet ready to fully accept the thrill of the GOP electing Trump (latest polling shows HC killing him with double digits in the general; Cruz not much better), but it's looking a damn sight more likely going into the debate tonight and possible into the new year. It's not just that Cruz would have a tough time unseating Trump; it's that he protects Trump's flank from all the non-Trump/Cruz candidates - they can barely get any air time let alone any traction.

As Jon Marshall said over at TPM - the GOP has "got Trump making off with the Crown Jewels while Cruz stays at the door laying down a line of fire to prevent any normal Republican from chasing after him."

Awesome.

What share of the Hispanic vote do Republicans need to win in 2016? Is it 44 percent, as some have argued? Is it 49 percent? Or maybe it is as low as 33 percent?

If you’ve followed debates about elections for the past few years, you’ve probably heard analysts give answers to these questions. But the truth is, none of these answers are clearly correct. The reasons are threefold: First, these sorts of projections often hold all else equal from 2012 – that is, they assume that the white, black and Asian vote shares won’t move. Second, the projections offered typically involve the shares of the Hispanic vote (or that of other groups) that Republicans would need to win in order to take the popular vote. But, of course, our elections are determined by the Electoral College, and as we’ll see, Hispanic voters are much less relevant for the Electoral College than the popular vote.

......

Because of this, we envision this as more of a heuristic device than a literal tool. In other words, if you put in an outcome and the Democrats win the Electoral College, but that win is dependent upon a state where the Democrat wins by 0.1 percent, you shouldn’t become convinced that Democrats would actually win with the outcome that you input.

Second – and this gets into our explanation of how the model works – we assume “uniform swing” across states. In other words, if the non-Hispanic white share of the electorate increases in the model by a point, it does so in every state. In reality, however, these swings will likely not be uniform. While we have some ideas about where the white vote might improve more for Republicans than the national margin would indicate (Iowa, for example), as well as for Democrats (perhaps Arkansas, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee), there’s simply no way to incorporate that objectively into a model.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...scenarios.html

With the caveat that uniform swings do not happen (should the Democrat get fewer votes, then the states most affected would be those that have recently gone Democratic; on the other side, should the Democrat get more votes than Obama, then the Democratic gains are most likely to go to states that Obama lost, often badly). But there is a tool for predicting the 2016 election, so I strongly suggest going to the link.

This is how a 2014 electorate votes for the Presidency:

Republicans don’t have to put up a historically good performance among minority groups to win the election. Take the 2014 exit polls. If Republicans win demographic groups at the rates they did in that election, they would win the popular vote by around three points, and carry the Electoral College, 295-243. In this scenario, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin vote for the Democratic candidate by three points or less, while Colorado and Pennsylvania for the Republican candidate by three points or less.

(same source).

Further material is mine:

...but according to the calculator, it's the percentage of the white vote that goes D or R that decides the election. With the percentage split and the participation rate in 2012 (Romney got 60.2% of the white vote with a participation rate of 64.1%) with the same non-white vote split and participation rates, Democrats would win exactly as they did in 2012. OK -- that shows one aspect of the validity of the model.

Changes in the participation rate of African-Americans (66.2%, which may be unusually high because of the race of the Democratic nominee) will cut into the Democratic vote... but that would have to go down to 59% or lower for the Republicans to split the vote roughly evenly in Florida. It would have to go to 51% for Virginia to split evenly... and at that point the Democrat still gets 290 electoral votes and the Presidency. The next state to flip, Ohio, does so when the black vote goes down to 44% -- and the Democrat still wins 272 electoral votes. Not until the black participation rate goes to 30% does the Democratic nominee lose Pennsylvania -- and the Presidential election.

I have no intuitive way of determining what would happen if the white vote increases. The white vote may have decreased as many white Democrats did not vote for either Obama or Romney. But reduce the white participation to 59%, and North Carolina flips. At a 52% participation of whites gives Georgia to the Democrat, and at 50% Mississippi flips.

The vote percentage for white people matters far more. At a 59% share for Republicans among non-Hispanic whites, the Democrats pick up North Carolina. At a 57% share, Indiana goes Democratic. At 54%, Georgia and Missouri go for the Democrat who at that point gets 391 electoral votes and the strongest performance for any Democrat since LBJ in 1964. 53% flips Arizona (403); 51% flips Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota... and Texas. That is 450 electoral votes. The Democrat then has an Eisenhower-style landslide.

Such may be understatement, at least as the white vote for Republicans goes much below 57%. But the model is too crude for extreme situations unlikely to happen anyway. Landslides are boring; close elections leave plenty of room for speculation on the wisdom and folly of political strategies. .

