Originally Posted by the bouncer

the gop has nominated a real howler of a candidate this time.

And yet, the primaries rightfully rejected the other alternatives as worse. Selecting Palin as VP last time around could be blamed on not doing due diligence, but the Republicans selected Romney fair and square.

The Republican world view still seems quite strong enough in various localities to deadlock congress, but they seem to be struggling to find a figurehead.

Who might they have run that could do better?

Originally Posted by B Butler

And yet, the primaries rightfully rejected the other alternatives as worse. Selecting Palin as VP last time around could be blamed on not doing due diligence, but the Republicans selected Romney fair and square.

The Republican world view still seems quite strong enough in various localities to deadlock congress, but they seem to be struggling to find a figurehead.

Who might they have run that could do better?

There was a massive conflict between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party movement in the primaries. The establishment decided from the get-go that Romney would be the candidate, and they quite literally rammed him down the throats of the party's base, sequentially destroying each of his opponents. The base has now fallen in line behind Romney. But if he loses, there will be a blood-letting. The Republican elite will either be completely replaced by conservatives, or there will be a third party.

A lot of left-wingers love to salivate over the idea of the Republicans disappearing, but if it happens it won't be for the reasons they want it to be. It will be because the country is more conservative than its "ruling elite", and there is no conservative party to represent it.

But that's for another day. If Romney wins and the Republicans take over the Senate, the GOP establishment will continue to survive by its fingernails.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not prepared to say yet that all of the polls are wrong, and/or being manipulated. But the main point of the above article is extremely valid. None of these polls show Obama winning among Independents. Obama's lead is due entirely to a projected massive Democrat turnout. Not just a repeat of 2008, but in excess of 2008.

Did the DNC really fire up the Democrat base so much that they will outdo 2008? That's what the polls seem to be showing. I don't see much evidence of it, even on this forum. But who knows.

And 2008 wasn't just a result of massive Democrat turnout. It was also a result of a lot of Republicans staying home.

This article suggest the same thing:

PRO-OBAMA POLLS RELY ON RECORD DEM TURNOUT

What I think can be said is that if Romney wins, we will be told that he miraculously turned it around at the last minute, and that will be a lie.

I don't think the data mean what you think they mean.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

EDIT: As for the "47% video", it's meaningless.

Yeah, keep on believing that.

I will add that the fact that pros. like Karl Rove are moving away from the TV air war towards an evangelical ground game should tell you something.
Correlation may not equal causation but they didn't start doing this until after the 47 per cent remark came out.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yeah, keep on believing that.

I will add that the fact that pros. like Karl Rove are moving away from the TV air war towards an evangelical ground game should tell you something.
Correlation may not equal causation but they didn't start doing this until after the 47 per cent remark came out.

If you remove Democrats from the equation, this is what you get:

More likely: 29.5%
Less likely: 16.5%
No difference: 52.0%

Now, maybe Romney lost a bunch of Democrats who were going to vote for him. But somehow I doubt it.

Put another way: if 68% of Independents say either it makes no difference, or that it will make them more likely to vote for him...it's not hurting him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There was a massive conflict between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party movement in the primaries. The establishment decided from the get-go that Romney would be the candidate, and they quite literally rammed him down the throats of the party's base, sequentially destroying each of his opponents. The base has now fallen in line behind Romney. But if he loses, there will be a blood-letting. The Republican elite will either be completely replaced by conservatives, or there will be a third party.

A lot of left-wingers love to salivate over the idea of the Republicans disappearing, but if it happens it won't be for the reasons they want it to be. It will be because the country is more conservative than its "ruling elite", and there is no conservative party to represent it.

But that's for another day. If Romney wins and the Republicans take over the Senate, the GOP establishment will continue to survive by its fingernails.

The conservative base of the GOP is not representative of the ovrall American electorate. If it was, the election would already be over and the GOP selection would be the President in waiting, but that's not the case. If the GOP implodes after this loss, and it may, it will emerge in 2016 as a rump party. What happens then is problematic, but the GOP as a stalwart RW institution will be history after the defeat they'll suffer.

FWIW, there will be a RW party and a conservative party, but neither will be dominant ... not for a long while.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you remove Democrats from the equation, this is what you get:

More likely: 29.5%
Less likely: 16.5%
No difference: 52.0%

Now, maybe Romney lost a bunch of Democrats who were going to vote for him. But somehow I doubt it.

Put another way: if 68% of Independents say either it makes no difference, or that it will make them more likely to vote for him...it's not hurting him.

The Indy breakout is right there in front of your eyes; you don't need to take out the Dems and add together the Repubs and Indys and tell us that is the Indys or whatever the heck you did.

The split is 15 more likely and 29 less likely. That nets out that 14% of Indys are less likely to vote for Romney, that alone could explain the precipitous drop in Romney's support.

Your trying to make this rocket science is just another indicator of your growing desperation. That actually is a good sign - I realize the appeal of magic pony land, but living in reality does have its rewards; like being a whole heck of a lot less confused about what is going on around you.

Hey, you all still have Rasmussen - but, he does become more reality-base around mid-Oct. I think he's saving his last hurrah with magic pony land to try to spin the first debate; so expect his numbers to make a dramatic shift around the 10th or so. He'll need some credibility to stay in the business for the next time out.

People (read: Boomers) who view politics as an occasion for "smack talk", are at the core of all of our problems. They're stuck in high school, trying to beat the rival football team. It's pathetic, and it's the reason why the country is disintegrating.

an obviously winning campaign doesn't spend time arguing about pollsters' internals or trying to come up with different averages (either leaving select pollsters out or some new math).

