Originally Posted by Odin

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.

Oh I've not forgotten that. However, Hillary Clinton (not to be confused with Bill) is unpopular on the left as well as on the right. Her candidacy would likely suppress the turnout for those constituencies that typically vote democratically, while at the same time rouse those that vote for the GOP to the polls. You know, to prevent "That Woman" from becoming President.

It would be much the same as how Palin (and her being completely oblivious) likely cost McCain the presidency.

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.

[/quote]

True. His 'Crystal Ball' is nothing more than a prop of stage magic.

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.

Republicans will likely reunify quickly after the Convention. Whether they will get any support other than from partisan Republicans is another question. The core vote for any political party was around 37% (as shown in 1936, 1964, and 1972). As others have suggested on these Forums that may be up to about 45% for both Parties, which means that only about 10% of the electorate really matters.

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.

Let's put a 47% approval rating in perspective. First, if I see an incumbent Governor or Senator with such an approval rating at 47% approval ten months before the general election I see someone who must campaign actively to get re-elected -- but someone who will likely win. The core support is still there, and the incumbent of course showed that he could campaign in the last election. Add 5% to 7% to the approval rating in which the i9ncumbent expresses his legitimate achievements and makes promises to achieve what he still seeks to achieve, and he wins re-election to the Senate or to the Governorship. Why the Senate or the Governorship? Because that is the last office that a prospective President has held or now holds while running for the Presidency.

I see the steadiness of support for President Obama in nationwide polling in contrast to that for his awful predecessor, whose approval ratings have gone between the stratosphere and the septic tank. 47% approval after seven years, when voter fatigue should have set in? 47% is very, very good. Were he running for re-election he would be in a good position to win. Democrats do not need to run from him in 2016, which takes away one prospect of a sure loss.

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).

The closer that one gets to early November 2016 without a recession, the more certain it will be that the economy will not hurt Democrats. The dot.com recession hit just in time for Al Gore to lose to a Presidential nominee who promised a pro-business, profits-first Presidency. Yes, we got a shyster economy -- which may be exactly what one must expect late in a 3T.

There is no speculative boom to go bust. The economy is showing broader improvement in all sectors. Except for backing the banks in 2009 (as was necessary for staving off a concatenation of economic disasters that would have ripped the American economy like a falcon's talon in a hare) President Obama has had no favored industries as did his predecessor.

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.

President Obama can name terrorist after terrorist that the US Armed Forces has sent to where there are seventy-two virgin... hyenas to devour the terrorist. I can almost think of an ad campaign in which some loudmouth proclaims that President Obama is soft on terrorism, and image after image of terrorists appears with the word "DEAD" with a red rubber-stamp image. Then "2009-2017: it's not been a good time to be a terrorist".

Any military successes against the Infernal State help any Democrat by reducing the fear that will be the center of a Republican smear against either Clinton or Sanders.

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.

"Gay marriage" is now a dead issue. Thank God! Abortion? It won't work. Immigration? If President Obama can convince us that giving refuge to refugees from the Infernal State is good military policy, then that ensures that the President is more a help than a hindrance on foreign policy.

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.

The VP does not mean that much. Biden was chosen for having no assets other than savings from his Senate salary. Ryan lost Wisconsin, allegedly a swing state. Palin won Alaska, which had no relevance. The three electoral votes of Wyoming did not matter in 2000 or 2004. Edwards had no chance of winning North Carolina. Connecticut was not in play in 2000. Clinton and Gore were from neighboring states. Jack Kemp was not going to win New York State. Lloyd Bentsen, well respected in Texas, was less important than that the Republican candidate for President was running from Texas.

Can the VP sabotage the campaign? Sure. Ryan had a House seat to defend. Palin sounded more like the 'Lena Lamont' character in Singin' In the Rain (the silent film star who could mime well but otherwise could not act, had an awful voice, couldn't get along with others, and proved uncoachable) than like someone with innovative solutions. Lieberman was not a good choice -- but Gore may have picked the wrong VP candidate. (Carl Levin, D-MI, would have been an effective campaigner in at least one of Florida, New Hampshire, or Ohio).