I don't know if this was a previously-agreed tactic, individually premeditated, or just a quick-on-your-feet dance move, but it was the most important thing that happened last night.

Trump will block Bush; Cruz will check Rubio - Cruz will take Iowa and Trump will take NH and it will be mano-a-mano in SC.

Without a major gaff, the numbers are not there for any other candidate; Trump/Cruz have taken all the oxygen out of the room.

Watch the 'highlights' as entertainment news presents it, but do so with this construct and be enlightened. Look at how this construct puts the other candidates in supporting roles One thing for sure is how silly the notion that the most important thing was Trump pledging not to run as an independent, or anything else the press points to as important other than the "bro moment" of Trump/Cruz.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This is how a 2014 electorate votes for the Presidency:

Republicans don’t have to put up a historically good performance among minority groups to win the election. Take the 2014 exit polls. If Republicans win demographic groups at the rates they did in that election, they would win the popular vote by around three points, and carry the Electoral College, 295-243. In this scenario, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin vote for the Democratic candidate by three points or less, while Colorado and Pennsylvania for the Republican candidate by three points or less.

(same source).

Further material is mine:

...but according to the calculator, it's the percentage of the white vote that goes D or R that decides the election. With the percentage split and the participation rate in 2012 (Romney got 60.2% of the white vote with a participation rate of 64.1%) with the same non-white vote split and participation rates, Democrats would win exactly as they did in 2012. OK -- that shows one aspect of the validity of the model.

Changes in the participation rate of African-Americans (66.2%, which may be unusually high because of the race of the Democratic nominee) will cut into the Democratic vote... but that would have to go down to 59% or lower for the Republicans to split the vote roughly evenly in Florida. It would have to go to 51% for Virginia to split evenly... and at that point the Democrat still gets 290 electoral votes and the Presidency. The next state to flip, Ohio, does so when the black vote goes down to 44% -- and the Democrat still wins 272 electoral votes. Not until the black participation rate goes to 30% does the Democratic nominee lose Pennsylvania -- and the Presidential election.

I have no intuitive way of determining what would happen if the white vote increases. The white vote may have decreased as many white Democrats did not vote for either Obama or Romney. But reduce the white participation to 59%, and North Carolina flips. At a 52% participation of whites gives Georgia to the Democrat, and at 50% Mississippi flips.

The vote percentage for white people matters far more. At a 59% share for Republicans among non-Hispanic whites, the Democrats pick up North Carolina. At a 57% share, Indiana goes Democratic. At 54%, Georgia and Missouri go for the Democrat who at that point gets 391 electoral votes and the strongest performance for any Democrat since LBJ in 1964. 53% flips Arizona (403); 51% flips Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota... and Texas. That is 450 electoral votes. The Democrat then has an Eisenhower-style landslide.

Such may be understatement, at least as the white vote for Republicans goes much below 57%. But the model is too crude for extreme situations unlikely to happen anyway. Landslides are boring; close elections leave plenty of room for speculation on the wisdom and folly of political strategies. .

Good points. Hillary's best chances have always been with an "it's my turn!" election against a pre-selected Jeb Bush that alienates lesser educated white voters. This scenario is no longer relevant with Trump energising those voters.
Where it gets interesting is earlier in the election. Lesser educated white voters include a high proportion of "Reagan Democrats". Economic conditions have alienated them enough to where they are up for grabs--for Trump or Sanders. Since many of those voters live in states with open primaries, if Trump should falter, Sanders (who has shown the ability to relate to these voters that "Queen Hillary" lacks) could attract many of these voters. So it's a see-saw with Trump's ascendancy taking political oxygen away from Sanders.
So yes, I could see Trump going all the way to the White House, especially after last night's debate in which Trump did manage to sound "presidential" and especially considering the tacit alliance that seems to be developing between Trump and Cruz. Trump has said that he would be open to the idea of having Cruz as his running mate--which would unify most of the Republican Party, albeit without a lot of the Establishment and cause the Establishment to coalesce around Hillary Clinton, who continues to stand by things like keeping Glass-Steagall repealed.
Then there's the sleaze factor. Hillary's ;problem is not that she gets a lot of donations from Wall Street but that the Clinton Foundation takes donations from outside of the US, including some very unsavoury characters such as Macias, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea. More than anything else, it's the perception that the Clintons are and have always been for sale, since Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor of Arkansas that could ultimately doom Hillary's "Democratic Machine" candidacy.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Hillary's best chances have always been with an "it's my turn!" election against a pre-selected Jeb Bush that alienates lesser educated white voters. This scenario is no longer relevant with Trump energising those voters.