Here's an example of what a confident campaign starts to do -

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...-nerves?page=2

Obama campaign has momentum _ and nerves

Signaling confidence, Obama's team is considering competing in Arizona.

Obama looked at competing in Arizona in 2008, but decided against it because of the support there for home state Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee. Obama still won 45 percent of the vote.

This year, Obama's team talked early on about running in Arizona, which offers 11 electoral votes, but it never did. Now, with an internal Democratic poll showing Obama narrowly leading Romney, Obama's team might make a play for the state that has seen a 160,000 increase in voter registrations by Democratic-leaning Hispanics over the past four years.

Buying television time in Phoenix, the state's largest city, is expensive and Obama advisers are closely watching their finances.

That's not to say that competing in Arizona would be all about winning: going up on the air in the state — or sending the president in to campaign there, could force Romney to spend valuable resources defending a state he should be able to count on in the quest to reach 270 Electoral College votes needed for victory.

Team Obama probable now doesn't need the extra 11 electoral votes, but picking up that AZ Senate seat would be really sweet!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

People (read: Boomers) who view politics as an occasion for "smack talk", are at the core of all of our problems. They're stuck in high school, trying to beat the rival football team. It's pathetic, and it's the reason why the country is disintegrating.

Getting all high and mighty isn't going to help either; it's just another sign -

First comes denial, then anger, then...

I'm pretty sure we'll soon be getting the "I'm leaving the country to go where there's still freedom fries!" I think we get that on the morning of Nov. 7.

My bleeding heart wants to feel sorrow for you all, but then I remind myself what you have come to stand for, and I break out with gleeful laughter. High 5s all around!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

My best assessment right now is that the polling is modeled on an electorate that looks like 2008, and the changes that we see are based on small changes in enthusiasm between Republicans and Democrats. These are the assumptions of the media and the elite in general manifesting themselves in polling methodology. The fact that it has been as close as it has is a result of increased Republican enthusiasm applied to a 2008 model.

No, this is even worse for Republicans than in 2008. Barack Obama never had anything like a 10% lead in Ohio and didn't end up close to a 10% lead.
The most recent polls for Ohio look more like the addition of the Carter-Clinton-but not Obama Democrats with the 2008 electorate or perhaps an inverse of the result of 1988.

While it is true that many Republicans were not enthusiastic about Romney in the primaries, there are plenty of indicators that show they are in a much better position than they were in 2008. Republican registration in swing states is up. They have an advantage in registration many of those states. From 2008 until today, the growth in people identifying themselves as independents has come almost entirely from people leaving the Democrats. The number of people identifying themselves as conservatives has risen to over 40%, making them a plurality, which had previously been held by "moderates".

There were times at which that seemed to be so. Just not now. If you were willing to use the polls as indications that Barack Obama was in trouble at point, then you must accept that the same polls indicate that this election is spiraling away from Mitt Romney. No pollster admits to changing methods except to go to a likely-voters model more sympathetic to Republicans. You can't have it both ways, JPT, accepting the polls at face value when they favor your view of the election and claiming that they have become unrealistic when they show President Obama way ahead. Polls do not exist to confirm our view of the world -- not mine, and not yours.

They say you can't beat something with nothing. But this election may be a question of who can beat nothing with nothing. Considering that the (D) nothing has been a disaster, the (R) nothing has an advantage. If Romney can succeed in the debates at providing some substance, meaning a clear critique of Obama and a vision for the future, likability may not be decisive.

Mitt Romney has to get a huge gain in the debates -- enough to reverse his calamitous statements in the last couple of weeks. A clear critique of the President? Mitt Romney is as muddled as they get. He will not be able to reassert himself as an astute politician because he has never seemed one at any point this year.

All I know is that what we're seeing right now doesn't make any sense. Considering everything above and the state the country is in, there is no explanation for Obama having a substantial lead. It is significant that even with a 4% average lead, Obama's total is just over 48%. Bill Clinton was polling around 52-54% throughout the election year of 1996, for example. What that means is that Romney's numbers (just over 44%) are low. The majority of voters are not supporting Obama, but enough are unsure or unenthusiastic about Romney to make it look like Obama is "winning".

Being up 6-1 and being up 12-7 going into the ninth inning of a baseball game have much the same significance to the strategy of the game.

Is it possible that American voters could re-elect someone based on a perceived advantage in "likability", and because of the color of his skin, despite the fact that his policies are extremely unpopular, the economy is terrible, people overwhelmingly think the country is on the wrong track, and his job approval is low on the issues voters view as most important? I guess maybe it is, but it seems unlikely. If so, the country is suffering from a level of superficiality and detachment from reality that is severe enough to be fatal. Then again, that's how we got here in the first place.

Would you elect a politician that you despised? I fail to see what political advantage he gets from being black... unless it is that he has caught onto some realities that white people don't think about. The economy is terrible compared to what it is in a full-blown boom -- except that a full-blown boom often sets in motion some destructive forces that bring about a Crash. Slow and steady growth out of a near-depression may be the best that anyone can do, and you will have to admit that President Obama has done a good job of lowering expectations when they had to be lowered.

But to re-iterate the more analytical view of the polls: it seems clear that the polls are not measuring changes among people who have not made up their minds, but rather they are reflecting varying predictions among the pollsters about who will turn out to vote. In that regard, there may be quite a bit of wishful thinking factored in, meaning that the polls reflect the biases of the people who run them. And those people are mostly left-of-center.

Pollsters generally have to take respondents at their word.

