Moreover, the current economic expansion is now the fourth-longest post-war recovery on record. So you have a cyclical bull market and economic recovery that are both getting "long in the tooth." The odds are rising that it all comes to an end either before the 2016 election--or soon after in 2017.

Donald Trump has just predicted that the US economic "bubble" could soon burst:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...uld-soon-burst

Billionaire Donald Trump sees economic clouds hovering above the U.S. economy. And if it's going to rain, he wants the precipitation to fall while President Barack Obama is still in the White House.

"Remember the word bubble? You heard it here first," the Republican presidential front-runner told about 1,200 people at a rally Saturday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "I don't want to sound rude, but I hope if it explodes, it's going to be now, rather than two months into another administration."

"We could be on a bubble and that bubble could crash and it's not going to be a pretty picture," said Trump, whose boasts about his ability to anticipate the market have aroused some skepticism among investment professionals. "The market has gone down big league the last couple of weeks. We could be in a big fat bubble and if that bubble crashes, it's a problem."

Of course, this is largely wishful thinking on Trump's part. But on the off-chance that he's right, we can pretty much bank on a Republican winning the election in 2016.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

I was rather disgusted by Clinton attacking the Republicans in order to distract from her half-baked, incoherent Neo-Liberal policy proposals on economy and healthcare. We know what the idiots in the GOP will do if they take back the White House, Hillary, you don't need to remind us!

O'Malley seemed to be positioning himself as the no-nonsense centrist candidate without Clinton's Aquarian Boomer baggage.

Sanders was Sanders.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

All the polls I see show any Dem slaughtering Trump, he alienates a lot of moderates.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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 husband'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.

Trump could win, even though he faces an uphill battle and will probably lose. I don't see how Cruz helps him though. If astrology were the only factor I look at, I would give Trump slight odds to defeat Hillary. On the other hand, Trump is his own worst enemy, and probably will defeat himself. Most candidates with aggressive Mars rising are their own worst enemies, whether they win or lose. Off hand, Goldwater (Scorpio rising), Bill Clinton (Libra), LBJ (Virgo) are examples. The pugnacious Teddy Roosevelt (Mars in Capricorn rising) did OK with his, at least the first time.

Hillary will be her own president; anyone can tell that from watching and listening to her. She has a strong will and is very smart and knowledgable. And her involvement in her husband's administration is on the whole a very positive asset. Hillary has not done the slightest thing to warrant impeachment, and in any case impeachment would have to concern what she does while in office.

I still see no evidence posted here that Hillary has personally profited from donations to the Clinton Foundation, in spite of all the nonsense people have posted here, along with claims of my naivete. I don't care if people call me naive; if there's no evidence, there's no evidence. Just as all the folks who say I'm naive if I don't believe in the 9-11 truth conspiracy theory, or that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. The same holds true for the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons and Obama. Smoke in this case just means smoke and mirrors foisted upon the people by the Reaganoids. If you don't like Hillary, that's anyone's perogative. But if you put out nonsense and lies, it won't make the case.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Moreover, the current economic expansion is now the fourth-longest post-war recovery on record. So you have a cyclical bull market and economic recovery that are both getting "long in the tooth." The odds are rising that it all comes to an end either before the 2016 election--or soon after in 2017.

Donald Trump has just predicted that the US economic "bubble" could soon burst:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...uld-soon-burst

Billionaire Donald Trump sees economic clouds hovering above the U.S. economy. And if it's going to rain, he wants the precipitation to fall while President Barack Obama is still in the White House.

"Remember the word bubble? You heard it here first," the Republican presidential front-runner told about 1,200 people at a rally Saturday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "I don't want to sound rude, but I hope if it explodes, it's going to be now, rather than two months into another administration."

"We could be on a bubble and that bubble could crash and it's not going to be a pretty picture," said Trump, whose boasts about his ability to anticipate the market have aroused some skepticism among investment professionals. "The market has gone down big league the last couple of weeks. We could be in a big fat bubble and if that bubble crashes, it's a problem."

Of course, this is largely wishful thinking on Trump's part. But on the off-chance that he's right, we can pretty much bank on a Republican winning the election in 2016.

That would probably happen. But no bubbles will explode in 2016, according to my sources. I think the recovery is still getting going. The depression lasted a long time and the recovery was minimal. It will continue to be minimal as long as Republicans have the power to block it. Most of the stock market problems are due to low oil prices, which is good for the economy, as well as a sign that alternative energy is already starting to compete and will take over soon. When that happens, it will be boom times again. It's time for investors to get out of oil anyway. In spite of the 4T Crisis continuing, and economic instability at the turn of the decade, another crash is not imminent, and the 2020s are likely to boom, especially after mid decade-- assuming I'm correct that progressives will take over during the decade and the regressives will be pushed aside. A time of activism, such as the 2020s will increasingly be, will be no time for stick in the mud reactionaries like we have in power now.

Of course, if a great war happens domestically, the economy would be unstable in some places. But remember, the North boomed during the Civil War and afterward.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was rather disgusted by Clinton attacking the Republicans in order to distract from her half-baked, incoherent Neo-Liberal policy proposals on economy and healthcare. We know what the idiots in the GOP will do if they take back the White House, Hillary, you don't need to remind us!

People DO need constant reminders that Republicans are idiots. I think Hillary did that quite well on both foreign and domestic policy. Sanders is better on the latter, at least, but Hillary is not as neo-liberal as her husband was in the days of the so-called "New" Democrats of the 1990s, which I called at the time "old Republicans."

O'Malley seemed to be positioning himself as the no-nonsense centrist candidate without Clinton's Aquarian Boomer baggage.

There is no such thing.

OK, whatever, Eric.

Graham Exits Presidential Race
By Rebecca Berg
December 21, 2015
Sen. Lindsey Graham announced Monday that he will end his campaign for president, drawing to a close a notable underdog candidacy by one of the Senate’s foremost foreign policy hawks.

“I got into this race to put forward a plan to win a war we cannot afford to lose, and to turn back the tide of isolationism that was rising in our party,” Graham said in a video announcement. “I believe we made enormous progress in this effort.”

In an election cycle when an unapologetically bombastic outsider candidate, Donald Trump, has captured the imagination of Republican voters, Graham stubbornly embodied the opposite: a longtime elected official who prided himself on his work across the aisle and his legislative accomplishments. Even in the thick of the presidential campaign, Graham embraced his Senate role, in stark contrast to other senators who publicly downplayed their Washington ties.

Although Graham struggled to cobble together enough support to seriously compete for his party’s nomination, he nevertheless left an indelible mark on the Republican campaign with his sober national security prescriptions, including a push to commit 10,000 U.S. troops to fight ISIS on the ground. His rhetoric could also impress for its levity: During a string of appearances in the undercard debates, Graham distinguished himself as a master of humorous one-liners.