I can see Trump doing well among Tea Party types. But I also know Republicans who consider Donald Trump a reckless demagogue For them Hillary Clinton at least offers the chance for her failure as President, after which Republicans can elect just about anyone. Trump plays loose and fast with facts, a dangerous habit that he might not abandon once elected.

Where it gets interesting is earlier in the election. Lesser educated white voters include a high proportion of "Reagan Democrats". Economic conditions have alienated them enough to where they are up for grabs--for Trump or Sanders. Since many of those voters live in states with open primaries, if Trump should falter, Sanders (who has shown the ability to relate to these voters that "Queen Hillary" lacks) could attract many of these voters. So it's a see-saw with Trump's ascendancy taking political oxygen away from Sanders.

Working-class white people have been loyal supporters of Republican pols, at least as they have voted. But what have they gotten for their loyalty? Nothing. They have not had their culture rammed down the throats of secular 'heathens' who have enough votes to thwart such. Their economic conditions are getting worse. Anti-capitalist populism has its ups and downs, and recent years have been weak times for populists. The political right has castigated secular 'heathens' for 'Hollywood values'... as if "Hollywood" hasn't always been a Sodom and Gomorrah, and as if those values fit all educated people.

(The dirty little secret is that well-educated people are less violent, are less likely to commit property crime, and are less likely to get STDs and unwelcome pregnancies. They may also attend religious services far less -- but they are less likely to need religion. It may be ironic, but atheists and agnostics may know more about religion than the most fervent believers. Of course they know more about the traditions of people other than that that is closest to their heritage).

So yes, I could see Trump going all the way to the White House, especially after last night's debate in which Trump did manage to sound "presidential" and especially considering the tacit alliance that seems to be developing between Trump and Cruz. Trump has said that he would be open to the idea of having Cruz as his running mate--which would unify most of the Republican Party, albeit without a lot of the Establishment and cause the Establishment to coalesce around Hillary Clinton, who continues to stand by things like keeping Glass-Steagall repealed.

As capricious as Donald Trump is -- he could do a theatrical show of 'firing' himself -- anyone who votes for Donald Trump had better like the VP nominee.

Then there's the sleaze factor. Hillary's problem is not that she gets a lot of donations from Wall Street but that the Clinton Foundation takes donations from outside of the US, including some very unsavoury characters such as Macias, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea. More than anything else, it's the perception that the Clintons are and have always been for sale, since Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor of Arkansas that could ultimately doom Hillary's "Democratic Machine" candidacy.

The only candidate that I can think of who is without sleaze is Bernie Sanders. I have severe doubt that he could win the 2016 Presidential election. Hillary Clinton seems to have more Teflon.

But who is more dangerous to America -- a tinpot dictator of Equatorial Guinea or the Koch brothers?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Good points. Hillary's best chances have always been with an "it's my turn!" election against a pre-selected Jeb Bush that alienates lesser educated white voters. This scenario is no longer relevant with Trump energising those voters.

That's true. Trump is a real threat. Trump's main problem would be winning in some key swing states with lots of hispanic voters. He has just about sabotaged his chances in Nevada, for example, and maybe Colorado and possibly even Arizona. And probably Florida too, where Hillary also benefits from many older women voters.

Where it gets interesting is earlier in the election. Lesser educated white voters include a high proportion of "Reagan Democrats". Economic conditions have alienated them enough to where they are up for grabs--for Trump or Sanders. Since many of those voters live in states with open primaries, if Trump should falter, Sanders (who has shown the ability to relate to these voters that "Queen Hillary" lacks) could attract many of these voters. So it's a see-saw with Trump's ascendancy taking political oxygen away from Sanders.

So yes, I could see Trump going all the way to the White House, especially after last night's debate in which Trump did manage to sound "presidential" and especially considering the tacit alliance that seems to be developing between Trump and Cruz. Trump has said that he would be open to the idea of having Cruz as his running mate--which would unify most of the Republican Party, albeit without a lot of the Establishment and cause the Establishment to coalesce around Hillary Clinton, who continues to stand by things like keeping Glass-Steagall repealed.