EDIT: As for the "47% video", it's meaningless.

You are in denial, JPT. That remark was an insult to millions of people with low incomes.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There was a massive conflict between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party movement in the primaries. The establishment decided from the get-go that Romney would be the candidate, and they quite literally rammed him down the throats of the party's base, sequentially destroying each of his opponents. The base has now fallen in line behind Romney. But if he loses, there will be a blood-letting. The Republican elite will either be completely replaced by conservatives, or there will be a third party.

A lot of left-wingers love to salivate over the idea of the Republicans disappearing, but if it happens it won't be for the reasons they want it to be. It will be because the country is more conservative than its "ruling elite", and there is no conservative party to represent it.

But that's for another day. If Romney wins and the Republicans take over the Senate, the GOP establishment will continue to survive by its fingernails.

While I can't agree with your spin on the polls, the above sounds pretty much right. The Unravelling GOP was a union of Neocon defense, Theocon religious and culture warriors and Big Money. These three elements didn't seem to belong quite together, but they made it work. The Neocons got pretty unpopular during Bush 43's second term. As you describe above, the other two elements are struggling for control.

Me, I'm unhappy that Big Money seems to have infiltrated the Democrats as much as the Republicans. Obama's economic guys are Wall Street insiders, which alone would make his promises of real change implausible. If the Tea Party does manage to divorce itself from the old Republican elites, I could see Big Money trying to double down on the Democrats, not that I think it will be easy for either existing party to shake themselves loose from the lure of lots of campaign contributions.

I think both parties could benefit from some variation of the Grey Champion archetype, someone with strong ideals, a good speaker, able to bring together a coalition. I see no one lurking in either party, capable of winning on ideas rather than making promises to big money in order to buy advertising time. Obama talked the talk. It's going to be harder believing the next savior coming down the road.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you remove Democrats from the equation, this is what you get:

More likely: 29.5%
Less likely: 16.5%
No difference: 52.0%

Now, maybe Romney lost a bunch of Democrats who were going to vote for him. But somehow I doubt it.

Put another way: if 68% of Independents say either it makes no difference, or that it will make them more likely to vote for him...it's not hurting him.

Hummmm, where to begin.

Frist, I'll let PW's critque of your math suffice as it does.
Second, you haven't addressed the larger and more telling point that your brian trust is acting as if something critical has changed in the past week.
Campaigns do not abandon a strategy in mid campaign unless they are darn well convinced that what they are doing is not going to work.
Your side is essentially "going dark" in the electronic campaign, which is the best wya to reach the independents, in favor of a focus on mobilizing a reliable demographic, namely evangelicals like you. That is the behavior of a campaign that currently believes that the independents are temporarally unreachable.
If Romney does well in the debates you will likely see a renewed air campaign in the swing states. But right now their focus is on mobilizing an already highly mobilized base.
Or have you forgotten about the so called enthusism gap that was supposed to help Romney?
Apparently the GOP brain trust feels that it must try to widen any such gap to cover insufficencies elsewhere.
They didn't act in such a manner a week ago.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

what's much more likely is that people just don't like romney. and the more they see him, the less and less they like him.

the 47% video is a killer.

the gop has nominated a real howler of a candidate this time.

tell the truth now. even *you* don't like him, just passing through.

crying about the media doesn't hide the fact that mitt's unfavorables are just too high to get him elected. and in fact he may drag down other republican candidates.

Why are the liberals always out to win the popularity contest?

Originally Posted by playwrite

She almost beat Obama at his best.

She's proved herself in the Senate and as Secretary of State.

That she has, but in 2016 she'll be: 69. Which is right around the age that McCain was. She'll be pushing 70 in four years time. And the only president to date to have won an election at that age was Reagan--and Clinton has nowhere near the amount of charisma he did to pull off a win.

And you can bet with all the youthful party members being put on display at the 2012 RNC that the Republicans will have one of them groomed for election in 2016. It'll probably come down to Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, Paul Ryan, or maybe even Chris Christie.

Independent women will vote for her and GOP women will crossover to vote for her if there is no woman on the GOP ticket in 2016. If the GOP puts Palin back up, then the entire GOP party will either crossover or not vote.

There are a lot more Republican candidates out there than Mrs. Palin. I just named four who are my guess for the 2016 Republican Party nomination.

Most important, she's got Bill, who, like Ray-gun, looks better and better in peoples' memories - he'll be approaching mythical status by 2016.

He's also a millstone, because the country doesn't like to think that it's voting in the same families over and over again (even if Bush was related to 16 other presidents), it pretty soon takes a resemblance to another political system we broke away from.

Candyland, my ass; she'll win in a landslide.

Again, that depends on how the next 4 years go.

Scenario 1: Somehow everything goes right for Mr. Obama, he has a bit of trouble with Republicans in Congress for the first two years of his second term, but in mid-term election somehow they're all voted out and the US recovers fully. Somehow at the last minute--when all hope seems lost--Europe finds a way to solve its financial crisis, and China decides to continue its economic growth. Netenyaouh doesn't go batshit crazy on Iran, the Middle East remains an ambiguous quagmire, but we deal with them less and less as cleaner, greener technologies are depended upon as Obama focuses on infrastructure and resurrects the CCC and WPA. Hillary might win an election in 2016 as a "keeper of the Obama tradition", but we all know the history of political parties who win three elections in a row: she wouldn't get re-elected in 2020. It would invoke the Jackson-Van Burean/Roosevelt-Taft/Reagan-Bush law of successors from previous successful presidencies. However, most likely after having 8 years of a Democrat in power, the public would most likely vote a Republican in just to bring "balance" back into the equation. Especially considering the Republican Xers Hillary would be up against who are much more charismatic than she is. American High round II starts.