"They're ready to die,” Graham said of ISIS fighters during the most recent Republican debate. “Bring on the virgins."

But Graham’s legacy in the race for president might also be his candor: He frequently lamented the direction of his party and the primary campaigns, particularly as Trump and Ted Cruz gathered steam.

“If the nominee of the Republican Party will not allow for an [abortion] exception for rape and incest, they will not win,” Graham insisted during a speech this month to the Republican Jewish Coalition. “Ted Cruz doesn’t have an exception for rape or incest.”

More:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ce_129105.html

Yes, because launching a third Iraq war in a quarter century is the definition of a "sober" policy description. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That would probably happen. But no bubbles will explode in 2016, according to my sources. I think the recovery is still getting going. The depression lasted a long time and the recovery was minimal. It will continue to be minimal as long as Republicans have the power to block it. Most of the stock market problems are due to low oil prices, which is good for the economy, as well as a sign that alternative energy is already starting to compete and will take over soon. When that happens, it will be boom times again. It's time for investors to get out of oil anyway. In spite of the 4T Crisis continuing, and economic instability at the turn of the decade, another crash is not imminent, and the 2020s are likely to boom, especially after mid decade-- assuming I'm correct that progressives will take over during the decade and the regressives will be pushed aside. A time of activism, such as the 2020s will increasingly be, will be no time for stick in the mud reactionaries like we have in power now.

Of course, if a great war happens domestically, the economy would be unstable in some places. But remember, the North boomed during the Civil War and afterward.

Political gridlock has practically assured that there will be no speculative boom until Barack Obama is no longer President. It's not that Republicans don't want one; it's that they don't want one while Barack Obama is President. The bull market is more than they want, though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That would probably happen. But no bubbles will explode in 2016, according to my sources. I think the recovery is still getting going. The depression lasted a long time and the recovery was minimal. It will continue to be minimal as long as Republicans have the power to block it. Most of the stock market problems are due to low oil prices, which is good for the economy, as well as a sign that alternative energy is already starting to compete and will take over soon. When that happens, it will be boom times again. It's time for investors to get out of oil anyway. In spite of the 4T Crisis continuing, and economic instability at the turn of the decade, another crash is not imminent, and the 2020s are likely to boom, especially after mid decade-- assuming I'm correct that progressives will take over during the decade and the regressives will be pushed aside. A time of activism, such as the 2020s will increasingly be, will be no time for stick in the mud reactionaries like we have in power now.

Of course, if a great war happens domestically, the economy would be unstable in some places. But remember, the North boomed during the Civil War and afterward.

Since mid-summer, there's been every indication that we have been headed into an economic contraction, but that's now been put on hold at least through 2016.

The Congress passed a 2016 federal budget that is basically a smaller version of the 2008 ARRA Stimulus - its smaller but, by far, the economic issues we face today are much smaller than those of 2008 - proportionately, we're getting more of a stimulus in 2016 than we got in 2009/10 from ARRA.

Also of note is that the budget agreement came with some economic goodies that should not be underestimate - such as the lifting of the oil export ban - this will lower oil prices globally even further but in a way where US producers should be helped rather than hurt.

Also, for those in the MMT know, the FED raising rates off of ZIRP is actually (contrary to what 99.9% believe) inflationary, not deflationary, domestically. Also, rates going up as slow as they will be off of ZIRP will have little impact on what people actually pay to finance a house, car, furnishing, etc. but it will have a psychological impact of "need to buy it now."

We're going to get another year of good economic/market news.

Now couple that with the likelihood this summer of major advances on ISIL in Anbar province and Mosul and possible a Syrian peace accord with all parties except ISIL (I love how people still underestimate Obama and Kerry), and the GOP is left with nothing going into the general election but yammering for the umpteenth time about needing to repeal Obamacare because there are now 12 million people who now have health insurance. You go, GOP!

Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

Nate Silver's group has some good analysis on the great divide between Trump and non-Trump GOP supporters -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...iploma-divide/

The Key To The GOP Race: The Diploma Divide

Basically, not a surprise, it comes down to whether you have a college degree or not. Although it is important to note that Sanders supporters tend to be young, highly educated folks (I won't hold their youth against them ) - so anyone suggesting Bernie voters would be disaffected enough to cross over to Trump is smoking some pretty good stuff!

What's interesting is Silver's continuing grasping at his notion that Trump will not be the nominee. He talks about how the diploma voter candidates (Bush, Rubio, Kasich) have split the diploma vote so far but eventually, like with Romney, they'll coalesce around one diploma candidate. Where he goes wrong is throwing in Cruz as a diploma voter candidate. Cruz does provide perhaps a way to meld some of the non-diploma voters with the diploma voters, but the key here is time. Going into at least SC, Cruz will instead serve as a check on the other diploma voter candidates from getting any traction - by Super Tuesday, it will be a two-man race - Trump/Cruz - pick your poison GOP!

I think Silver is sensing this because he has another post about Lindsey Graham leaving. He recognizes that Graham's numbers are meaningless, but goes on to say that Graham was preventing other Senators (e.g., McCain) or SC politicians from endorsing other Senators running - out of respect for Graham. Given the universal hatred of Cruz in the Senate, that can only mean Rubio. I fully expect this to happen, but all it will do is heighten the Cruz v. Rubio drudge match with Trump sitting back and noting the inanity of Senators. Cruz is Trump's firewall.

Somebody who gets this is Hillary. She is trying to lock Trump into the nomination by taking him on ("ISIS poster boy") in hopes of getting the non-diploma GOP voters, aka dysfunctional Clinton haters, foaming at the mouth to the point that their usual GOP Establishment handlers will lose all control of them.

This is becoming the most entertaining election in my memory - all that is needed is the inevitable good outcome. Nirvana would be the GOP Establishment throwing the nomination to Cruz at the convention and Trump pushing a 3rd candidacy going into the general - sets up an ugly re-match of the losers in 2020 that will finally break the GOP as a national political power.

Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Since mid-summer, there's been every indication that we have been headed into an economic contraction, but that's now been put on hold at least through 2016.

The Congress passed a 2016 federal budget that is basically a smaller version of the 2008 ARRA Stimulus - its smaller but, by far, the economic issues we face today are much smaller than those of 2008 - proportionately, we're getting more of a stimulus in 2016 than we got in 2009/10 from ARRA.

Also of note is that the budget agreement came with some economic goodies that should not be underestimate - such as the lifting of the oil export ban - this will lower oil prices globally even further but in a way where US producers should be helped rather than hurt.

Also, for those in the MMT know, the FED raising rates off of ZIRP is actually (contrary to what 99.9% believe) inflationary, not deflationary, domestically. Also, rates going up as slow as they will be off of ZIRP will have little impact on what people actually pay to finance a house, car, furnishing, etc. but it will have a psychological impact of "need to buy it now."