Good points. Cruz may not be a good choice for the GOP in the long-run; I don't see him ever getting elected president. I thought Trump looked and sounded good in the debate too, except when he made all those squirmy faces into the camera. I thought the GOPPERS had their best debate night; they all looked strong. I was less negative in my reaction, partly because I myself am less of a peacenik than I have been in times past, and so can relate to some of the tough talk against the terrorists. That doesn't mean I agree with most of their views, but with some of them (by some of the candidates, sometimes) I do. Some of the candidates did talk about their strategy about how to deal with ISIS, and made good points. Cruz talked down his "make the sand glow" remark too. And the anti-war viewpoint was also represented in varying degrees. Trump mentioned his opposition to the Iraq War, and Fiorina (one of the most blatant hawks) chimed in "you sound just like Obama." That in itself would be a disqualification for Trump among some Republicans, although nowadays a lot of them also think the Iraq invasion was a mistake.

Then there's the sleaze factor. Hillary's problem is not that she gets a lot of donations from Wall Street but that the Clinton Foundation takes donations from outside of the US, including some very unsavoury characters such as Macias, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea. More than anything else, it's the perception that the Clintons are and have always been for sale, since Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor of Arkansas that could ultimately doom Hillary's "Democratic Machine" candidacy.

Sleaze factor is over-rated and may not stick. Especially donations to a foundation; I don't see how the Clintons personally benefit from that.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can see Trump doing well among Tea Party types. But I also know Republicans who consider Donald Trump a reckless demagogue...

There is already a ton of video clips of key GOP talking heads, particularly on Fox News (e.g., Krauthamer, Will, Hume), saying exactly this and worse about Trump. Of course, they'll try to spin it if Trump gets the nomination, but too late. It is all being collated by the Clinton PACs who will be in a much better position than the HC campaign to get really ugly on The Donald. They're going to scare the shit out Independents, GOP women and the more moderate wing of the GOP - it will be relatively easy because it is based in reality. While some might (e.g., women), most won't go over to HC but it is going to play havoc on GOP turnout particularly in swing states.

The baggers seem powerful because they are so angry and vocal (e.g. Trump himself) like a single wailing baby on a crowded plane , but people forget that not only does the GOP Establishment need the baggers to win, but the baggers need the Establishment to win.

The only guy that is more hated by the GOP Establishment than Trump is Cruz. I can't think of a better GOP gift to HC than a Trump/Cruz ticket - I pray for it.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I can see Trump doing well among Tea Party types. But I also know Republicans who consider Donald Trump a reckless demagogue For them Hillary Clinton at least offers the chance for her failure as President, after which Republicans can elect just about anyone. Trump plays loose and fast with facts, a dangerous habit that he might not abandon once elected.



Working-class white people have been loyal supporters of Republican pols, at least as they have voted. But what have they gotten for their loyalty? Nothing. They have not had their culture rammed down the throats of secular 'heathens' who have enough votes to thwart such. Their economic conditions are getting worse. Anti-capitalist populism has its ups and downs, and recent years have been weak times for populists. The political right has castigated secular 'heathens' for 'Hollywood values'... as if "Hollywood" hasn't always been a Sodom and Gomorrah, and as if those values fit all educated people.

(The dirty little secret is that well-educated people are less violent, are less likely to commit property crime, and are less likely to get STDs and unwelcome pregnancies. They may also attend religious services far less -- but they are less likely to need religion. It may be ironic, but atheists and agnostics may know more about religion than the most fervent believers. Of course they know more about the traditions of people other than that that is closest to their heritage).



As capricious as Donald Trump is -- he could do a theatrical show of 'firing' himself -- anyone who votes for Donald Trump had better like the VP nominee.



The only candidate that I can think of who is without sleaze is Bernie Sanders. I have severe doubt that he could win the 2016 Presidential election. Hillary Clinton seems to have more Teflon.

But who is more dangerous to America -- a tinpot dictator of Equatorial Guinea or the Koch brothers?

I'm a classic switch hitter when it comes to elections. But even some folks I know who are more into the GOP party line would either vote for Clinton or a 3rd party if Trump is the candidate.

I'm highly suspicious that Trump is intentionally trying to destroy the GOP and perhaps even disrupt the overall election. He should be deeply investigated by the FBI and DHS.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

... I'm highly suspicious that Trump is intentionally trying to destroy the GOP and perhaps even disrupt the overall election. He should be deeply investigated by the FBI and DHS.

Really? That's a very interesting take. What would be the fundamentals under such an initiative? "Follow the Money" is almost always a good choice in motive establishment, but here it's not obvious?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm a classic switch hitter when it comes to elections. But even some folks I know who are more into the GOP party line would either vote for Clinton or a 3rd party if Trump is the candidate.

I'm highly suspicious that Trump is intentionally trying to destroy the GOP and perhaps even disrupt the overall election. He should be deeply investigated by the FBI and DHS.