Scenario 2: Obama is re-elected, but the Republicans in the Congress want blood for losing the election and effectively continue to kick the can down the road and block any and all actions of government, hoping for a repeat of 2010 in 2014--and actively working for it. The European financial crisis continues to get worse (as it looks currently), which puts a dent on the current "recovery". China releases its five-year economic plan which is to downgrade its rate of growth for the next five years (hint--I've heard word that this one is actually going to happen), which puts another dent in our current "recovery". Israel suddenly and shockingly attacks Iran without warning, forcing Obama to commit more troops to another foreign war, just after getting us out of Afghanistan. Only this war is a bit worse as a rogue Israel makes every other Middle Eastern country united in wanting its defeat--effectively making the moderate Muslims disappear and bringing the extremists to the front in all the Arab Spring countries. And here we are, essentially fighting off the entire Middle East. Europe is too absorbed in its own financial problems to do anything. Russia and China meanwhile play both sides, trying to profit from the situation as best they can. Essentially this leaves Obama in a state worse than Hoover and ensures a surefire win for the Republicans in 2016--demographic change or no demographic change. And I can bet you, by 2016 that that Republican won't be some moderate wannabe conservative rich boy from Massachusetts like Romney, that it'll be a dyed in the wool full out conservative Xer who'll have much more charisma and bankroll off of the dislike for Obama.

Scenario 2a. The Republicans fail to have a repeat of 2010 in 2014 (somehow?) and we devolve into a Civil War of sorts. It's bloody at first as the battles are waged in every state, eventually though the Republicans coalesce in the South reforming the CSA. And the Democrats coalesce in the North & Mid-West, keeping the USA or a variation thereof. The West says "screw you guys" and becomes PSA & RMSA. And the former USA stays fragmented as no one would want to force us all back together again this time. Too often I've heard sentiments of "we should've let the south secede when we had the chance" on this board and in real life.

Scenario 3 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 1. Thus ensuring his re-election in 2016. Somehow Romney is able to contain his desires to go to war with Iran, as is Israel--thus keeping us from getting entangled in an even more costly war. Because I just about guarantee that we're going to war with Iran if Romney wins--call it a very confident gut feeling. Another difference being he has an easier time with Congress (until the mid-term elections) and is able to depend less on foreign oil by opening Alaska up for drilling. Green energy is not focused on at all. Gilded Age III starts.

Scenario 4 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 2... in fact it would probably be worse as Romney would not only encourage Israel to strike Iran, he might even get the silly idea in his head to make the first strike himself, which would potentially start WWIII if Russia and China decide to get involved and pledge to curb and contain "US aggression" throughout the world. And the world is more likely to go along with them as Romney isolates potential allies with smug gaffes (like the one he let slip in England during the London Olympics) as they're sick and tired of what looks to be an elitist and overly aggressive US that has been playing a game of invasion for the past decade and a half and has turned from the "global police dog" to the "global bully". That ensures a bloody and destructive global war that comes to US shores. That is when you can start bringing up Candyland dreams of Hillary winning by a landslide in 2016, if there's anything left of the country by that point.

Those are the five scenarios most likely to occur. Of the five, #1 is least likely to occur given how the rest of the world is looking to evolve and the Republican Congress is less likely to be "willing to work" with Obama--at least with those retribution bound Tea Party and Boomer Republicans in office. #2 or #4 seem the most likely to occur at this point. #3 is simply wishful thinking. #2a. is a worse case scenario that's just a tad more likely to occur than #1.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That she has, but in 2016 she'll be: 69. Which is right around the age that McCain was. She'll be pushing 70 in four years time. And the only president to date to have won an election at that age was Reagan--and Clinton has nowhere near the amount of charisma he did to pull off a win.

And you can bet with all the youthful party members being put on display at the 2012 RNC that the Republicans will have one of them groomed for election in 2016. It'll probably come down to Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, Paul Ryan, or maybe even Chris Christie.



There are a lot more Republican candidates out there than Mrs. Palin. I just named four who are my guess for the 2016 Republican Party nomination.



He's also a millstone, because the country doesn't like to think that it's voting in the same families over and over again (even if Bush was related to 16 other presidents), it pretty soon takes a resemblance to another political system we broke away from.



Again, that depends on how the next 4 years go.

Scenario 1: Somehow everything goes right for Mr. Obama, he has a bit of trouble with Republicans in Congress for the first two years of his second term, but in mid-term election somehow they're all voted out and the US recovers fully. Somehow at the last minute--when all hope seems lost--Europe finds a way to solve its financial crisis, and China decides to continue its economic growth. Netenyaouh doesn't go batshit crazy on Iran, the Middle East remains an ambiguous quagmire, but we deal with them less and less as cleaner, greener technologies are depended upon as Obama focuses on infrastructure and resurrects the CCC and WPA. Hillary might win an election in 2016 as a "keeper of the Obama tradition", but we all know the history of political parties who win three elections in a row: she wouldn't get re-elected in 2020. It would invoke the Jackson-Van Burean/Roosevelt-Taft/Reagan-Bush law of successors from previous successful presidencies. However, most likely after having 8 years of a Democrat in power, the public would most likely vote a Republican in just to bring "balance" back into the equation. Especially considering the Republican Xers Hillary would be up against who are much more charismatic than she is.