We're going to get another year of good economic/market news.

Now couple that with the likelihood this summer of major advances on ISIL in Anbar province and Mosul and possible a Syrian peace accord with all parties except ISIL (I love how people still underestimate Obama and Kerry), and the GOP is left with nothing going into the general election but yammering for the umpteenth time about needing to repeal Obamacare because there are now 12 million people who now have health insurance. You go, GOP!

Louis: Looking good, Billy Ray!
Billy Ray: Feeling good, Louis!

I read the same FiveThirtyEight article yesterday and appreciated the analysis, as I do much of Nate Silver's work. And I agree that a bear market and economic recession is unlikely before the election. The financial crash on the eve of the last election ("October surprise") is not likely to be repeated; that would be too easy. I'm more concerned about the "Day After," that is 2017 and beyond.

Will have more to say about the developing international banking crisis, Obama's presidential legacy, and the upcoming election later.

Daily Kos has a good summary of the polls now.

See more charts at the link:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015...-status-report



Trump’s upward trajectory is starting to level off, but still headed up. Only Cruz and Chris Christie way down there at the bottom can say the same thing. Everyone else is cratering.

One interesting note: exactly six months ago, Jeb Bush led the field with 13 percent, Marco Rubio was in second with 9.5 percent, and Trump was third at 9 percent. Then he talked shit about Sen. John McCain being a POW, and that was that, given how the Republican base loves people who say horrible things.

Other than Q-poll, which has been consistently bearish on Trump, there is strong consensus on Trump’s numbers, not so much on Cruz. Trump is somewhere in the mid-to-high 30s, and Cruz is anywhere from low-to-high teens, or even low-to-mid 20s. That’s a big range. However, no one doubts that Cruz is surging, the direct beneficiary of Carson’s fall from grace.

Democrats:

For the first time since Hillary Clinton’s nadir in mid-September, we see the candidates moving in opposite directions, and not in a way that works to Bernie Sanders’ advantages. Last week, Clinton was at 54.6 percent to Sanders’ 29.5 percent, meaning that Clinton is +2.2 and Sanders is -1.3 after the latest round of polling.

Actually, despite the shift in the aggregate, there really isn’t much here outside of a float in the margin of error. Maybe the aggregate was unduly influenced by that outlier-looking Emerson College poll. All-in-all, things are still pretty static, which of course is good for Clinton and not so good for Sanders. And that 30 percent demographic ceiling hasn’t gone anywhere.

Looking at that one new poll out of Iowa:

CBS/YOUGOV
CLINTON SANDERS
12/14-17 50% 45%
11/15-19 50% 44%

YouGov has consistently given Sanders his best numbers in Iowa. His Iowa aggregate number right now is 37.6 percent (to Clinton’s 52.6 percent). Regardless, what I get from these trendlines is that (as expected during the holiday season) not much has changed in the last month.

And in New Hampshire:

Advantage Sanders in the Granite State, where he maintains a nearly five-point lead

I do believe that Trump's pledge not to run as an independent if he does not win the Republican nomination is, as they say in the Old Country, "non valore uno grano" - not worth a grano, the latter being an old monetary unit equal to one-twelfth of a denaro, or penny (this is why the British issued "one-third farthing" coins in 1902 and 1913 - for use in Malta, which still used the denomination, a farthing of course having been one-quarter of a penny).

And I'm sure that Trump can manufacture some real or imagined "insult" to "justify" his decision to renege on the no-third-party-run pledge (the Prophet archetype is, well, totally awesome at things like this).

Perhaps some of you saw "10 Factors That Will Determine the Next President," published out of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics under the moniker Sabato's Crystal Ball. (And for my fellow rationalists on this forum, not given to magical thinking, don't let the "crystal ball" thing be off-putting. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ten-factors-that-will-determine-the-next-president/

I thought the article provided a good overview of key factors potentially influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Some excerpts:

1. THE CANDIDATES

No one can know for sure how the candidates will look next fall. The first hurdle for Republicans will be reunification, and that may not prove an easy task. The party’s deep fissures are on prominent display right now. Given his high negatives, Trump might have a harder time bringing Republicans together than his competitors would. Either an independent bid by Trump, or in the unlikely event of a Trump nomination, an independent bid by a “real Republican” (a traditional mainstream candidate) cannot be ruled out at this point...

Both party nominees may be flawed enough to look for issues that will make the election bigger than themselves. The most obvious one — sure to be used extensively by both sides — is the Supreme Court, which is almost as politically polarized as the elective branches. Given the ages of some current justices, it is very believable that the next president will reshape the court.

One other thing: While it seems likely that nominating Trump would be a political loser for Republicans, let’s not underestimate his potential to dramatically recalibrate his pitch for a general electorate. His established proposals (and outrageous statements) would remain, but if anyone could pull off a massive rebranding job, it might be The Donald.

2. THE PRESIDENT’S JOB APPROVAL

President Obama is not on the ballot, but he looms over the race. His national standing has remained very consistent — some would say stagnant — throughout much of his presidency. Throughout 2015, Obama’s approval has generally been around 45%, with a little bit of variation. It seems reasonable to expect that he will be around the same point next year, unless further domestic terrorism or other developments send his ratings tumbling. According to Gallup, Obama has averaged a middling 47% approval throughout his presidency, and as we found earlier this year, his approval has been the steadiest in modern history.

Postwar history suggests that when a president has weak approval, his party pays a price in the next election...

There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule here, but there is a reason that Clinton, so far, is generally staying close to the president. Presenting a united Democratic front, and seeing Obama have a successful final year in office, can only be good for her chances. Plus, if Obama tanks, so probably do Clinton’s chances.

3. THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY

...there’s been on average about one recession every five years since 1901, and the last recession ended in June 2009. That doesn’t mean there will be a recession before the next election, but if there is, there’s every reason to expect that it would be a drag on the incumbent president’s party (the Democrats).

4. FOREIGN POLICY AND TERRORISM

Democrats are attacking Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for recent comments suggesting that a focus on foreign policy and terrorism would be good, politically, for the Republican Party. “We’re in a peri­od in our coun­try’s his­tory sadly where we have a threat from abroad again,” Port­man said. “And, y’know, people tend to look to Re­pub­lic­ans to help pro­tect the coun­try.” He’s probably right. Since 9/11, the public has generally seen Republicans as the stronger party in dealing with terrorism. Recent issue polling has also suggested that Americans are increasingly concerned about terrorism, no shock given the twin horrors of Paris and San Bernardino. What’s important now is not guaranteed to be important in fall 2016, but it will be a surprise if terrorism isn’t one of the top concerns at election time.