Being a rich self-indulgent ego-maniac is not illegal as far as I know.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm a classic switch hitter when it comes to elections. But even some folks I know who are more into the GOP party line would either vote for Clinton or a 3rd party if Trump is the candidate.

I'm highly suspicious that Trump is intentionally trying to destroy the GOP and perhaps even disrupt the overall election. He should be deeply investigated by the FBI and DHS.

Wrecking the GOP? Not his intention, any more than it was the intention of the court of the last Tsar of Russia to make an anti-capitalist revolution possible and inevitable. The Republican Party has become an authoritarian Party with a schizophrenic combination of elitism on economics and appeal to the worst and stupidest in American culture. Maybe in Donald Trump we see the contradiction at its worst.

Never ascribe to conspiracy what personal vice and intellectual hollowness can't explain. The problem is that the Republican Party, however competent it has been in appealing to the worst in human nature and using every victory to entrench itself, is itself a failure. It used to avoid insulting intelligent people -- but that is over. Competence with some basic decency must prevail; it must get what it needs. A social order that fails to reward it will itself fail. With its appeals to self-indulgence among elites and to base superstitions it can only wreck what has made America a prime destination for people competent and decent.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Being a rich self-indulgent ego-maniac is not illegal as far as I know.

And boy, aren't we all glad for that!

Aso, Sanders staffer accused of stealing data. DNC temporarily shut downs their access to voter data, Sanders campaign comes out swinging. There's a whole set of related articles at Politico, the NYTimes, and other places, for those who are interested.

Approval of incumbent governors.

Even if the governor is not up for re-election, a current Governor's approval could make the difference between a state electing the Presidential nominee of his Party and not electing that Presidential nominee in a swing state. An ideal situation for a Presidential nominee is to appear with a popular Governor of the same Party. If the Governor is not so popular, then such will not happen.

This does not apply in a non-swing state. Popular Republican Governors in Maryland and Massachusetts won't be able to do any good for any Republican nominee. Likewise, no Republican has an appreciable chance to exploit the unpopularity of incumbent Democratic Governors in Connecticut or Washington. Should newly-elected Governor Edwards (D-LA) prove popular he won't be able to help any Democratic nominee for President because he won't be relevant to the Presidential race. Arizona, Indiana, and Kansas are at best fringe possibilities.

On these criteria, Democratic Governors of Colorado, Minnesota (if necessary), New Hampshire, and Virginia should be very helpful to a Democrat. The Republican Governor of Ohio could help swing Ohio to the Republican nominee. But Republican Governors of Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Wisconsin won't be doing any Republican nominee any good in 2016.

[img]http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=1960&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_p=1&type=c alc&AL=0;;6&AK=0;;4&AZ=3;;8&AR=0;;6&CA=1;;6&CO=1;; 5&CT=5;;4&DE=0;;5&DC=0;;9&FL=3;;4&GA=0;;5&HI=0;;7& ID=0;;6&IL=3;;5&IN=3;;2&IA=3;;5&KS=3;;8&KY=4;;1&LA =4;;1&MD=2;;8&MA=2;;8;&MI=0;;5&MN=1;;6&MS=2;;7&MO= 0;;5&MT=0;;5&NV=0;;5&NH=1;;5&NJ=3;;5&NM=0;;5&NY=1; ;2&NC=3;;5&ND=0;;5&OH=2;;4&OK=0;;6&OR=1;*;4&PA=1;; 2&RI=0;;6&SC=2;;5&SD=0;;5&TN=0;;5&TX=0;;4&UT=0;;7& VT=0;;6&VA=1;;5&WA=5;;4&WV=0;;6&WI=3;;5&WY=0;;6&ME =0;;5&ME1=0;X;9&ME2=0;X;9&NE=0;;5&NE1=0;X;9&NE2=0; X;9&NE3=0;99;6[/img]

A positive approval rating under 45% is treated as a tie.

blue -- Republican incumbent with positive or neutral approval
20% -- tie (less than 1%) or positive approval under 45%
40% -- approval 45 - 49%
50% -- approval 50 - 54%
60% -- approval 55 - 59%
80% -- approval over 60%

green -- Republican incumbent with negative approval

20% -- approval 45 - 49%
40% -- approval 40 - 44%
50% -- approval 35 - 39%
80% -- approval under 35%


red --Democratic incumbent with positive or neutral approval
20% -- tie (less than 1%) or positive approval under 45%
40% -- approval 45 - 49%
50% -- approval 50 - 54%
60% -- approval 55 - 59%
80% -- approval over 60%

orange -- Democratic incumbent with negative approval

20% -- approval 45 - 49%
40% -- approval 40 - 44%
50% -- approval 35 - 39%
80% -- approval under 35%

No governor, governor in transition, or non-partisan governor -- white.