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...

And that is a very bad thing. Blacks in any Southern states other than the fringe-South states of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia do not matter in national politics. Hispanics in Texas and Arizona do not matter. Rural voters in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin will not make a difference. Neither of the four states with the largest proportions of First Peoples (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) is likely to deliver a surprise.

Colorado and Nevada will likely vote together even if they seem so different... but Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia are different enough that no Republican appeal is likely to win them all except by tearing into the Blue Wall in the wake of a failed Obama administration.

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.

President Obama has run the most squeaky-clean administration that anyone under 60 can now know.That will not help any Republican.

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...

The Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012 looked very competitive and by early autumn looked practically hopeless for the Republican. But go back to 2000 and we see 2000 as the closest Presidential election ever, 2004 as one that could have easily swung, 2008 as a near-landslide in the wake of the biggest Presidential failure since Carter in 1980, and 2012 as one that fit the mean in electoral votes for the winner.

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.

That is the big IF. This said, the Obama machine has been turned over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Democratic Party. Democrats are going to try to imitate what worked for Obama, which is a very good model.

Barack Obama is the most polarizing of Presidential nominees ever -- probably because his ethnicity evokes fear in millions of white people, particularly in the Mountain and Deep South. Of course it would not take much of a shift of the white vote in the South to turn the 2016 Presidential election into an electoral blowout in favor of the Democrat. An attempt to force such is a political gamble. But if it happens anyway, the Democratic nominee for President is going to get about 400 electoral votes.

2016 will be an open-seat election, and an open-seat election brings out more voters.

If Sanders loses the nomination, it will likely result in a plus for Hillary Clinton, because Sanders will have aroused lots of people to register and participate in his "revolution," and many of them will be available to Hillary, whom Sanders will work and campaign for.

If I were a registered Democrat, I would vote for Sanders. Kinser said he will too. So, we are for the same candidate. Imagine that! Strange bedfellows.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Sanders loses the nomination, it will likely result in a plus for Hillary Clinton, because Sanders will have aroused lots of people to register and participate in his "revolution," and many of them will be available to Hillary, whom Sanders will work and campaign for.

That only works if those who were so involved with Sanders are willing to hold their noses and vote for a Democrat that acts like a Republican. And one that isn't very popular outside of Silent and Boomer White Women at that.

If I were a registered Democrat, I would vote for Sanders. Kinser said he will too. So, we are for the same candidate. Imagine that! Strange bedfellows.

Not that strange at all. Sanders is the only person running at present other than Rand Paul who offers a vision that is something other than the standard positions of the Parties in question that isn't utterly ridiculous. I honestly don't see Trump as being the nominee, he energizes the GOP but he simply is not terribly presidential.

If it helps though Eric, were I registered as a Republican I would likely vote for Rand Paul.

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.

If I had to rank these 10 factors as of this moment in the election cycle, I would place Foreign Policy and Terrorism first, the State of the Economy second, and Social Issues as a close third. Terrorism in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks is now the top concern:

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., have vaulted terrorism and national security to become the American public's top concern, and they've helped drive President Barack Obama's job rating to 43 percent — its lowest level in more than a year, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll...

"For most of 2015, the country's mood, and thus the presidential election, was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery," says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. "Now that has abruptly changed to fear."

That kind focus on security and terrorism "is a very different campaign than the one we thought we'd be running," McInturff adds, referring to the 2016 presidential race.

But Democratic pollster Peter Hart cautions that this focus could be temporary, especially if there isn't another terrorist attack. "Let's wait and see the half-life of this after the next three months."

In the poll, 40 percent of Americans say that national security and terrorism is the top priority for the federal government -- up 19 points from when this question was last asked in April.

