2016 Election Thread

[gunnarthor]

 

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

 

Assuming the rest stay the exact same.

Huge assumption. 

 

 

[gunnarthor]

 

 

The problem is though, the Tea Party/Trumps/Carsons of the world are attracting a decent sized chunk of the GOP.

Yeah, that's their problem.  But a smart candidate can get through it.  Romney should have but didn't.  Rubio (I think) will. 

 

What was the biggest surprise of the 2012 primary?  I think it was Santorum's strong showing and he was winning not because of his conservative bonafides but because he was attacking Romney as being an out of touch rich white dude - he played up class issues.  A lot of Santorum's attack strategy was used by the Obama team in the general.  If Santorum could have stayed on message and not get dragged into culture wars (usually of his own making) he could have upset Romney. 

 

All the GOP needs to do is elect a nominee who isn't radioactive to the middle and who can talk about income inequality.  That could be Rubio this cycle.  But the next GOP president will fit that mold.

[DaveW]

 

Huge assumption. 

Whites without college degrees are now the bedrock of the Republican coalition: They voted for Mitt Romney 62 percent to 36 percent in 2012. However, their share of the electorate is rapidly shrinking: They skew older and more rural, and we project that their share of the national vote will fall to 33 percent in 2016, down from 36 percent in 2012. , ,

 

I don't see where else the GOP makes up the ground, maybe a few percentage points with the Hispanic vote with Rubio? But I doubt it will be enough to make a huge dent.

Whites with college degrees? Might skew closer to the middle now, more than previously (especially in regards to female voters)

 

 

[DaveW]

 

 

Yeah, that's their problem.  But a smart candidate can get through it.  Romney should have but didn't.  Rubio (I think) will. 

 

What was the biggest surprise of the 2012 primary?  I think it was Santorum's strong showing and he was winning not because of his conservative bonafides but because he was attacking Romney as being an out of touch rich white dude - he played up class issues.  A lot of Santorum's attack strategy was used by the Obama team in the general.  If Santorum could have stayed on message and not get dragged into culture wars (usually of his own making) he could have upset Romney. 

 

All the GOP needs to do is elect a nominee who isn't radioactive to the middle and who can talk about income inequality.  That could be Rubio this cycle.  But the next GOP president will fit that mold.

Santorum is a terrible person, he would have gotten smoked by Obama as well.

 

Agreed the next GOP president will fit that mold, I don't see it with Rubio TBH, Kasich, maybe, Paul, maybe, but neither guy has a shot.

 

The Trump/Carson supporters present a huge problem moving forward IMO. Trump could be a thorn in the side for multiple election cycles.

[Craig Arko]

Executive Summary.

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

What issue do you think will be gone?  The Court isn't going to overturn Roe, conservative courts have already upheld Miranda and Obamacare.  Liberal justices long ago gave up the fight on police reform.  Sure, we'll get some ****ty decisions but is that worry worth turning the democratic party into GOP-lite? 

Conservative courts have already severely curtailed abortion rights with their holdings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, and curtailed access to birth control through Hobby Lobby.  The ACA initially survived because of one vote.  Not to mention the horrible holding in Citizens United which has usurped our democracy with money-as-speech - overturning that case alone would do much to diminish the power of special interests.   

 

I'm really surprised how little affect you're giving to the Supreme Court.  As far as civil rights go, it's the last battlefield.   

[TheLeviathan]

 

Getting Ohio and Pennsylvania to flip would be very major.

 

It really wouldn't.  Ohio has a Republican governor who presided over a decent economic turnaround.  Pennsylvania will be harder but far from impossible.

 

You seem to be confused about one thing.  This isn't about Rubio stealing 5% of Democrat voters.  He just needs to maintain Romney's, get 1-2%, and hope for low Democrat turnout.

 

Low Democrat turnout will always be their biggest fear and perhaps with it being Hillary there will be issues driving out the vote that surged Obama.

[DaveW]

 

  He just needs to maintain Romney's,

 

That is actually going to be hard as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Conservative courts have already severely curtailed abortion rights with their holdings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, and curtailed access to birth control through Hobby Lobby.  The ACA initially survived because of one vote.  Not to mention the horrible holding in Citizens United which has usurped our democracy with money-as-speech - overturning that case alone would do much to diminish the power of special interests.   

 

I'm really surprised how little affect you're giving to the Supreme Court.  As far as civil rights go, it's the last battlefield.   

 

Casey was 25 years ago.  I tend to respect Kennedy's view on Hobby Lobby, which is a complicated case.  Though Stevens and the dissent were right about Citizens United.  

 

The ACA survived by one vote by a Republican nominee - Roberts. We have two pretty independent thinkers on the court in Roberts and Kennedy, so I'm really not sure it's as important as most Democrats fear.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

That is actually going to be hard as well.