Positive approval under 45% -- (now treated as if a tie).

The newest poll takes precedence, but no internal polls or polls commissioned by a partisan entity, trade group, or union.

* -- appointed Governor.

All three Democratic candidates had their best debate night, according to ABC pundits. I thought so too. That's a net benefit for Hillary. But Bernie's challenge remains.

Hillary had the best one-liners. Should corporations love you, Hillary? she was asked. "Everybody should" she said. Bernie said they wouldn't love him, sorta emulating FDR. Hillary ended her closing statement, and the debate, by saying "may the force be with you!"

I found myself agreeing with Hillary on foreign policy and what to do in Syria and Iraq, but Bernie was more coherent on domestic affairs.

O'Malley is generally rather incoherent. But he did make some good points, and with more animation than before. He is trying to play the "new generation of leadership" card, and touting his record as governor. But I imagine people wonder whether if he was so great, why his party lost after he left, and why Baltimore exploded if he did such great things there.

https://youtu.be/kmvkPJHO7fs

I was hoping Sanders and Clinton would smooth over their disagreement this week over database leaks. They did. That redounds to their benefit.

"Does Secretary Clinton deserve an apology?" asked ABC News' David Muir. "Yes, I apologize," Sanders said quickly. "I also want to apologize to my supporters."

Muir asked Clinton if she accepted his apology, and she said yes, and then sort of repaid Sanders for his shrugging off Clinton's private email problem at an earlier debate. "I think we should move on, because I don't think the American people are very interested in all this," she said.

https://youtu.be/VCS6e5OZmQI

And Trump and Cruz are looking more and more like a ticket. Trump has already put out feelers that he would welcome Cruz as a VP. Between them, they might well beat Hillary--especially when the Republican publicity machine gets going over donations to the Clinton Foundation and threats to file articles of impeachment the moment she takes office. Truth be told, Hillary has baggage no other candidate has, not the least of which being the fact that if she had major input into her hisband's Administration and it was, as they said at the time, a "co-presidency", a Hillary Clinton Administration would be to all intents and purposes a Clinton third term, just as George Wallace maneuvered around Alabama term limits by running his wives, Lurleen and Cornelia for Alabama Governor. Still, given the Senate lineup, Trump could win the White House and the Republicans still lose the Senate.

If you are going to play the odds, consider this. The last time a candidate from a party that held the White House succeeded a sitting president of the same party who had been re-elected and gone two terms was 1988 when Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan. And that was a Republican at a time when there was prosperity and voter's jobs were far more secure than they are now. The last time the Democrats managed that trick was in 1948 when Truman narrowly defeated Dewey. And that was the only time the Democrats went 12 years or longer after the Civil War. What is usual is for a President who has been re-elected to be replaced by a President of the opposing party. Whatever political movement elected that President is generally dissipated in 8 years.
I know this. The election that will be absolutely critical to this country will be 2020. Because that will be the election that "down ticket" in the state legislatures determines how seats will be reapportioned in the House of Representatives after the census. The last thing the nation needs is another decade in which the Republicans are in command and gerrymandering legisative and House seats for the 2020s. A Trumpo Administration, particularly if it was something of a disaster will spark the same kind of wave off election in 2018 and 2020 that we saw in 2006 and 2008. But only if we have someone like Sanders building on his campaign and organising voters, which may well be why Sanders is running. A Clinton "New Democrat" administration, beset by scandal and impeachment attempts will be a very weak admionistration that will likely lead to a Republican backlash and another Republican decade.
It might be worth having Donald Trump battle it out with Congress and in the courts on immigration and the constitutional definition of citizenship. That issue needs to be resolved one way or another. The worst outcome for American workers--and undocumented workers-- is the stalemate and compromise that Establishment Republicans have been pushing for in which undocumented workers can remain--and depress wages--but never gain citiizenship and the rights that come with it, remaining as an underclass like Koreans in Japan or guest workers in Dubai. Amnesty is the preferable outcome but if amnesty is politically impossible--Mexico is in a far better position economically to reabsorb it's undocumented workers than it was in the 90s when NAFTA drove them to the US. And the battle over deporting them, if a President Trump loses that battle could pave the way for amnesty just as legal marijuana and gay marriage are now thinkable.
What Trump is right about (and which Bernie Sanders by the way, is in agreement with Trump) is the need to rethink and in many cases, abrogate treaties that have tied the US into a welter of free trade and defence obligations that may not be in the national interest--or the interest of trading partners for that matter. Globalisation and free trade may not be sustainable. Neither may the unconditional commitments we have made to defend things like the petrodollar or Wilsonian rules of international behaviour. China, Russia and India are not afraid to be protectionist when they think their national interest warrants it. And the US used to be this way.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If you are going to play the odds, consider this. The last time a candidate from a party that held the White House succeeded a sitting president of the same party who had been re-elected and gone two terms was 1988 when Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan. And that was a Republican at a time when there was prosperity and voter's jobs were far more secure than they are now. The last time the Democrats managed that trick was in 1948 when Truman narrowly defeated Dewey. And that was the only time the Democrats went 12 years or longer after the Civil War. What is usual is for a President who has been re-elected to be replaced by a President of the opposing party. Whatever political movement elected that President is generally dissipated in 8 years.