As for the US economy, it is pretty much "steady as she goes." The Fed finally came through with its first rate hike, but it typically takes a series of hikes to invert the yield curve and usher in a recession. This from MarketWatch last week:

...2015 did see steady if unspectacular progress — and that’s really the new normal. The U.S. is growing a modest 2.2% and the economy has added more than 200,000 new jobs a month, driving the unemployment rate down to a post-recession low of 5%. As the pool of unemployed shrinks, some companies are even facing more pressure to boost pay and hourly wages are rising at the fastest pace since the recovery began.

Social issues as a key determining factor have largely depended on down-ballot propositions (especially in swing states) in recent presidential elections. (Think of Ohio's vote to ban gay marriage in the 2004 election.) Same-sex marriage is now a moot issue, thanks to the Supreme Court. But what if a 2016 candidate, presumably a Republican candidate, successfully links illegal immigration to the renewed fear of terrorist attacks on the Homeland in voters' minds? A candidate like Trump or Cruz could succeed in lumping together the factors of Foreign Policy/Terrorism and Social Issues, tilting the field in favor of the GOP. That would be more likely if radical jihadists pulled off another attack similar in scale to that of San Bernardino.

The Candidates I would rank fourth as a factor because their relative appeal to voters will largely depend on how well their rhetoric--and record--matches up to the top concerns (Foreign Policy/Terrorism, Social Issues and State of the Economy) on the public's mind as the election approaches. The only time in recent memory that I would rank Candidates at the top of the list was the 2000 election. Since terrorism and the economy were not really foremost on the voters' minds heading into that election, it really came down to the comparative personalities of George W. Bush and Al Gore. (Who would you rather have a beer with?) Now if--and this is a very big if--the US economy entered a recession in the first half of 2016 and another high profile terrorist attack occurred on American soil, then the sheer force of Trump's personality may make him The Candidate in the 2016 election. After all, he's made some bold claims about his ability to create jobs, build walls, and "bomb the shit out of ISIS." I doubt that the economy will accommodate him, though. (His prediction that the "bubble is about to burst," that is.)

I'd place Turnout ahead of America's Changing Demographics because it is a far less predictable factor. Turnout depends on too many variables, and statisticians can fairly estimate the relative size/proportion of the different demographic groups of voting age in America.

I would rank Running Mates as the 7th most influential factor, and the President's Job Approval in the 8th slot. The former could become more important if the GOP ticket is Rubio/Kasich because of their potential to flip Florida and Ohio to the Republican column.

The Dwindling Number of Swing States I would place next to last because that well-documented trend will probably hold again. In fact, I'm not sure why a presidential nominee would campaign anywhere else but battleground states. (Kidding!)

I would rank Scandal at the bottom of the list. Obama has successfully avoided the "curse of the second-term scandal," suffered by Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Sanders loses the nomination, it will likely result in a plus for Hillary Clinton, because Sanders will have aroused lots of people to register and participate in his "revolution," and many of them will be available to Hillary, whom Sanders will work and campaign for.

If I were a registered Democrat, I would vote for Sanders. Kinser said he will too. So, we are for the same candidate. Imagine that! Strange bedfellows.

Bernie had to promise to support the Dem nominee, if it wasn't him, in order to be able to run as a Dem. That doesn't mean his supporters will support a Dem nominee other than Bernie, esp the way the DNC has been treating him. This a a 4T, ppl aren't gonna hold their noses & vote. If Bernie gets screwed over next year, 2016 just may be the yr the Greens finally get 10% of the vote

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bernie had to promise to support the Dem nominee, if it wasn't him, in order to be able to run as a Dem. That doesn't mean his supporters will support a Dem nominee other than Bernie, esp the way the DNC has been treating him. This a a 4T, ppl aren't gonna hold their noses & vote. If Bernie gets screwed over next year, 2016 just may be the yr the Greens finally get 10% of the vote

I couldn't agree more. I can't even hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not into voting for the "lesser-of-two-evils," and in Arizona--where I live--a vote cast for a Democrat would be meaningless anyway, thanks to the anachronistic Electoral College. Put me down for the Green Party again if my only choice is between two establishment candidates!

Poor Hillary; she won't get too many votes in this precinct.

She probably won't get mine either. It is good to vote for someone who really represents you, not the evil of two lessers.