5. SOCIAL ISSUES

Some of the Democrats’ greatest and unlikeliest political triumphs in recent years came when Republicans led with their chins on social issues...
...Against Donald Trump, it would be his alleged hostility to nonwhites. Just like Republicans on terrorism, Democrats believe that if the election is about issues such as abortion and immigration, and their opponent’s far right positions on these issues, they can make the GOP nominee unelectable.

6. RUNNING MATES

We’ll hear a thousand times in the next year that the last vice presidential running mate who made a decisive difference was Lyndon Johnson in the squeaker election of 1960, carrying Texas and some other Southern states that John F. Kennedy might have lost on his own...
In 2016, the potential exists on one or both sides to nominate a VP candidate who enhances the ticket and maybe even helps carry one of the few real swing states. It’s pointless to list Republican possibilities because we do not yet know the identity of the GOP presidential nominee. Privately, Republican leaders mention a “dream ticket” of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who together might deliver 47 swing-state electoral votes. At this early juncture, it might be better termed the “pipe dream” ticket.

7. THE DWINDLING NUMBER OF SWING STATES

Abramowitz, our Crystal Ball colleague, often reminds us that we don’t really have national elections for president anymore.
In the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, 20 states were decided by less than five percentage points, including every one of the most populous states (such as California, Illinois, New York, and Texas). Fast forward to the 2012 contest between Obama and Romney. It was within five percentage points in a mere four states, and a blowout for one candidate or the other in a large majority of the states...
Sure, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee (or possibly a few others in the current lineup), the country might temporarily break out of its hardened Electoral College map. However, we’d bet that any Republican — even Trump — would fare far better than Barry Goldwater did in 1964. Our polarization is such that the GOP nominee will probably start around (at a minimum) John McCain’s 2008 percentage, 46%, not Goldwater’s 38%. (This assumes there are no 2016 third-party candidates that complicate the picture.)

Without a major independent ticket and assuming a close election, there’s a high probability that about 40 states can effectively be called by Labor Day. The campaigning will thus concentrate on the closest swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia...

8. SCANDAL

...On the whole, scandal is probably a greater danger during the primary season, because there are alternatives available to jittery partisans. In the general election, except for a massive, fundamental expose, the party candidates are protected by party and polarization. Bigger factors and issues are likely to drive the election outcome.

9. AMERICA’S CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS

It’s quite possible that the most important data point on Nov. 8, 2016, will be the nonwhite share of the electorate. This assertion is based on two observations: First, that exit polls have shown nonwhites to be an increasingly large portion of the electorate; and second, that nonwhites backed Barack Obama at a higher than 80% rate in 2008 and 2012.

The nonwhite share of the electorate is likely to continue growing, as shown in Chart 2. In 1976, exit polls found that nonwhites made up 11% of voters; in 2012, that figure was 28%. Except for a blip in 1992, this trend has been continuous.

Minority voters are a key component of the Democrats’ “Coalition of the Ascendant” — nonwhites, Millennials, and highly-educated whites — which many Democrats believe gives them a natural edge in the 2016 presidential contest. Some Republican strategists worry that the GOP’s struggles with nonwhites will make it hard for the Republican nominee to win in 2016 (and beyond). After all, Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote but lost nationally by about four percentage points. Still, can the Democratic nominee repeat Obama-levels of support among nonwhite voters? And if the GOP nominates Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, could it reap at least some benefit from having a more diverse ticket?...

The Crystal Ball has previously highlighted that a uniform shift of three points in the 2012 result would have handed Romney 305 electoral votes and victory. Correspondingly, David Wasserman recently pointed out that a three-point swing toward Republicans among five major demographic groups from 2012 — with the same turnout levels — would result in a GOP win in 2016. At this very early point, most election fundamentals point to a competitive environment in 2016, so it’s certainly feasible that this kind of shift could happen, especially without an incumbent on the ballot...

10. TURNOUT

Without Obama’s name on the ballot, it’s an open question whether Democrats will be able to be repeat what they accomplished in 2008 and 2012. According to the Census Bureau’s postmortem on 2012 turnout, African Americans turned out at a higher rate than non-Hispanic white voters for the first time in terms of reported turnout of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). As Obama was winning 95% (2008) and 93% (2012) of the black vote, based on the exit polls, the increased number of voters from this demographic group obviously buoyed his campaign. To some extent, overall turnout will probably remain relatively high in 2016, if the last few elections are any indication — going back to 2004, turnout has been above 60% of CVAP...

Sans Obama, turnout among parts of the Obama coalition, particularly African-American voters, could slide a bit. Considering that a three-point shift toward the GOP among major demographic groups would have resulted in a narrow Romney win in 2012 without lower turnout, reduced turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies would only boost Republican chances. If the Republican nominee makes some inroads with minority voters while holding the line or even improving support from white voters, the GOP will be positioned to win. In other words, we can say that demographics are not necessarily destiny; as always, those who show up will decide the election, and projections of change in the electorate do not always materialize along consistent lines.

See the article for the complete discussion and charts.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Perhaps some of you saw "10 Factors That Will Determine the Next President," published out of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics under the moniker Sabato's Crystal Ball. (And for my fellow rationalists on this forum, not given to magical thinking, don't let the "crystal ball" thing be off-putting. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ten-factors-that-will-determine-the-next-president/

I thought the article provided a good overview of key factors potentially influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Some excerpts:

1. THE CANDIDATES

No one can know for sure how the candidates will look next fall. The first hurdle for Republicans will be reunification, and that may not prove an easy task. The party’s deep fissures are on prominent display right now. Given his high negatives, Trump might have a harder time bringing Republicans together than his competitors would. Either an independent bid by Trump, or in the unlikely event of a Trump nomination, an independent bid by a “real Republican” (a traditional mainstream candidate) cannot be ruled out at this point...

Both party nominees may be flawed enough to look for issues that will make the election bigger than themselves. The most obvious one — sure to be used extensively by both sides — is the Supreme Court, which is almost as politically polarized as the elective branches. Given the ages of some current justices, it is very believable that the next president will reshape the court.

One other thing: While it seems likely that nominating Trump would be a political loser for Republicans, let’s not underestimate his potential to dramatically recalibrate his pitch for a general electorate. His established proposals (and outrageous statements) would remain, but if anyone could pull off a massive rebranding job, it might be The Donald.

2. THE PRESIDENT’S JOB APPROVAL

President Obama is not on the ballot, but he looms over the race. His national standing has remained very consistent — some would say stagnant — throughout much of his presidency. Throughout 2015, Obama’s approval has generally been around 45%, with a little bit of variation. It seems reasonable to expect that he will be around the same point next year, unless further domestic terrorism or other developments send his ratings tumbling. According to Gallup, Obama has averaged a middling 47% approval throughout his presidency, and as we found earlier this year, his approval has been the steadiest in modern history.

Postwar history suggests that when a president has weak approval, his party pays a price in the next election...