Scenario 2: Obama is re-elected, but the Republicans in the Congress want blood for losing the election and effectively continue to kick the can down the road and block any and all actions of government, hoping for a repeat of 2010 in 2014--and actively working for it. The European financial crisis continues to get worse (as it looks currently), which puts a dent on the current "recovery". China releases its five-year economic plan which is to downgrade its rate of growth for the next five years (hint--I've heard word that this one is actually going to happen), which puts another dent in our current "recovery". Israel suddenly and shockingly attacks Iran without warning, forcing Obama to commit more troops to another foreign war, just after getting us out of Afghanistan. Only this war is a bit worse as a rogue Israel makes every other Middle Eastern country united in wanting its defeat--effectively making the moderate Muslims disappear and bringing the extremists to the front in all the Arab Spring countries. And here we are, essentially fighting off the entire Middle East. Europe is too absorbed in its own financial problems to do anything. Russia and China meanwhile play both sides, trying to profit from the situation as best they can. Essentially this leaves Obama in a state worse than Hoover and ensures a surefire win for the Republicans in 2016--demographic change or no demographic change. And I can bet you, by 2016 that that Republican won't be some moderate wannabe conservative rich boy from Massachusetts like Romney, that it'll be a dyed in the wool full out conservative Xer who'll have much more charisma and bankroll off of the dislike for Obama.

Scenario 3 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 1. Thus ensuring his re-election in 2016. Somehow Romney is able to contain his desires to go to war with Iran, as is Israel--thus keeping us from getting entangled in an even more costly war. Because I just about guarantee that we're going to war with Iran if Romney wins--call it a very confident gut feeling. Another difference being he has an easier time with Congress (until the mid-term elections) and is able to depend less on foreign oil by opening Alaska up for drilling. Green energy is not focused on at all.

Scenario 4 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 2... in fact it would probably be worse as Romney would not only encourage Israel to strike Iran, he might even get the silly idea in his head to make the first strike himself, which would potentially start WWIII if Russia and China decide to get involved and pledge to curb and contain "US aggression" throughout the world. And the world is more likely to go along with them as Romney isolates potential allies with smug gaffes (like the one he let slip in England during the London Olympics) as they're sick and tired of what looks to be an elitist and overly aggressive US that has been playing a game of invasion for the past decade and a half and has turned from the "global police dog" to the "global bully". That ensures a bloody and destructive global war that comes the US shores. That is when you can start bringing up Candyland dreams of Hillary winning by a landslide in 2016, if there's anything left of the country by that point.

Those are the four scenarios most likely to occur. Of the four, #1 is least likely to occur given how the rest of the world is looking to evolve and the Republican Congress is less likely to be "willing to work" with Obama--at least with those retribution bound Tea Party and Boomer Republicans in office. #2 or #4 seem the most likely to occur at this point. #3 is simply wishful thinking.

~Chas'88

Well said Chas and I agree with your possible scenarios with #2 likely if Obama wins and Romney having a tough go if he wins. Either one will have to "thread the needle" politically. We've seen from Obama that he really doesnt have the stuff to handle the office.

As far as Hillary goes i also agree. She is going to be 70 and already looks haggard. Her speeches the last two weeks have been terrible. She doesn't have the skills of her husband in any way. I will bet now that Paul Ryan will be the 2016 nominee if Romney loses with Rubio as his VP pick. I think it would be a strong ticket. But of course the Repubs will have a pretty full bunch of Xer's waiting to run.

Originally Posted by Weave

Well said Chas and I agree with your possible scenarios with #2 likely if Obama wins and Romney having a tough go if he wins. Either one will have to "thread the needle" politically. We've seen from Obama that he really doesnt have the stuff to handle the office.

Obama would've been a better president in 2028--not 2008. He's the sort of guy who would've been a good High president--a Truman or an Eisenhower of sorts. He's the type who does best presiding over a calm quiet time with only a few bumps in the road, and just going along with the program set up by previous office holders. He should have waited until then.

As far as Hillary goes i also agree. She is going to be 70 and already looks haggard. Her speeches the last two weeks have been terrible. She doesn't have the skills of her husband in any way. I will bet now that Paul Ryan will be the 2016 nominee if Romney loses with Rubio as his VP pick. I think it would be a strong ticket. But of course the Repubs will have a pretty full bunch of Xer's waiting to run.

I'm not sure if Paul Ryan would get it. I think Chris Christie the most likely.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Obama would've been a better president in 2028--not 2008. He's the sort of guy who would've been a good High president--a Truman or an Eisenhower of sorts. He's the type who does best presiding over a calm quiet time with only a few bumps in the road. He should have waited until then.



I'm not sure if Paul Ryan would get it. I think Chris Christie the most likely.

~Chas'88

Repub party is a more traditional "youre next in line party". Ryan will have an edge over the others for this reason. Christie frankly, needs to slim down...charisma does matter..

Originally Posted by Weave

Repub party is a more traditional "youre next in line party". Ryan will have an edge over the others for this reason. Christie frankly, needs to slim down...charisma does matter..

Thing is, I don't think Ryan is the next in line. The way the Republican party was looking mooney-eyed for Christie suggests to me that he's next in line. I can see how Christie's weight would be a problem for some, but I don't think it would be a complete eliminating factor though.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've gotta go with JohnMc82 on this one. There is virtually no chance that the country will decide to elect a 70 year old in 2016. If anything, they'll be looking for a 40-something. Let's admit it; Boomer politics are wearing thin. Our kids like us, but even they won't elect us to anything important. They already know they have a lot of fixing to do, and our generation had a lot do with the mess ... in fact, almost all of it.