But how bad is she, really?

I've been pointing out, maybe not that bad. She needs a break.

She's wealthy. She gets corporate contributions and makes investments. So do most candidates; that's the way the game is played. No doubt Bernie is doing it better. Like Bernie she supports campaign finance reform and overturning Citizens United (which was directed against her, after all). Her voting record was almost as liberal as Bernie's (if you like that). As she said, corporate influence on her policies and votes are hard to prove.

Was she a "New Democrat" who favors the more corporate-friendly policies of her husband that contributed to the 2008 crash? Neither Bill or Hillary are that way now. They want regulation. Bernie is better, no doubt; pushing for return of Glass-Steagall.

Scandals? Way overblown. The personal email, what's the big deal? The Foundation? Nothing there except charges and assumptions. Benghazi? The committee that was out to get her could find nothing despite years of wasted effort and money.

A war monger? If anything her recent policy suggestions are much better thought-out than Bernie's. As Secretary of State, she didn't promote any wars or cover up for them, the way some others have done. Yes, her vote on Iraq was wrong, and she admits it. Would she have started that war the way Dubya did? Not a chance.

You just don't like her? Get over it.

The self-centered not-voting-the-lesser-evil whine is still a thing???

Holy stuff, batman, you'd think if 8 years of W Bush, Iraq invasion, and the biggest economic contraction since 1928 wouldn't have cured even the most no-lesser-evil 'thinker,' then the current GOP clown car making Bush seem a rational moderate would have done the trick.

The GOP is death to everything good or possible good about our country. If you're that much into yourself, we don't need or want your horsey-poo.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bernie had to promise to support the Dem nominee, if it wasn't him, in order to be able to run as a Dem. That doesn't mean his supporters will support a Dem nominee other than Bernie, esp the way the DNC has been treating him. This a a 4T, ppl aren't gonna hold their noses & vote. If Bernie gets screwed over next year, 2016 just may be the yr the Greens finally get 10% of the vote

Not likely. The Greens aren't on the Ballot in most states. They would have to carry large majorities in FL, CA and NY to get that 10% figure when they aren't even on the ballot in places like TX or even IL.

Sanders not getting the nomination, and the way the DNC has treated him thus far would likely suppress votes for the Democratic candidate. As I said Hillary is only really popular with Silent and Boomer white women, outside of that demographic even the most liberal of people don't trust her as far as they could throw her.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This idiotic/self-centered not-voting-the-lesser-evil whine is still a thing???

Holy shet, batman, you'd think if 8 years of W Bush, Iraq invasion, and the biggest economic contraction since 1928 wouldn't have cured even the most moronic narcissist, then the current GOP clown car making Bush seem a rational moderate would have done the trick.

The GOP is death to everything good or possible good about our cointry. If you're too much a self-serving moron to stop them in any way possible, go f yourself - we don't need or want your adolescent horseshit.

Playdude, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for someone exactly like Jeb Bush, except with a vagina. I'm sorry but given the choice between Jeb Bush and someone exactly like Jeb Bush but wearing a Donkey instead of an Elephant, I'll take Jeb Bush. The Truman Rule strikes again.

Private sector job growth has been significantly better under Obama than it was under Bush for a long, long time now. While Republicans love to talk about Obama’s “jobs-killing” policies and programs, those policies have actually fostered much better employment growth than what Obama’s Republican predecessor was able to achieve.



Perhaps that is something to keep in mind as the 2016 elections approach. The GOP contenders will no doubt continue to boast about their intellectually-bankrupt plans to end Obama’s “jobs-killing” policies, but the numbers are telling a different story about those policies. The conventional wisdom needs to be updated. For private sector job creation, maintaining Obama’s policies by electing another Democrat is probably the smartest thing Americans can do.

http://www.greenvillegazette.com/fb/...-up-the-gop-5/

Originally Posted by playwrite

This idiotic/self-centered not-voting-the-lesser-evil whine is still a thing???