There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule here, but there is a reason that Clinton, so far, is generally staying close to the president. Presenting a united Democratic front, and seeing Obama have a successful final year in office, can only be good for her chances. Plus, if Obama tanks, so probably do Clinton’s chances.

3. THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY

...there’s been on average about one recession every five years since 1901, and the last recession ended in June 2009. That doesn’t mean there will be a recession before the next election, but if there is, there’s every reason to expect that it would be a drag on the incumbent president’s party (the Democrats).

4. FOREIGN POLICY AND TERRORISM

Democrats are attacking Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for recent comments suggesting that a focus on foreign policy and terrorism would be good, politically, for the Republican Party. “We’re in a peri*od in our coun*try’s his*tory sadly where we have a threat from abroad again,” Port*man said. “And, y’know, people tend to look to Re*pub*lic*ans to help pro*tect the coun*try.” He’s probably right. Since 9/11, the public has generally seen Republicans as the stronger party in dealing with terrorism. Recent issue polling has also suggested that Americans are increasingly concerned about terrorism, no shock given the twin horrors of Paris and San Bernardino. What’s important now is not guaranteed to be important in fall 2016, but it will be a surprise if terrorism isn’t one of the top concerns at election time.

5. SOCIAL ISSUES

Some of the Democrats’ greatest and unlikeliest political triumphs in recent years came when Republicans led with their chins on social issues...
...Against Donald Trump, it would be his alleged hostility to nonwhites. Just like Republicans on terrorism, Democrats believe that if the election is about issues such as abortion and immigration, and their opponent’s far right positions on these issues, they can make the GOP nominee unelectable.

6. RUNNING MATES

We’ll hear a thousand times in the next year that the last vice presidential running mate who made a decisive difference was Lyndon Johnson in the squeaker election of 1960, carrying Texas and some other Southern states that John F. Kennedy might have lost on his own...
In 2016, the potential exists on one or both sides to nominate a VP candidate who enhances the ticket and maybe even helps carry one of the few real swing states. It’s pointless to list Republican possibilities because we do not yet know the identity of the GOP presidential nominee. Privately, Republican leaders mention a “dream ticket” of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who together might deliver 47 swing-state electoral votes. At this early juncture, it might be better termed the “pipe dream” ticket.

7. THE DWINDLING NUMBER OF SWING STATES

Abramowitz, our Crystal Ball colleague, often reminds us that we don’t really have national elections for president anymore.
In the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, 20 states were decided by less than five percentage points, including every one of the most populous states (such as California, Illinois, New York, and Texas). Fast forward to the 2012 contest between Obama and Romney. It was within five percentage points in a mere four states, and a blowout for one candidate or the other in a large majority of the states...
Sure, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee (or possibly a few others in the current lineup), the country might temporarily break out of its hardened Electoral College map. However, we’d bet that any Republican — even Trump — would fare far better than Barry Goldwater did in 1964. Our polarization is such that the GOP nominee will probably start around (at a minimum) John McCain’s 2008 percentage, 46%, not Goldwater’s 38%. (This assumes there are no 2016 third-party candidates that complicate the picture.)

Without a major independent ticket and assuming a close election, there’s a high probability that about 40 states can effectively be called by Labor Day. The campaigning will thus concentrate on the closest swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia...

8. SCANDAL

...On the whole, scandal is probably a greater danger during the primary season, because there are alternatives available to jittery partisans. In the general election, except for a massive, fundamental expose, the party candidates are protected by party and polarization. Bigger factors and issues are likely to drive the election outcome.

9. AMERICA’S CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS

It’s quite possible that the most important data point on Nov. 8, 2016, will be the nonwhite share of the electorate. This assertion is based on two observations: First, that exit polls have shown nonwhites to be an increasingly large portion of the electorate; and second, that nonwhites backed Barack Obama at a higher than 80% rate in 2008 and 2012.

The nonwhite share of the electorate is likely to continue growing, as shown in Chart 2. In 1976, exit polls found that nonwhites made up 11% of voters; in 2012, that figure was 28%. Except for a blip in 1992, this trend has been continuous.

Minority voters are a key component of the Democrats’ “Coalition of the Ascendant” — nonwhites, Millennials, and highly-educated whites — which many Democrats believe gives them a natural edge in the 2016 presidential contest. Some Republican strategists worry that the GOP’s struggles with nonwhites will make it hard for the Republican nominee to win in 2016 (and beyond). After all, Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote but lost nationally by about four percentage points. Still, can the Democratic nominee repeat Obama-levels of support among nonwhite voters? And if the GOP nominates Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, could it reap at least some benefit from having a more diverse ticket?...

The Crystal Ball has previously highlighted that a uniform shift of three points in the 2012 result would have handed Romney 305 electoral votes and victory. Correspondingly, David Wasserman recently pointed out that a three-point swing toward Republicans among five major demographic groups from 2012 — with the same turnout levels — would result in a GOP win in 2016. At this very early point, most election fundamentals point to a competitive environment in 2016, so it’s certainly feasible that this kind of shift could happen, especially without an incumbent on the ballot...

10. TURNOUT

Without Obama’s name on the ballot, it’s an open question whether Democrats will be able to be repeat what they accomplished in 2008 and 2012. According to the Census Bureau’s postmortem on 2012 turnout, African Americans turned out at a higher rate than non-Hispanic white voters for the first time in terms of reported turnout of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). As Obama was winning 95% (2008) and 93% (2012) of the black vote, based on the exit polls, the increased number of voters from this demographic group obviously buoyed his campaign. To some extent, overall turnout will probably remain relatively high in 2016, if the last few elections are any indication — going back to 2004, turnout has been above 60% of CVAP...

Sans Obama, turnout among parts of the Obama coalition, particularly African-American voters, could slide a bit. Considering that a three-point shift toward the GOP among major demographic groups would have resulted in a narrow Romney win in 2012 without lower turnout, reduced turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies would only boost Republican chances. If the Republican nominee makes some inroads with minority voters while holding the line or even improving support from white voters, the GOP will be positioned to win. In other words, we can say that demographics are not necessarily destiny; as always, those who show up will decide the election, and projections of change in the electorate do not always materialize along consistent lines.

See the article for the complete discussion and charts.

The key things that stand out -

- Uses 2012 demographics, not considering that the GOP base of old white dudes will be 4% less of the voter cohort in 2016
- Suggests Trump will re-brand to something less repugnant to 60-65% of voters, particularly in regard to minorities.
- Suggests voters will forget/forgive Bush/GOP for Iraq and come to believe the Neoconservative horseshit all over again.

If this is what the Right believes, I'm very happy to say, "Bring it on, baby!

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Perhaps some of you saw "10 Factors That Will Determine the Next President," published out of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics under the moniker Sabato's Crystal Ball. (And for my fellow rationalists on this forum, not given to magical thinking, don't let the "crystal ball" thing be off-putting.