I'm not sure Hillary can win either, but I can't agree with extending your point to cover all Boomers. Certainly, in fact, we had very little to do with the mess. That is lumping Boomers in with the older generations as if we were all the same generation. Admittedly, younger people tend to do that. But it isn't true. The military-industrial complex and corporate state were there before Boomers came along; we opposed it, remember? Even GWBush's administration was mostly Silent, as are most of the tycoons that ruined our economy in 2008. Boomers are still going to be the leaders through the 4T. That is the prophet role. Although we will probably see an influx of Xers into congress in 2018, if past patterns hold.

And as for Hillary being 69 in Nov.2016, many Boomers are younger for their age than any previous generation. We never really got started anyway, as far as the presidency is concerned. Bill Clinton wasn't allowed to rule, and Dubya isn't a real boomer. There still are a lot of younger boomers available; 1946 and 1947 cohorts are among the oldest boomers.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Thing is, I don't think Ryan is the next in line. The way the Republican party was looking mooney-eyed for Christie suggests to me that he's next in line. I can see how Christie's weight would be a problem for some, but I don't think it would be a complete eliminating factor though.

~Chas'88

According to his chart, Christie is not a very strong candidate. There is no reason he would be next in line over Ryan; a vice presidential candidate is more in line than a governor who has never run for national office. But speaking of that, there is also Jeb Bush to consider. He's next in line from a lineage point of view, as is Hillary on the Democratic side. He is a man to watch too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The military-industrial complex and corporate state were there before Boomers came along; we opposed it, remember?

Yeah, and then the '80s came along and you stopped protesting it after the Nuclear Arms protests.

Even GWBush's administration was mostly Silent, as are most of the tycoons that ruined our economy in 2008. Boomers are still going to be the leaders through the 4T. That is the prophet role. Although we will probably see an influx of Xers into congress in 2018, if past patterns hold.

I see more Xers and Jonesers likely to enter this year, and likely to continue growing in coming elections. One thing I'll agree with you on is that the majority of Aquarian Boomers will be seen as old and out of date.

And as for Hillary being 69 in Nov.2016, many Boomers are younger for their age than any previous generation. We never really got started anyway, as far as the presidency is concerned. Bill Clinton wasn't allowed to rule, and Dubya isn't a real boomer. There still are a lot of younger boomers available; 1946 and 1947 cohorts are among the oldest boomers.

You consider Dubya to be a War Baby then? *thinks about it* He's not really the type to be one. His father was more Silent than GI, despite the 1924 birth year. Though, I will give you his "Silent" aspect is that he was always trying to prove to "daddy" that he was the "best son" in the family--though he went about it mostly the wrong way. That's about the only "Silent" quality about him though.

According to his chart, Christie is not a very strong candidate. There is no reason he would be next in line over Ryan; a vice presidential candidate is more in line than a governor who has never run for national office. But speaking of that, there is also Jeb Bush to consider. He's next in line from a lineage point of view, as is Hillary on the Democratic side. He is a man to watch too.

Jeb's on the list, but again he has a little problem of being "another Bush" which the Republicans--as Weave and JPT are a sample of--have since disowned as not being "true Republicans". Added to that that electing a third Bush would almost be like electing a dynasty by that point, which is something the American people seem repelled to do.

Personally I don't want Christie to run, but I see him as the next in line, only because throughout this primary season that's ALL I HEARD. It's the same kinds of groans and moans I heard all through 2004 when the Democrats were upset that Hillary didn't run. Like Hillary in 2008, I think Christie will be one of the two finalists that'll make watching the Republican nomination interesting to watch as they dual out for who can win the most primaries/caucuses. And like Hillary, I think he'll lose, much to the moans and groans of some in his party. Who that other face will be, will either be Rubio (most likely since Republicans are not dumb and are going to try tapping into the Latino vote in the future), Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan. Of the three, I think the Republicans would be smart to go with Rubio and try to cut in on the Democratic Latino hegemony.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That she has, but in 2016 she'll be: 69. Which is right around the age that McCain was. She'll be pushing 70 in four years time. And the only president to date to have won an election at that age was Reagan--and Clinton has nowhere near the amount of charisma he did to pull off a win.

And you can bet with all the youthful party members being put on display at the 2012 RNC that the Republicans will have one of them groomed for election in 2016. It'll probably come down to Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, Paul Ryan, or maybe even Chris Christie.



There are a lot more Republican candidates out there than Mrs. Palin. I just named four who are my guess for the 2016 Republican Party nomination.

Ryan/Rubio is a good early bet, but who knows. Purely hypothetical at this point.

He's also a millstone, because the country doesn't like to think that it's voting in the same families over and over again (even if Bush was related to 16 other presidents), it pretty soon takes a resemblance to another political system we broke away from.

If Obama wins, things would have to be going extremely well in 2016 for a Democrat to be elected. It's highly unlikely. If Romney wins, and things are going badly, Hillary would have a strong chance. I would bet against her ever being president at this point, for a number of reasons.

Again, that depends on how the next 4 years go.

Scenario 1: Somehow everything goes right for Mr. Obama, he has a bit of trouble with Republicans in Congress for the first two years of his second term, but in mid-term election somehow they're all voted out and the US recovers fully. Somehow at the last minute--when all hope seems lost--Europe finds a way to solve its financial crisis, and China decides to continue its economic growth. Netenyaouh doesn't go batshit crazy on Iran, the Middle East remains an ambiguous quagmire, but we deal with them less and less as cleaner, greener technologies are depended upon as Obama focuses on infrastructure and resurrects the CCC and WPA. Hillary might win an election in 2016 as a "keeper of the Obama tradition", but we all know the history of political parties who win three elections in a row: she wouldn't get re-elected in 2020. It would invoke the Jackson-Van Burean/Roosevelt-Taft/Reagan-Bush law of successors from previous successful presidencies. However, most likely after having 8 years of a Democrat in power, the public would most likely vote a Republican in just to bring "balance" back into the equation. Especially considering the Republican Xers Hillary would be up against who are much more charismatic than she is. American High round II starts.