 

No, it's not.  Many Republicans didn't like Romney, Rubio is far more likely to carry the base with his social conservative track record.

 

Republican voting base is pretty stable.  That is not the case for Democrats.  I fear that most of what carried Obama was a surge of voting that may not be sustainable.  (And hasn't been in non-presidential elections where Democrats have gotten their butts handed to them time and again)

[gunnarthor]

 

Conservative courts have already severely curtailed abortion rights with their holdings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart, and curtailed access to birth control through Hobby Lobby.  The ACA initially survived because of one vote.  Not to mention the horrible holding in Citizens United which has usurped our democracy with money-as-speech - overturning that case alone would do much to diminish the power of special interests.   

 

I'm really surprised how little affect you're giving to the Supreme Court.  As far as civil rights go, it's the last battlefield.   

Levi hit it on the head but it also goes back to my main point - I'm voting on three issues and only those three.  I don't like the fear mongering that comes from Democrats trying to convince others to vote for Hilary.  She is absolutely horrible on the three issues I care about so I will never vote for her.  Frankly, one could make an argument that some GOP candidates could be better on immigration than her. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Casey was 25 years ago.  I tend to respect Kennedy's view on Hobby Lobby, which is a complicated case.  Though Stevens and the dissent were right about Citizens United.  

Yes, 25 years ago the court scaled back Roe with Casey, and 12 years ago they went much further in Gonzales, where a state can ban abortion procedures so long as a woman has other options even if those options are more medically dangerous to her.  While the Court was reluctant to overturn State anti-abortion laws, the Court happily overturned city bans on handguns in Chicago and DC.  You're downplaying the political affiliation of the Court.  For every Kennedy or Roberts, there's a Thomas (total idealogue) and a Scalia (master construing interpretations).  Imagine if Cruz is given the opportunity to nominate a justice? Or for that matter, Trump or Carson.   

 

My point on ACA is not to dispute the common sense of Roberts, but to demonstrate that if there were one more conservative, ACA may have been invalidated.  Given how much the Republicans have lurched right since Bush, it's fair to wonder what kind of Justices they would nominate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, 25 years ago the court scaled back Roe with Casey, and 12 years ago they went much further in Gonzales, where a state can ban abortion procedures so long as a woman has other options even if those options are more medically dangerous to her.  While the Court was reluctant to overturn State anti-abortion laws, the Court happily overturned city bans on handguns in Chicago and DC.  You're downplaying the political affiliation of the Court.  For every Kennedy or Roberts, there's a Thomas (total idealogue) and a Scalia (master construing interpretations).  Imagine if Cruz is given the opportunity to nominate a justice? Or for that matter, Trump or Carson.   

 

My point on ACA is not to dispute the common sense of Roberts, but to demonstrate that if there were one more conservative, ACA may have been invalidated.  Given how much the Republicans have lurched right since Bush, it's fair to wonder what kind of Justices they would nominate.

 

There is a right-wing bloc and a left-wing bloc on the court.  What matters is that there are competent, independent swing votes.  I think even if there was a heavy-handed right winger you're still going to see most cases resolved sensibly as they have been with those two swinging back and forth.

 

I don't worry about who Trump or Carson or Cruz will nominate because none of those half-wits will ever make it that far.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Levi hit it on the head but it also goes back to my main point - I'm voting on three issues and only those three.  I don't like the fear mongering that comes from Democrats trying to convince others to vote for Hilary.  She is absolutely horrible on the three issues I care about so I will never vote for her.  Frankly, one could make an argument that some GOP candidates could be better on immigration than her. 

Just stop with the accusations of fear-mongering, especially when you keep referencing "targeted killing" as a reason to oppose Hillary.  Look, it's your choice to restrict the scope of the issues you'll consider when voting, but don't expect others to appreciate the strictness of that scope, especially when you mention civil liberties as an issue but down play the influence of the supreme court (again, women's issues anyone?).   And I think you're being patently dishonest about Hillary's record on civil liberties (esp. women's rights) and income equality as compared to the GOP.  (I just don't know enough about her stances on immigration to comment (or really my own stance on immigration) 

 

All I'm suggesting is to leave room for changing your mind, and if the election is close consider choosing the lesser of two evils.  That's not fear-mongering, that's being reasonable about the democratic process.   

 

FTR, I'm not on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon, but I do think the criticisms of her are strangely overstated.  (As there's plenty to suggest she's not progressive enough for me.  Yet still far more progressive than the GOPers.)

[PseudoSABR]

 

There is a right-wing bloc and a left-wing bloc on the court.  What matters is that there are competent, independent swing votes.  I think even if there was a heavy-handed right winger you're still going to see most cases resolved sensibly as they have been with those two swinging back and forth.