I appreciate your erudite posts, much better than some of the snarky ones we're getting these days.

But really? You hope to foresee the future with rationality? I see you laid out 10 complicated factors. That's the problem with rationality; it can tell you a lot about what has already happening, but as for what's going to happen, it is not very helpful. My crystal ball has worked better. Sometimes, trying to understand it all with reason is too hard. Then you can say, well let's just throw the dice. Use magical thinking, or divination; it's in the cards, the tea leaves, or the stars. Let's flip a coin. The universe itself will tell you.

In the 2012 race, for example, I predicted every twist and turn of the race, right here with my crystal ball (astrology), and also the final electoral vote count, beating out all the pundits. I am doing pretty well so far this year too. I missed a few things, because I didn't check a few things; but on the major events, I have been correct: Bernie Sanders is running a strong campaign; Donald Trump did not fade; Chris Christie is making a comeback.

By contrast, I listen to all these very-rational pundits on TV try to predict and analyze what might happen, and they constantly fail. Of course, psychics have not done too well at politics either.

This year, the final result is harder to predict, using my crystal ball. Instead of 10 factors, though, it mainly comes down to two: the full moon before election, and the horoscope scores of the candidates. If the leading candidate is to win this year, the usual pattern that the candidate with the higher score wins, is likely to fail. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate. The other factor is in her favor; the stars favor the incumbent party. So, like I said, if her opponent in the general election is Marco Rubio, it's a crap shoot. We might as well roll the dice. However, I myself probably might not be the best one to roll the dice, because I am attached to the outcome, and my desires might affect the result of my dice throw, or card reading, etc.

I have said I don't expect Cruz to be nominated, but if he is, despite my prediction, then both factors in the Fall will favor the Democrats, and my prediction for the general election will come true. If Trump is the nominee, on the other hand, then he can only fail due to other reasons besides his horoscope score-- which seems somewhat likely now. Only if a major upset happens in the Democratic race, and Bernie Sanders is nominated, will both factors be in the Democrats' favor in the Fall, and events will have been correctly forecast by both of my crystal ball patterns throughout the election season, even if the general election as well as the primaries would be seen as an uphill and upset victory for Sanders by the pundits, given all their doubts that a "democratic socialist" who is waging a "revolution" could actually win.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Moreover, the current economic expansion is now the fourth-longest post-war recovery on record. So you have a cyclical bull market and economic recovery that are both getting "long in the tooth." The odds are rising that it all comes to an end either before the 2016 election--or soon after in 2017.

Donald Trump has just predicted that the US economic "bubble" could soon burst:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...uld-soon-burst

Billionaire Donald Trump sees economic clouds hovering above the U.S. economy. And if it's going to rain, he wants the precipitation to fall while President Barack Obama is still in the White House.

"Remember the word bubble? You heard it here first," the Republican presidential front-runner told about 1,200 people at a rally Saturday afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "I don't want to sound rude, but I hope if it explodes, it's going to be now, rather than two months into another administration."

"We could be on a bubble and that bubble could crash and it's not going to be a pretty picture," said Trump, whose boasts about his ability to anticipate the market have aroused some skepticism among investment professionals. "The market has gone down big league the last couple of weeks. We could be in a big fat bubble and if that bubble crashes, it's a problem."

Of course, this is largely wishful thinking on Trump's part. But on the off-chance that he's right, we can pretty much bank on a Republican winning the election in 2016.

A burst bubble soon could be Bernie Sander's big chance. Just as the last Recession was Obama's big chance. Nothing would vindicate Sanders more than a bubble bursting. Trump's entire strategy hinges on running against the Clintons and a combined Republican-Democratic Establishment. Against Bernie Sanders, that dosen't work so well.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Perhaps some of you saw "10 Factors That Will Determine the Next President," published out of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics under the moniker Sabato's Crystal Ball. (And for my fellow rationalists on this forum, not given to magical thinking, don't let the "crystal ball" thing be off-putting. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ten-factors-that-will-determine-the-next-president/

I thought the article provided a good overview of key factors potentially influencing the 2016 presidential election.

Some excerpts:

1. THE CANDIDATES

No one can know for sure how the candidates will look next fall. The first hurdle for Republicans will be reunification, and that may not prove an easy task. The party’s deep fissures are on prominent display right now. Given his high negatives, Trump might have a harder time bringing Republicans together than his competitors would. Either an independent bid by Trump, or in the unlikely event of a Trump nomination, an independent bid by a “real Republican” (a traditional mainstream candidate) cannot be ruled out at this point...

Both party nominees may be flawed enough to look for issues that will make the election bigger than themselves. The most obvious one — sure to be used extensively by both sides — is the Supreme Court, which is almost as politically polarized as the elective branches. Given the ages of some current justices, it is very believable that the next president will reshape the court.

One other thing: While it seems likely that nominating Trump would be a political loser for Republicans, let’s not underestimate his potential to dramatically recalibrate his pitch for a general electorate. His established proposals (and outrageous statements) would remain, but if anyone could pull off a massive rebranding job, it might be The Donald.

2. THE PRESIDENT’S JOB APPROVAL

President Obama is not on the ballot, but he looms over the race. His national standing has remained very consistent — some would say stagnant — throughout much of his presidency. Throughout 2015, Obama’s approval has generally been around 45%, with a little bit of variation. It seems reasonable to expect that he will be around the same point next year, unless further domestic terrorism or other developments send his ratings tumbling. According to Gallup, Obama has averaged a middling 47% approval throughout his presidency, and as we found earlier this year, his approval has been the steadiest in modern history.

Postwar history suggests that when a president has weak approval, his party pays a price in the next election...

There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule here, but there is a reason that Clinton, so far, is generally staying close to the president. Presenting a united Democratic front, and seeing Obama have a successful final year in office, can only be good for her chances. Plus, if Obama tanks, so probably do Clinton’s chances.

3. THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY

...there’s been on average about one recession every five years since 1901, and the last recession ended in June 2009. That doesn’t mean there will be a recession before the next election, but if there is, there’s every reason to expect that it would be a drag on the incumbent president’s party (the Democrats).

4. FOREIGN POLICY AND TERRORISM

Democrats are attacking Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for recent comments suggesting that a focus on foreign policy and terrorism would be good, politically, for the Republican Party. “We’re in a peri*od in our coun*try’s his*tory sadly where we have a threat from abroad again,” Port*man said. “And, y’know, people tend to look to Re*pub*lic*ans to help pro*tect the coun*try.” He’s probably right. Since 9/11, the public has generally seen Republicans as the stronger party in dealing with terrorism. Recent issue polling has also suggested that Americans are increasingly concerned about terrorism, no shock given the twin horrors of Paris and San Bernardino. What’s important now is not guaranteed to be important in fall 2016, but it will be a surprise if terrorism isn’t one of the top concerns at election time.