Every Presidential election is different. The two most similar Presidential elections involved the two same Presidential nominees, and the electoral results were much the same.

I'm tempted to believe that except for ethnicity, Barack Obama would have been as successful at winning votes as Ronald Reagan. Their political skills are much the same. The differences: Barack Obama is an attorney and not a showman, and Republicans knew enough to resist everything that Obama did as Democrats didn't with Reagan.

If the President is a physical and emotional wreck after eight years, others in his Party aren't. Such will not be a problem for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders any more than such was so for George H W Bush. Voter fatigue with one Party may be more of a problem. If President Obama didn't get what he wanted after 2010, then such was the choice of Republicans. People who voted for him in 2008 and 2012 still want his promises fulfilled, and they will vote accordingly.

The years 2017-2020 will be risky years for any President. The Obama bull market is likely to go bear at some time, and the longer that the bull market lasts, the more likely it will be that the 45th President will be caught in a time of economic (and as a consequence social) distress, no matter what Party identification the President has. For a Democrat, voter fatigue is likely to set in fairly quickly; for a Republican the problem won't be voter fatigue.

This is not to say that a Republican will have things so great. The Republican leadership and GOP front groups will demand a quick and complete repudiation of everything that Barack Obama did short of reviving the terrorists that the US Armed Forces killed at his command. Republicans are so fixated on the concept that Barack Obama is malign and incompetent that they can see no good that he has done. Such implies a thoroughly reactionary agenda serving economic elites at the expense of everyone else and the repudiation of all liberal tendencies in social policies. Republicans will double down on taxes, unions (probably seeking to eviscerate them if not outlaw them altogether), immigration, abortion, school prayer, 'gay marriage', contraception, 'gun rights', global warming, and even evolution. This will be the time to advance America -- to the Gilded Age! This will be the time to establish forever economic inequality typical of a fascist regime in America. What can one expect in foreign policy other than wars for profit?

But do this during a bear market, and one can expect social unrest that will make dissent of the 1960s look like mere street theater. So have a President who does even more damage in four years than George W. Bush did in four in a climate of even more political polarization and more affinity for political violence, and the Republican President elected in 2016 could have a Presidency that makes the Carter Presidency look successful. Add to this, when white people in the Mountain and Deep South start experiencing lower pay and higher taxes in return for no tangible improvements in their lives, then people in the Mountain and Deep South will start voting as they did in the mid-1970s. Republicans might have gerrymandered the Congressional districts in such states as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to their advantage, but if they lose Southern whites to any significant extent they can kiss the House good-bye in 2020 at the latest.

The President elected in 2016, barring miracles, is likely to be a one-term President.

I know this. The election that will be absolutely critical to this country will be 2020. Because that will be the election that "down ticket" in the state legislatures determines how seats will be reapportioned in the House of Representatives after the census. The last thing the nation needs is another decade in which the Republicans are in command and gerrymandering legisative and House seats for the 2020s. A Trumpo Administration, particularly if it was something of a disaster will spark the same kind of wave off election in 2018 and 2020 that we saw in 2006 and 2008. But only if we have someone like Sanders building on his campaign and organizing voters, which may well be why Sanders is running. A Clinton "New Democrat" administration, beset by scandal and impeachment attempts will be a very weak administration that will likely lead to a Republican backlash and another Republican decade.

If she gets caught in an economic meltdown, then she will be a one-term President. Of course, if she avoids such and stays the course on what President Obama wanted and achieved that are still desirable, then she might be a two-term President if she so chooses -- which will then be more a matter of health than anything else.