Holy shet, batman, you'd think if 8 years of W Bush, Iraq invasion, and the biggest economic contraction since 1928 wouldn't have cured even the most moronic narcissist, then the current GOP clown car making Bush seem a rational moderate would have done the trick.

The GOP is death to everything good or possible good about our country. If you're too much a self-serving moron to stop them in any way possible, go f yourself - we don't need or want your adolescent horseshit.

There's lots of reason to doubt Hillary, and I can understand their reluctance. But people do best to vote strategically. The election nowadays is decided by a few swing states. If you don't live in one, you can vote for someone who matches your ideals and values if you wish, to promote and send a message that the Democrats are not adequate, and to pressure them. If you live in a swing state, it's better IMO to vote Democratic. We don't want an even worse Republican choosing our supreme court, entrusted with our war powers, or sabotaging our economy for everyone except maybe the wealthy folks who pay the campaign costs. Let alone allowing our planet to be plundered and heated beyond repair.

Of course we know Kinser qualifies for your description. He says he'll vote for the clown car over Hillary.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

I couldn't agree more. I can't even hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm not into voting for the "lesser-of-two-evils," and in Arizona--where I live--a vote cast for a Democrat would be meaningless anyway, thanks to the anachronistic Electoral College. Put me down for the Green Party again if my only choice is between two establishment candidates!

It's been said before, but vote anyway. Not voting is like letting the other party win. If you don't vote for the Democrats (if that's what you'd like), then the Republicans would win by an even bigger margin than they already do. Who knows, maybe the Democrats could win Arizona?

Also, voting for a third-party candidate is also like letting the other party win. The Spoiler Effect shows that the more votes a third party gets (say, the Green Party), the fewer votes for the closest-matched party (Democrats). That would give the Republicans an easy victory. Here is a good video on the topic:



IMO I think the Electoral College should be abolished for the same reason. It basically takes the first-past-the-post system and amplifies it so that each state gets its own winner-takes-all election, rather than the whole country, leaving left-leaning Arizonans in your situation. I'd rather use a popular vote system, so at least the whole nation can feel represented.

Also, this is the first election I can actually vote in (more Millies!) so this will definitely matter for me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's lots of reason to doubt Hillary,

We can start with the fact that she is at best Republican light. All the trickle down, none of the xenophobia or overt racism.

and I can understand their reluctance.

It is hardly reluctance to know that Hillary offers more of the same that we've had from the Boomers. It is understanding who she is, and what she is. Her record works against her, unlike say Sanders.

But people do best to vote strategically. The election nowadays is decided by a few swing states. If you don't live in one, you can vote for someone who matches your ideals and values if you wish, to promote and send a message that the Democrats are not adequate,

Except for one problem. If you don't live in a Swing State, say if you live in the United States of Canada or Jesus-stan neither party cares if you vote for the Greens, or the Libertairans or even the Communists (assuming any of them are even on the ballot). Doing that means you're just wasting your vote because you know the person you're voting for isn't going to win, and you know that the person who does doesn't care what you think.

and to pressure them.

Outside of swing states you can exert no pressure on the Presidential candidates at all due to the Electorial Collage. Which quite honestly should have been done away with about 80 years ago.

If you live in a swing state, it's better IMO to vote Democratic.

Only if the Democrats are actually running a Democratic Democrat. Or have you forgotten all your DINO arguments already Eric?

We don't want an even worse Republican choosing our supreme court, entrusted with our war powers, or sabotaging our economy for everyone except maybe the wealthy folks who pay the campaign costs.

I can say all of that about Hillary Clinton. She is an elephant pretending to be a Donkey. Shit...she used to be a Goldwater Girl!

Let alone allowing our planet to be plundered and heated beyond repair.

Too late for that. I don't know what you're weather has been like but down here it has been about the same temperatures and humidity as late September which is when Ultra-Summer kicks into high gear. I expect a bad hurricane season next year due to that.

Of course we know Kinser qualifies for your description. He says he'll vote for the clown car over Hillary.