5. SOCIAL ISSUES

Some of the Democrats’ greatest and unlikeliest political triumphs in recent years came when Republicans led with their chins on social issues...
...Against Donald Trump, it would be his alleged hostility to nonwhites. Just like Republicans on terrorism, Democrats believe that if the election is about issues such as abortion and immigration, and their opponent’s far right positions on these issues, they can make the GOP nominee unelectable.

6. RUNNING MATES

We’ll hear a thousand times in the next year that the last vice presidential running mate who made a decisive difference was Lyndon Johnson in the squeaker election of 1960, carrying Texas and some other Southern states that John F. Kennedy might have lost on his own...
In 2016, the potential exists on one or both sides to nominate a VP candidate who enhances the ticket and maybe even helps carry one of the few real swing states. It’s pointless to list Republican possibilities because we do not yet know the identity of the GOP presidential nominee. Privately, Republican leaders mention a “dream ticket” of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who together might deliver 47 swing-state electoral votes. At this early juncture, it might be better termed the “pipe dream” ticket.

7. THE DWINDLING NUMBER OF SWING STATES

Abramowitz, our Crystal Ball colleague, often reminds us that we don’t really have national elections for president anymore.
In the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, 20 states were decided by less than five percentage points, including every one of the most populous states (such as California, Illinois, New York, and Texas). Fast forward to the 2012 contest between Obama and Romney. It was within five percentage points in a mere four states, and a blowout for one candidate or the other in a large majority of the states...
Sure, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee (or possibly a few others in the current lineup), the country might temporarily break out of its hardened Electoral College map. However, we’d bet that any Republican — even Trump — would fare far better than Barry Goldwater did in 1964. Our polarization is such that the GOP nominee will probably start around (at a minimum) John McCain’s 2008 percentage, 46%, not Goldwater’s 38%. (This assumes there are no 2016 third-party candidates that complicate the picture.)

Without a major independent ticket and assuming a close election, there’s a high probability that about 40 states can effectively be called by Labor Day. The campaigning will thus concentrate on the closest swing states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia...

8. SCANDAL

...On the whole, scandal is probably a greater danger during the primary season, because there are alternatives available to jittery partisans. In the general election, except for a massive, fundamental expose, the party candidates are protected by party and polarization. Bigger factors and issues are likely to drive the election outcome.

9. AMERICA’S CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS

It’s quite possible that the most important data point on Nov. 8, 2016, will be the nonwhite share of the electorate. This assertion is based on two observations: First, that exit polls have shown nonwhites to be an increasingly large portion of the electorate; and second, that nonwhites backed Barack Obama at a higher than 80% rate in 2008 and 2012.

The nonwhite share of the electorate is likely to continue growing, as shown in Chart 2. In 1976, exit polls found that nonwhites made up 11% of voters; in 2012, that figure was 28%. Except for a blip in 1992, this trend has been continuous.

Minority voters are a key component of the Democrats’ “Coalition of the Ascendant” — nonwhites, Millennials, and highly-educated whites — which many Democrats believe gives them a natural edge in the 2016 presidential contest. Some Republican strategists worry that the GOP’s struggles with nonwhites will make it hard for the Republican nominee to win in 2016 (and beyond). After all, Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote but lost nationally by about four percentage points. Still, can the Democratic nominee repeat Obama-levels of support among nonwhite voters? And if the GOP nominates Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, could it reap at least some benefit from having a more diverse ticket?...

The Crystal Ball has previously highlighted that a uniform shift of three points in the 2012 result would have handed Romney 305 electoral votes and victory. Correspondingly, David Wasserman recently pointed out that a three-point swing toward Republicans among five major demographic groups from 2012 — with the same turnout levels — would result in a GOP win in 2016. At this very early point, most election fundamentals point to a competitive environment in 2016, so it’s certainly feasible that this kind of shift could happen, especially without an incumbent on the ballot...

10. TURNOUT

Without Obama’s name on the ballot, it’s an open question whether Democrats will be able to be repeat what they accomplished in 2008 and 2012. According to the Census Bureau’s postmortem on 2012 turnout, African Americans turned out at a higher rate than non-Hispanic white voters for the first time in terms of reported turnout of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). As Obama was winning 95% (2008) and 93% (2012) of the black vote, based on the exit polls, the increased number of voters from this demographic group obviously buoyed his campaign. To some extent, overall turnout will probably remain relatively high in 2016, if the last few elections are any indication — going back to 2004, turnout has been above 60% of CVAP...

Sans Obama, turnout among parts of the Obama coalition, particularly African-American voters, could slide a bit. Considering that a three-point shift toward the GOP among major demographic groups would have resulted in a narrow Romney win in 2012 without lower turnout, reduced turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies would only boost Republican chances. If the Republican nominee makes some inroads with minority voters while holding the line or even improving support from white voters, the GOP will be positioned to win. In other words, we can say that demographics are not necessarily destiny; as always, those who show up will decide the election, and projections of change in the electorate do not always materialize along consistent lines.

See the article for the complete discussion and charts.

All these are good points. I would note a few others.
Firstly it is very rare (though obviously not unheard of) for the White House to stay with an incumbent party for more than 8 years. The normal pattern is for the non-incumbent party to pick up the White House from the lame-duck President. The last time a party kept the White House for more than 2 terms was 1988, when George HW Bush won the White House from outgoing Ronald Reagan. And he was a Vice President.
The previous time one party controlled the White House for more than 8 years was the 20 years of FDR and then Harry Truman's one term. And that was a 4T moving into 1-T. We have to go all the way back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the Republicans completely dominated politics from 1860 to 1884 by "waving the bloody shirt" and identifying the Democrats with slavery and the Confederacy to find a period when the White House incumbent party (the Republicans in this case) nominated a non-Vice President (Grant, then Hayes, then Garfield) and had them win the White House. So if the Democrats can elect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it will be the first time the Democrats have won the White House with a non-Vice President from an outgoing Democratic President since --James Buchanan? Those are long odds to beat.
Secondly, as galling as it is to admit the fact, Trump's attack on undocumented immigrants may actually depress the Latino vote. There has always been a fear factor involved in preventing the US citizen children of undocumented parents from registering and voting based on a fear that registration will make undocumented relatives a target for deportation. It is one of the key reasons why the percentage of Latinos who vote remains below other groups. While laws at the state level against undocumented workers can spark a backlash and an increase in voter registration, as it did in 1998 over Prop 187 in California, we need to remember that this was in an off election year with a Democratic incumbent, Bill Clinton, in the White House. In the current situation, there may be fear that a crackdown at the federal level will be targeted against the parents of registered Democrats who voted--and the public record make it harder for undocumented people to remain "under the radar". It may not be justified in fact, but I think that the fear is there. Especially when there is every prospect that if they do hunker down that Congress and/or the courts will block mass deportation.
Also, especially when it comes to African Americans, the vote remains suppressed by huge numbers of African-American males being disenfranchised by laws against convicted felons voting. And in Republican controlled states and localities, police crackdowns can quickly swell that number, especially since suspects once arrested can find themselves under extreme pressure to plead guilty, sometimes to felonies in order to avoid spending any more time behind bars (plea bargains in 90% of arraignments in many places). And without an African-American candidate on the ballot it may be difficult to generate the enthusiasm in the African-American community one saw in 2008 and 2012. Though that remains to be seen.
And Thirdly, while Millennials went strongly for Obama in 2008, in 2012, there was less enthusiasm for Obama amongst the youngest white Millennial (or were they Homeland?) voters.