Scenario 2: Obama is re-elected, but the Republicans in the Congress want blood for losing the election and effectively continue to kick the can down the road and block any and all actions of government, hoping for a repeat of 2010 in 2014--and actively working for it. The European financial crisis continues to get worse (as it looks currently), which puts a dent on the current "recovery". China releases its five-year economic plan which is to downgrade its rate of growth for the next five years (hint--I've heard word that this one is actually going to happen), which puts another dent in our current "recovery". Israel suddenly and shockingly attacks Iran without warning, forcing Obama to commit more troops to another foreign war, just after getting us out of Afghanistan. Only this war is a bit worse as a rogue Israel makes every other Middle Eastern country united in wanting its defeat--effectively making the moderate Muslims disappear and bringing the extremists to the front in all the Arab Spring countries. And here we are, essentially fighting off the entire Middle East. Europe is too absorbed in its own financial problems to do anything. Russia and China meanwhile play both sides, trying to profit from the situation as best they can. Essentially this leaves Obama in a state worse than Hoover and ensures a surefire win for the Republicans in 2016--demographic change or no demographic change. And I can bet you, by 2016 that that Republican won't be some moderate wannabe conservative rich boy from Massachusetts like Romney, that it'll be a dyed in the wool full out conservative Xer who'll have much more charisma and bankroll off of the dislike for Obama.

Scenario 2a. The Republicans fail to have a repeat of 2010 in 2014 (somehow?) and we devolve into a Civil War of sorts. It's bloody at first as the battles are waged in every state, eventually though the Republicans coalesce in the South reforming the CSA. And the Democrats coalesce in the North & Mid-West, keeping the USA or a variation thereof. The West says "screw you guys" and becomes PSA & RMSA. And the former USA stays fragmented as no one would want to force us all back together again this time. Too often I've heard sentiments of "we should've let the south secede when we had the chance" on this board and in real life.

Scenario 3 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 1. Thus ensuring his re-election in 2016. Somehow Romney is able to contain his desires to go to war with Iran, as is Israel--thus keeping us from getting entangled in an even more costly war. Because I just about guarantee that we're going to war with Iran if Romney wins--call it a very confident gut feeling. Another difference being he has an easier time with Congress (until the mid-term elections) and is able to depend less on foreign oil by opening Alaska up for drilling. Green energy is not focused on at all. Gilded Age III starts.

Scenario 4 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 2... in fact it would probably be worse as Romney would not only encourage Israel to strike Iran, he might even get the silly idea in his head to make the first strike himself, which would potentially start WWIII if Russia and China decide to get involved and pledge to curb and contain "US aggression" throughout the world. And the world is more likely to go along with them as Romney isolates potential allies with smug gaffes (like the one he let slip in England during the London Olympics) as they're sick and tired of what looks to be an elitist and overly aggressive US that has been playing a game of invasion for the past decade and a half and has turned from the "global police dog" to the "global bully". That ensures a bloody and destructive global war that comes to US shores. That is when you can start bringing up Candyland dreams of Hillary winning by a landslide in 2016, if there's anything left of the country by that point.

Those are the five scenarios most likely to occur. Of the five, #1 is least likely to occur given how the rest of the world is looking to evolve and the Republican Congress is less likely to be "willing to work" with Obama--at least with those retribution bound Tea Party and Boomer Republicans in office. #2 or #4 seem the most likely to occur at this point. #3 is simply wishful thinking. #2a. is a worse case scenario that's just a tad more likely to occur than #1.

~Chas'88

Some of what you said there is valid, some of it is not realistic.

1. There will not be a Civil War. Think about what happened in the 1860s. You had the states divided over a single controversial issue, more or less 50-50, and also evenly split geographically. Half the states declared they were seceding, built up an army, and attempted to forcibly expel the federal government from their territory. The conditions do not exist for anything remotely like that to happen today. It is simply not possible. If some kind of violence broke out, all levels of government, both parties, and the overwhelming majority of the population would be united in stamping it out. You have the wrong nightmare scenario in mind. I'm going to break down in very clear terms what's going on, and what things will look like if the Democratic Party, as it is currently constituted, achieves the kind of "permanent victory" the wackadoo leftists here are salivating about.

The United States has been eroding from within since the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s. The modern Democratic Party is cultivating an underclass of single mothers on welfare and unemployable males, and they are increasing that population by pressing cultural "liberalism" from the top down, and importing fresh poverty from abroad to be ushered into that same underclass culture. If the destruction of "traditional morality" continues to spread as it has been, we will soon reach a tipping point where Margaret Thatcher's concise observation comes true: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". It is already happening, which is why the economy has become a basket case. Many Americans are simply not employable, and not well-educated enough to hold the jobs the economy is producing. And no amount of spending on education is going to change it, because it is the result of a growing culture of dependency and dissolution, drug abuse, single mothers, and blaming all problems on somebody else (specifically, whoever votes for the Republicans). The "emerging Democratic majority" that the Democrats are pursuing is built on a false assumption: that you can have the majority of the population siphoning off the productivity of a minority of educated, productive citizens and still have a prosperous, advanced modern economy. You can't.