Of course. Like I said, I'd prefer a Republican any day over a Democrat that acts like a Republican. At least with the Republican I know what I'm getting. Hopefully HE (and you know it will be a He, and probably a white He at that) will make things bad enough that we can kick off the regeneracy.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Playdude, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for someone exactly like Jeb Bush, except with a vagina. I'm sorry but given the choice between Jeb Bush and someone exactly like Jeb Bush but wearing a Donkey instead of an Elephant, I'll take Jeb Bush. The Truman Rule strikes again.

A Democratic president (who it is doesn't matter) will have Democratic advisors, Democratic constituents and will work with Democratic legislators. A Republican will have Republican versions of the same. This does matter.

A successful president (that is one that can get re-elected) will choose problems to work on from a menu of options provided by his constituency. If its not on the menu, it does not get chosen. A problem that is not on the menu cannot be addressed.

Once a problem is selected, a remedy can be selected from a menu provided by the advisors. If an actual solution is not on the policy menu, it cannot be employed, no matter who the president is.

One the problem and potential remedies have been selected whether or not it is feasible to do anything depends on what the legislators believe.

I am expecting a recession will begin in the next two years that will be accompanies by a >10000 point drop in the Dow. Such an event has about a 50% probability of being accompanied by a panic, initiating what will look like an economic collapse (like it did in 2008).

A president of either party will see economic collapse as a problem. However the options available will be different. The republican president will have the same options available to him as Hoover had. Unlike Hoover, he will have a Fed that will be flooding the system with money so there will be no deflation and so the outcome will be a milder version of the Great Depression. He will have the option of going to war, which he will certainly do. But the war will be a Republican style war, that is limited and non-stimulatory (like the Iraq war). It's won't really boost the economy anymore than the Iraq war did. So we will still get a more serious recession than post-2008, but less serious than the Depression.

A Democratic president will have options that will work. In principle, she can just do what FDR did in the 1940's. That is, broad stimulus deliberately applied in a way to reduce economic inequality (a problem that exists only on the Democratic menu). She can do this, and win re-election seats for her party, eventually sending the GOP packing. Or she can fail to do this and fail to win re-election, and see her party destroyed from the rest of her days, and go down as the worst president in history.

So there is a difference.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Playdude, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for someone exactly like Jeb Bush, except with a vagina. I'm sorry but given the choice between Jeb Bush and someone exactly like Jeb Bush but wearing a Donkey instead of an Elephant, I'll take Jeb Bush. The Truman Rule strikes again.

You'd like to spread this false equivalency meme as much as I'd like to spread the possibility of the GOP spliting. The difference is mine is a possible reality while yours is horsey-poo.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

A successful president (that is one that can get re-elected) will choose problems to work on from a menu of options provided by his constituency. If its not on the menu, it does not get chosen. A problem that is not on the menu cannot be addressed.

If by constituency you mean democrats, I have to wonder which democrats put an increase in drone strikes on the menu. It seems to me that Obama did that on his own, along with a lot of other things that pissed off the left.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

We can start with the fact that she is at best Republican light. All the trickle down, ...

This could only come from someone either ignorant or a Faux News bot who believes lying is just peachy.

"Trickle down" specifically refers to tax policy. Trump'so tax proposal gives every top 0.1%er at least $1.5M at the expense of an additional $10T in deficits over the next 10 years - what do you think will get cut to pay for that?
Clinton's proposal provides a variety of middle class tax credits paid for BY INCREASING taxes on the top 10%.

Either stop lying or educate yourself, otherwise you just come across as another of the GOP sheeple.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

If by constituency you mean democrats, I have to wonder which democrats put an increase in drone strikes on the menu. It seems to me that Obama did that on his own, along with a lot of other things that pissed off the left.

Drone strikes were on the menu for both parties. The menus do have a fair amount of overlap. Also the left is a minority of the party and has been mostly ignored for the past 30 years.

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.

I have to agree on all counts. Hillary is a bad fit that seems inevitable, and the GOP alternative is certain to be even worse.

Before he actually had to do the job, James Buchannan seemed to be a nearly perfect President. So does Hillary.

Originally Posted by Odin

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.