A Reason to respect Hillary.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/saying_nice_things_about_hillary_clinton_has_becom e_a_subversive_act.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

Hillary Clinton absolutely cannot express negative emotion in public. If she speaks loudly or gets angry or cries, she risks being seen as bitchy, crazy, dangerous. (When she raised her voice during the 2013 Benghazi Senate committee hearings, the cover of the New York Post blared “NO WONDER BILL’S AFRAID.”) But if Hillary avoids emotions—if she speaks strictly in calm, logical, detached terms—then she is cold, robotic, calculating.

You’d think the solution might be to put on a happy face, to admit to emotions only when they are positive. But it turns out that people hate it when Hillary Clinton smiles or laughs in public. Hillary Clinton’s laugh gets played in attack ads; it has routinely been called “a cackle” (like a witch, right? Because she’s old, and female, like a witch); frozen stills of Hillary laughing are routinely used to make her look “crazy” in conservative media.

She can’t be sad or angry, she can’t be happy or amused, and she can’t refrain from expressing any of those emotions. There is no way out of this one. There is no right way for her to act.

That’s just one set of examples. There are plenty more. She’s not the right age(Republicans from Mitch McConnell to Rand Paul to Rick Santorum have poked fun at her perceived dotage). There are no right politics for her to have (she’s been accused of everything from “radical feminism” to having economic policy positions indistinguishable from those of right-wing Republicans). There is no right way for her to want to be president (because she is suspected of being both “pathologically ambitious”—unlike, say, anyone else who ever thought they should be leader of the free world—and the beneficiary of marital nepotism).

Originally Posted by TnT

A Reason to respect Hillary.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/12/saying_nice_things_about_hillary_clinton_has_becom e_a_subversive_act.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

Hillary Clinton absolutely cannot express negative emotion in public. If she speaks loudly or gets angry or cries, she risks being seen as bitchy, crazy, dangerous. (When she raised her voice during the 2013 Benghazi Senate committee hearings, the cover of the New York Post blared “NO WONDER BILL’S AFRAID.”) But if Hillary avoids emotions—if she speaks strictly in calm, logical, detached terms—then she is cold, robotic, calculating.

You’d think the solution might be to put on a happy face, to admit to emotions only when they are positive. But it turns out that people hate it when Hillary Clinton smiles or laughs in public. Hillary Clinton’s laugh gets played in attack ads; it has routinely been called “a cackle” (like a witch, right? Because she’s old, and female, like a witch); frozen stills of Hillary laughing are routinely used to make her look “crazy” in conservative media.

She can’t be sad or angry, she can’t be happy or amused, and she can’t refrain from expressing any of those emotions. There is no way out of this one. There is no right way for her to act.

That’s just one set of examples. There are plenty more. She’s not the right age(Republicans from Mitch McConnell to Rand Paul to Rick Santorum have poked fun at her perceived dotage). There are no right politics for her to have (she’s been accused of everything from “radical feminism” to having economic policy positions indistinguishable from those of right-wing Republicans). There is no right way for her to want to be president (because she is suspected of being both “pathologically ambitious”—unlike, say, anyone else who ever thought they should be leader of the free world—and the beneficiary of marital nepotism).

IIRC Angela Merkel has the same issues. It is a good example of the sexist double standards (which some people on this board insist don't exist) that target any women who dares go in a traditionally male-dominated area.

Originally Posted by Odin

IIRC Angela Merkel has the same issues. It is a good example of the sexist double standards (which some people on this board insist don't exist) that target any women who dares go in a traditionally male-dominated area.

Angela Merkel doesn't have near the perception problems Hillary Clinton has. She is mostly unpopular because her choices as Chancellor have been mostly inept when not stupid and her party is paying for it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been very much in the public eye, and a favorite GOP whipping-girl for over two decades. If the Dems select her as nominee they are doomed, never mind the fact that she would be the first Sec of State to be President since James Buchanan.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

All these are good points. I would note a few others.
Firstly it is very rare (though obviously not unheard of) for the White House to stay with an incumbent party for more than 8 years. The normal pattern is for the non-incumbent party to pick up the White House from the lame-duck President. The last time a party kept the White House for more than 2 terms was 1988, when George HW Bush won the White House from outgoing Ronald Reagan. And he was a Vice President.

The previous time one party controlled the White House for more than 8 years was the 20 years of FDR and then Harry Truman's one term. And that was a 4T moving into 1-T. We have to go all the way back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the Republicans completely dominated politics from 1860 to 1884 by "waving the bloody shirt" and identifying the Democrats with slavery and the Confederacy to find a period when the White House incumbent party (the Republicans in this case) nominated a non-Vice President (Grant, then Hayes, then Garfield) and had them win the White House. So if the Democrats can elect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it will be the first time the Democrats have won the White House with a non-Vice President from an outgoing Democratic President since --James Buchanan? Those are long odds to beat..........

The major factor this time is how out of the mainstream the Republicans have become, especially in key blue states with a lot of electoral votes. There is more motivation to vote in recent presidential elections because of the need to keep the Republicans out of power. It just needs to extend to other elections. The Republicans now are like the confederate Democrats after the civil war. They are consigning themselves to permanent minority status with their backward policies. Therefore, the normal patterns don't apply.

So although many of your points are good, I think it means a closer race than in 2008/2012, but not a Democratic defeat, necessarily. If we're going to make predictions on the basis of odds, then astrology is just as good a bet, or better.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Angela Merkel doesn't have near the perception problems Hillary Clinton has. She is mostly unpopular because her choices as Chancellor have been mostly inept when not stupid and her party is paying for it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been very much in the public eye, and a favorite GOP whipping-girl for over two decades. If the Dems select her as nominee they are doomed, never mind the fact that she would be the first Sec of State to be President since James Buchanan.

Listen, I don't like Clinton, but saying she is guaranteed to lose is complete bullshit. Remember the Big Blue Wall, the Dem candidate have to win at most 2 swing states to win, while the GOP candidate has to win essentially every swing state to win.