 

I don't worry about who Trump or Carson or Cruz will nominate because none of those half-wits will ever make it that far.

The middle--Kennedy and Roberts--are self identified, though reasonable, conservatives.  In a normal court, without Scalia/Thomas, they'd be that right-wing bloc.  More conservatives will just push an already right-wing court further right.  That matters on a host of issues.   

 

FYI: Four Justices are over seventy.  Stephen Breyer is 74, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia are 76 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pancreatic cancer survivor, is 79.  Probably the two most liberal justices, a conservative swing vote, and an arch conservative; clearly, the court could move significantly to the right over the next four to eight years.

 

Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it does.  With a Republican president and a Republican Congress (with their entitled tea party wing) could easily nominate another Thomas.  Roberts and Kennedy wouldn't survive the conservative scrutiny these days, I fear.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd worry FAR more about who is in the Congress than the Supreme Court.  Yet it appears most Democrats don't.

 

The Supreme Court might be the last line of defense, but you're basically abdicating every other line before that.  That's where women's health and other issues is truly being lost.  (On the state and federal level)

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'd worry FAR more about who is in the Congress than the Supreme Court.  Yet it appears most Democrats don't.

 

The Supreme Court might be the last line of defense, but you're basically abdicating every other line before that.  That's where women's health and other issues is truly being lost.  (On the state and federal level)

I don't disagree.  But let's not pretend that its purely an issue of Democrat's motivation to vote Congress out; gerrymandering has severely minimized how many true swing districts there actually are.   (Wasn't it in 2012 that the Democrats actually won the popular vote in Congress but lost 20 something seats to Republicans?)

 

Motivating liberal leaning people to involve themselves in local politics is a tough sell.  Many of the key issues for liberals are not governed at the local level (civil rights, income inequality, health care).  In urban cities, of course, that local landscape is different.  There's also the income disparity that allows for conservatives to disproportionately invest more time in local politics without diminishing their efforts nationally. 

 

As a liberal, I see presidential tickets as a way to infuse liberal values in the Presidency directly, in Congress down ticket and in the Supreme Court, indirectly.   I'm sure many conservatives feel the same, but liberal issues do seem to lend themselves to national solutions and politics.

[stringer bell]

 

Not really.  It would just require PA, OH, and FLA to flip.  If Rubio has FLA he would already be the biggest chunk of the way there.  

 

Obama beat Romney 50.7% to 47.% in 2012 in Ohio

Obama beat Romney 51.97% to 46.59% in 2012 in Pennsylvania

 

So no, it would not need to be "very major" at all.

I don't want any of the Republican candidates to win, but currently I think the Republican party candidate is currently the favorite to win the general election in 2016. Rubio or Kasich on the ticket would get Republicans most of the way to an electoral majority and there aren't many states that Romney carried that are in jeopardy of flipping to the Democrats. Yes, if minorities register and vote as reliably as older whites, Republicans chances are going to shrink every year, but a) that kind of participation in younger voters and minorities just has never happened and Republicans have done everything they can to make it difficult for those constituencies to vote and everything they can for them to believe that government is a vast wasteland not worth caring about.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't disagree.  But let's not pretend that its purely an issue of Democrat's motivation to vote Congress out; gerrymandering has severely minimized how many true swing districts there actually are.   (Wasn't it in 2012 that the Democrats actually won the popular vote in Congress but lost 20 something seats to Republicans?)

 

Motivating liberal leaning people to involve themselves in local politics is a tough sell.  Many of the key issues for liberals are not governed at the local level (civil rights, income inequality, health care).  In urban cities, of course, that local landscape is different.  There's also the income disparity that allows for conservatives to disproportionately invest more time in local politics without diminishing their efforts nationally. 

 

As a liberal, I see presidential tickets as a way to infuse liberal values in the Presidency directly, in Congress down ticket and in the Supreme Court, indirectly.   I'm sure many conservatives feel the same, but liberal issues do seem to lend themselves to national solutions and politics.

 

I really think that's trying hard to avoid the real issue: the democratic base doesn't turn out for local elections and there are a myriad of reasons but gerrymandering isn't nearly as big a factor as you are making it out to be. 

 

It's great to have liberal values at President, but losing so badly at the local and congressional level is what is creating the fight you feel you need the President for.  If you weren't losing those elections so badly, the Presidential one may not seem as critical.

[DaveW]

 

I don't want any of the Republican candidates to win, but currently I think the Republican party candidate is currently the favorite to win the general election in 2016.

Vegas would disagree

[DaveW]

 

 

I really think that's trying hard to avoid the real issue: the democratic base doesn't turn out for local elections and there are a myriad of reasons but gerrymandering isn't nearly as big a factor as you are making it out to be. 