It might be worth having Donald Trump battle it out with Congress and in the courts on immigration and the constitutional definition of citizenship. That issue needs to be resolved one way or another. The worst outcome for American workers--and undocumented workers-- is the stalemate and compromise that Establishment Republicans have been pushing for in which undocumented workers can remain--and depress wages--but never gain citiizenship and the rights that come with it, remaining as an underclass like Koreans in Japan or guest workers in Dubai. Amnesty is the preferable outcome but if amnesty is politically impossible--Mexico is in a far better position economically to reabsorb it's undocumented workers than it was in the 90s when NAFTA drove them to the US. And the battle over deporting them, if a President Trump loses that battle could pave the way for amnesty just as legal marijuana and gay marriage are now thinkable.

In view of the contradictory promises of Donald Trump, I cannot see him as a successful President. If he should go full bore on the nativist agenda, then he is sure to create nostalgia for the last good-to-great President (in that case Obama) among the people who voted for him in 2008 and 2012 -- and even more people. Should he go through with a national Right-to-Work (for much less) law and tax reforms that establish either a flat federal income tax or replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax with taxes upon food and property rent as well as luxuries, then Democrats will have plenty of material for campaigns of 2020 and even 2018.

Greater economic inequality is likely to reduce economic output by reducing economic demand, so policies that hurt the non-rich on behalf of the Master Classes will create economic distress comparable to that of the 1930s. Donald Trump has been a businessman who has been able to say "My way or the highway!" to subordinates and say "Your fired!" in the event of non-compliance. He won't be able to fire Representative Debbie Wassermann Schultz, the Governor of any State, a network newsman, or any high-ranking military man. Government is not a business and cannot be run like a business.

What Trump is right about (and which Bernie Sanders by the way, is in agreement with Trump) is the need to rethink and in many cases, abrogate treaties that have tied the US into a welter of free trade and defence obligations that may not be in the national interest--or the interest of trading partners for that matter. Globalisation and free trade may not be sustainable. Neither may the unconditional commitments we have made to defend things like the petrodollar or Wilsonian rules of international behaviour. China, Russia and India are not afraid to be protectionist when they think their national interest warrants it. And the US used to be this way.

Republicans have yet to recognize what a disaster George W. Bush was, and until they recognize how awful a President he was, they are likely to make the same mistakes and get similar results. Bill Clinton cited Albert Einstein, the latter well known for his counter-intuitive behavior:

(it's not exact)

To do something counter-intuitive because nobody has done it before and get a bad result -- and not do it again -- is reasonable. To do the same again and expect a different result -- that is crazy.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If you are going to play the odds, consider this. The last time a candidate from a party that held the White House succeeded a sitting president of the same party who had been re-elected and gone two terms was 1988 when Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan. And that was a Republican at a time when there was prosperity and voter's jobs were far more secure than they are now. The last time the Democrats managed that trick was in 1948 when Truman narrowly defeated Dewey. And that was the only time the Democrats went 12 years or longer after the Civil War. What is usual is for a President who has been re-elected to be replaced by a President of the opposing party. Whatever political movement elected that President is generally dissipated in 8 years.

I agree with the gist of this comment. I came at it a bit differently with this post on July 6th (Bernie 4 Prez anybody? thread):

Now, supposing he secures the nomination, what does history say about his chances of becoming the 45th President of the United States? To answer this question I examined U.S. presidential elections going all the way back to 1900. The proper analog would be a general election in which a new Democratic candidate for president had hoped to keep the White House in Democratic hands even though his predecessor had surrendered control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the mid-term election(s). Only two examples come to mind. Woodrow Wilson saw his Congressional majority evaporate in the 1918 mid-term election (a similar fate suffered by Obama in 2010 and 2014). Wilson's aspiring successor was a Democratic dark-horse candidate, James M. Cox, who lost out to Warren G. Harding in 1920, ushering in twelve years of Republican administrations. More recently, after Bill Clinton's two terms in office, Al Gore lost the White House in 2000 to George W. Bush, the Republicans having seized control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term election.

So, however much you may like Bernie Sanders on the issues, he is bucking history--and some real long odds...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The years 2017-2020 will be risky years for any President. The Obama bull market is likely to go bear at some time, and the longer that the bull market lasts, the more likely it will be that the 45th President will be caught in a time of economic (and as a consequence social) distress, no matter what Party identification the President has.

This comports with my own gut feeling. The current bull market at 2475 calendar days is now the third longest on record, and closing in the second longest next spring. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/07/sps-t...olatility.html

The odds that the stock market peaks soon is rising steadily. My own analysis, based on cycle theories, is 2017.