If the Democrats were socially conservative, as they were in the days of FDR, they might be able to square the circle. Bill Clinton at least had some minor grasp of the need for balance, by pursuing welfare reform and being "tough on crime" (at least symbolically). But the way they are going now, they are creating a house of cards that cannot stand. They think they want to be like Europe. But what they are creating will not be like Europe, and the European model itself is collapsing as we speak. Simply put, if the Democrats get their way, before long there will be nobody to pay for the system they're trying to create. There will be nobody to make it run, because nobody will know how to operate the machinery of a modern economy. Instead of building up those at the bottom by encouraging good behavior and teaching the "traditional values" that lead to success, they are driving more and more people down into the underclass. In the short term it may get them votes and win them elections. But the inevitable economic decline that results from it is already upon us. If there is not a dramatic reversal, and soon, what we are seeing now in the economy is not going to reverse. It's going to get much, much worse.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: children being born out of wedlock and raised in single parent homes is the single biggest crisis facing America today. It is a trend that is growing, not shrinking. If it does not reverse, the economy and society will completely collapse. It's not even arguable. It's going to happen. It is already happening.

2. There will not be a "war" with Iran. If something happens, it will be strategic bombing. There will be no ground forces, and no attempt at "regime change". Not going to happen, regardless of who wins in November. The bombing may very well happen, again, regardless of who wins in November.

When it comes to actual plausible scenarios in the short term future, these are the only ones available:

1. Romney wins and the economy improves. If this happens, the Democrats will be back where they were in the 1980s. Their ideology will have been discredited and repudiated, but they will likely be able to make some gains in Congress and at the state level with more moderate candidates. They'll regroup as they did before, and eventually produce a more centrist "product" that can get them back on track.

2. Obama wins and the economy improves. If this happens, there will be a kind of stasis for as long as the economy stays reasonably healthy. Obamacare will not be repealed, and the Democrats will have an advantage in the big picture. 2016 would be a toss-up, with a likely Republican victory but a possible victory for the Democrats. The Republicans would likely remain in control of the House, as they did from 1994-2006. "This far, but no further" will be the likely verdict on the Democrats in the near term, but the Republicans will still be stuck having to prove themselves. This assumes that the Democrats do not end up controlling both houses of Congress in November, which is more or less impossible.

3. Obama wins and the economy does not improve. This is the worst case scenario for the Democrats. The Republicans will be given commanding majorities in Congress in 2014, and they will win the presidency in 2016 by a landslide. At this point, all but the Democrats' most die-hard supporters will have completely abandoned them. The analogy would be something like 2008 in reverse, but much, much worse. The Democrats would be forced to come up with something completely out of the box to regain relevance. The Tea Party movement was a natural phenomenon to revive the Republicans. I have no idea what the Democrats could come up with, because they will have lost while being true to their base, unlike the Republicans who have become unpopular while running away from their base.

4. Romney wins and the economy does not improve. If this happens, I would predict something like 1992, with a right-leaning third party candidate splitting the vote and a moderate Democrat winning while promising a different approach from Obama. Congress would likely end up being somewhat evenly split. However, the circumstances would be much more grim, and it is the kind of environment where faith in both parties and government itself will have completely collapsed.

Many people are hoping for option 2, which is basically "return of the 1990s". But it's almost certainly not going to happen. If Obama wins, economic recovery will be all but impossible. With the burden of debt and Obamacare that that the economy will continue to bear, and Obama standing obstinately in the way of any change of direction, the next four years will be just like the last four. 1, 3 and 4 are the only likely outcomes. 1 and 3 are the most likely. 3 and 4 are the worst case scenarios for the country. If either of those happen, we will be at the bottom of the barrel by 2016. There will be no more superficial comparisons to the Great Depression, it will be agreed that we are in a depression. "Malaise" will sound like a party compared to the state the country will be in.

All of the above ignores the possibility of some major international problem. Weak U.S. leadership in the Middle East is setting the stage for something really bad to happen in the future. But I don't see it happening in the near term. To the extent that the Obama Administration has enabled radicals to take over several Muslim countries, things are more dangerous than they were a few years ago. But scattered terrorism is the most likely result right now, not something worse like a serious attempt at establishing the "Caliphate" that radicals are aiming for.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If you remove Democrats from the equation, this is what you get:

More likely: 29.5%
Less likely: 16.5%
No difference: 52.0%

Now, maybe Romney lost a bunch of Democrats who were going to vote for him. But somehow I doubt it.

Put another way: if 68% of Independents say either it makes no difference, or that it will make them more likely to vote for him...it's not hurting him.

Barack Obama plays margins when they matter. Gaining 13% of independents in a close election -- or that almost everyone has assumed until recently to be close -- is one way to win. To be sure, the difference between 300 electoral votes and 400 electoral votes is more a technicality than a necessity. But there are down-ticket races that can make the difference between a Congressional situation that he can use for his purposes or one that can frustrate him at every turn. He is more concerned about Senate seats in Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota than about the electoral votes of aforesaid seats. He surely wants a reversal of the 2010 election in the House so that he can have a legislative legacy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Why are the liberals always out to win the popularity contest?

take out the last three words and you've got it.

and the answer is -- because we think we have the better ideas for governing this country.

but on the subject of likability -- romney comes across as a clueless, arrogant putz. most people don't like those kinds of guys and don't think they would do a good job running much of anything.

his track record at bain backs up that impression. he's callous and greedy.

think of romney's attitude as if you were interviewing him for a job. you wouldn't hire him.

...or i wouldn't at least. would you?