 

It's great to have liberal values at President, but losing so badly at the local and congressional level is what is creating the fight you feel you need the President for.  If you weren't losing those elections so badly, the Presidential one may not seem as critical.

I agree with this, dems in general are poor about getting out to local, state, mid term elections. I think it will change over time though as people see what a GOP house+senate will try to do, (defund planned parenthood etc)

[PseudoSABR]

 

I really think that's trying hard to avoid the real issue: the democratic base doesn't turn out for local elections and there are a myriad of reasons but gerrymandering isn't nearly as big a factor as you are making it out to be. 

 

It's great to have liberal values at President, but losing so badly at the local and congressional level is what is creating the fight you feel you need the President for.  If you weren't losing those elections so badly, the Presidential one may not seem as critical.

To be clear, I'm not trying to avoid the issue, I'm more or less just talking-out-loud as to why the phenomenon exists--not trying to excuse it or minimize it.  I agree it's a real problem, and has been for a long time.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Vegas would disagree

I was curious, so I looked it up.  For the curious: Oddschecker.

[stringer bell]

 

I'd worry FAR more about who is in the Congress than the Supreme Court.  Yet it appears most Democrats don't.

 

The Supreme Court might be the last line of defense, but you're basically abdicating every other line before that.  That's where women's health and other issues is truly being lost.  (On the state and federal level)

I agree with the sentiment of this remark, but disagree that "most Democrats don't" worry about who is in Congress. I'm not a party regular, but those that are want all of their candidates to win. The point is the casual or unaffiliated voter that votes Democrat is far less likely to sustain his or her vote in off-year elections. Until Democrats figure out a way to get increased participation from their constituencies that are less committed to vote, they will be underrepresented in Congress and in state legislatures etc. The 2010 election is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans--they took a bunch of legislatures and governorships and were able to control redistricting in many blue or purple states. They were able to withstand the presidential election year and solidify their gains in 2014. Citizens United has also given them a competitive advantage and with so many state majorities they've enacted subtle and not so subtle voter suppression laws in many of those purple or light blue states.

[TheLeviathan]

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to avoid the issue, I'm more or less just talking-out-loud as to why the phenomenon exists--not trying to excuse it or minimize it.  I agree it's a real problem, and has been for a long time.

 

I think some of those answers may be hard to swallow and potentially unfixable.  

[stringer bell]

Gerrymandering isn't the only reason for the Democrats' electoral underachievement, but IMHO it is the biggest one. In 2012, if Democrats had gotten their share of the seats in six or seven gerrymandered states--Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina--they would have had a majority in the House. All states were won by Obama in 2008 and all but one carried by the president in 2012. If memory serves, the raw vote for House in every state went to Democrats, but they got a majority delegation in none of those states.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think some of those answers may be hard to swallow and potentially unfixable.  

Right.  If not for the changing demographics of the country (of which Dave reminds us), the Democrats could be perpetually banished to every fourth year relevance.   Forbid the thought, but when babyboomers begin to pass, the country will look very different. 

[DaveW]

 

Right.  If not for the changing demographics of the country (of which Dave reminds us), the Democrats could be perpetually banished to every fourth year relevance.   Forbid the thought, but when babyboomers begin to pass, the country will look very different. 

It will be earlier than that, the baby boomers seem to be "coming around" overall, its their parents generation and the generation immediately before them that currently resists the most "change"

 

"Gay Marriage", "planned parenthood", "Obamacare etc

 

I know we place a lot of economic blame etc on the baby boomers, but let's not forget they were the first generation to fight for social change (equal rights, end to Vietnam, and don't even get me started on what they did for music as a whole!)

[PseudoSABR]

 

It will be earlier than that, the baby boomers seem to be "coming around" overall, its their parents generation and the generation immediately before them that currently resists the most "change"

 

"Gay Marriage", "planned parenthood", "Obamacare etc

 

I know we place a lot of economic blame etc on the baby boomers, but let's not forget they were the first generation to fight for social change (equal rights, end to Vietnam, and don't even get me started on what they did for music as a whole!)

The hippies got bitter and got jobs.  I know because they are my parents.  (Although many of them are on board with social change (which is totally rad!), largely, they are as crotchety conservative as any generation prior.)

[mikecgrimes]

 

Rubio can walk back from a few of his policies and rally a few moderates. I don't think Cruz can do that,

 

This is why Cruz will win.  Cruz can't sell out his principals for a failed political stratigy that doesn't have the #'s on it's side.  My vote is just as valuable as any moderates.  In fact a moderates vote is worthless because they won't have your back while in office, just like they don't have Obama's back despite voting for him.