Hillary can win and still doom the Democrats. Do you actually think that she will get more support from the GOP than BHO? It will take a huge wave election to swing the Congress to the left. Otherwise, the House alone can stymy everything.

Maybe Trump as a 3rd party candidate might move things along. Maybe ... but only maybe.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This idiotic/self-centered not-voting-the-lesser-evil whine is still a thing???

Holy shet, batman, you'd think if 8 years of W Bush, Iraq invasion, and the biggest economic contraction since 1928 wouldn't have cured even the most moronic narcissist, then the current GOP clown car making Bush seem a rational moderate would have done the trick.

The GOP is death to everything good or possible good about our cointry. If you're too much a self-serving moron to stop them in any way possible, go f yourself - we don't need or want your adolescent horseshit.

Win now and lose in 2020. Four in a row is highly unlikely, and Hillary will have cashed all her chips long before then.

I may stay home this time. I can't vote for any of the GOPpers, and Hillary makes my skin crawl.

Originally Posted by millst98

It's been said before, but vote anyway. Not voting is like letting the other party win. If you don't vote for the Democrats (if that's what you'd like), then the Republicans would win by an even bigger margin than they already do. Who knows, maybe the Democrats could win Arizona?

Also, voting for a third-party candidate is also like letting the other party win. The Spoiler Effect shows that the more votes a third party gets (say, the Green Party), the fewer votes for the closest-matched party (Democrats). That would give the Republicans an easy victory. Here is a good video on the topic:

It's true, but with two provisos. First, if you genuinely can't vote for either party, and would not even turn out if you can't, you should have an alternative. Those who come out to vote for the alternative party, can also vote in other elections. Candidates deemed worthy by a 3rd party voter, will get more votes.

Second, these days under the electoral college, you can vote strategically. Only a few states decide the election. Polls are fairly accurate, and if they show the race is out of reach for one of the two major candidates, then you can vote for a 3rd party, and it has no spoiler effect on the election, except to make your voice heard by voting for the 3rd party. I understand though that for many people these days, it's a lot of trouble to get people to know what's going on, even to that extent.

IMO I think the Electoral College should be abolished for the same reason. It basically takes the first-past-the-post system and amplifies it so that each state gets its own winner-takes-all election, rather than the whole country, leaving left-leaning Arizonans in your situation. I'd rather use a popular vote system, so at least the whole nation can feel represented.

Probably a good idea. That way a candidate has to go to every state, and every state has an influence.

On the other hand though, the electoral college system, even winner take all, gives each state more power to choose the president, and magnifies its importance. Your own vote means more, therefore, because you can make a difference in a much smaller electorate. These days, only about 10 states at most decide the election, so if you're in one of those states, your vote means even more. You can join the campaign too by getting out the vote in those states. If you were in Florida in 2000, it came down to 537 official votes.

By contrast, if we go to a popular vote for the president, your vote is less likely to decide the outcome. It still could be important, though, but only if the election is very close. Even in the closest such election, it would be something like a 100,000 vote difference, as in JFK vs. Nixon in 1960.

Of course, in either system, you magnify your influence by campaigning and getting out the vote, instead of just voting. But this makes more of a difference in the electoral college system.

What we ought to do, is go to a parliamentary system. All other democracies are more up to date than ours in the USA, since ours was the first, and we've stuck to its original form. But since ours came along in 1787, all others have adopted some variety of the British system. People feel it is more democratic, and gives representation to more people and more parties. It works, despite the claims that it doesn't; that's why all other democracies adopt it. That's why we the USA even set it up that way in Iraq, after we the USA conquered Iraq and deposed their dictator.

Our two party system or "duopoly" in the USA does not represent the people, and Americans are dissatisfied with their choices. More people today are independents than members of either party. A coalition government would have to satisfy more than just the interests of one party. There would be no spoiler effect in that system.

Another answer touted by the Green Party and others, is instant runoffs. This also reduces the spoiler effect a great deal. You can indicate your second or even your third choice, and the votes are figured so that if your first choice loses, your second choice counts. Some localities have adopted this system.