My 2016 Prediction

[bradly1101]

I've alluded to this here before, but I want to lay it down as an official prediction. Right now Hillary is sucking up all the money and oxygen in the democratic race. She is the presumptive favorite in the primary.

But after she wins that primary all the republicans have to do is play her Benghazi testimony over and over again. As you remember she was emotional, reactive, and out of control. No other president that I know of has ever exhibited that kind of behavior in public before or after becoming president. Her outburst was very un-presidential. We all have the potential for that fearful, rash animal to get out, but we keep it in check, and who above all others needs to do that? The president.

That's not to mention that she doesn't have other negatives too (private email server, a decidedly less safe world since her tenure in the state department, she's been coloring her hair for years...).

So that's my prediction; she handily wins the primary but loses the general after the country is swayed that she is not presidential. Therefore I believe the only way for the democrats to win in 2016 is for Hillary to lose the primary or drop out, but I don't see either of those things happening.

 

[feralkid]

Rick Perry WILL be your next President.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hillary will not win the primary.

 

[Mai72]

IMO, most people don't or even care about Benghazi. Get over it. It's old news. Just like the war on gays. Most people don't give a rats ass anymore.

What they do care about is the economy. They care about issuses that are close to home. If the economy is on the upswing in another year than Hillary has a good shot of becoming president.

 

[Blanky]

It's very plausible she wins primary and loses general. I think benghazi nobody cares about though, as mai 72 said. I find it very uninteresting personally. It seems possible she has a lot more skeletons in her closet and they could be her undoing.

But I must urge not to underestimate how bad republicans are at putting forth contenders in the last two elections. Don't think they can't screw the pooch again because they can.

 

[Indus]

I think the dems primary is far from a sure lock. Her biggest problem isn't bengazi, it's NAFTA and the new trade deal. Sure the top 1% will reap good rewards but 99% will have jobs lost from overseas workers making 50 cents an hour. All this and the average american joe or jane regardless of ethnicity feels it where it hurts.. their wallet all the while Hillary is sipping champagne and giving $350k+ speeches.

That is where Bernie Sanders comes in.. if he makes income inequality the base of his campaign.. he's far enough from the baggage to connect with almost all of the dem voters and independents.

Also the electoral college math doesn't make sense for the GOP.. not to mention trickle down economics does not work.. so honestly the gop will need all their ducks in a row. I think the millenials decide this election and it's blue.. barely if it's hillary, landslide if it's sanders.

 

[Jhhnn]

Repubs will need to bring a lot more to the table other than bad mouthing the opposition...

Whaddaya got, guys? More trickle down? More ownership Society? More explosive inequality? More union suppression? More war on trumped up rationale? More Guantanamo?

Y'all won't get by just on telling everybody how bad Hillary is. It'll carry the Teahadists, but who else?

What will any of the Repub hopefuls bring to the table other than failed right wing ideology?

 

[bradly1101]

IMO, most people don't or even care about Benghazi. Get over it. It's old news. Just like the war on gays. Most people don't give a rats ass anymore.

What they do care about is the economy. They care about issuses that are close to home. If the economy is on the upswing in another year than Hillary has a good shot of becoming president.

It's not that they care about Benghazi, it was her emotional outburst that got her.

The problem with economic upswings is that they are mostly only felt by the very few at the top.

 

[soulcougher73]

IMO, most people don't or even care about Benghazi. Get over it. It's old news. Just like the war on gays. Most people don't give a rats ass anymore.

What they do care about is the economy. They care about issuses that are close to home. If the economy is on the upswing in another year than Hillary has a good shot of becoming president.

I agree on the Benghazi thing. I dont think your average person gives two shits about, nor knows about it.

 

[soulcougher73]

Rick Perry WILL be your next President.

I want my own meme someday. Bernie Sanders WILL be the next president

Where is Spidey anyways? Im assuming banned awhile ago?

 

[bradly1101]

I think the dems primary is far from a sure lock. Her biggest problem isn't bengazi, it's NAFTA and the new trade deal. Sure the top 1% will reap good rewards but 99% will have jobs lost from overseas workers making 50 cents an hour. All this and the average american joe or jane regardless of ethnicity feels it where it hurts.. their wallet all the while Hillary is sipping champagne and giving $350k+ speeches.

That is where Bernie Sanders comes in.. if he makes income inequality the base of his campaign.. he's far enough from the baggage to connect with almost all of the dem voters and independents.

Also the electoral college math doesn't make sense for the GOP.. not to mention trickle down economics does not work.. so honestly the gop will need all their ducks in a row. I think the millenials decide this election and it's blue.. barely if it's hillary, landslide if it's sanders.

For some reason it seems like dems don't vote in their highest numbers unless they are 'protest voting' a perceived poor performing president from the other side. Since that didn't exist in 2000, enough republicans voted to get Bush elected. That lack of voting interest on the dem's side may repeat itself in 2016. And of course the right has the best get-out-the-vote campaigners; Fox News. Hillary would need an outstanding ground game.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not only that but Obama has been decidedly uncaring about foreign policy. I think he's right on not doing anything in Iraq but the people of the United States need to know why he favors isolationism. The people will agree but just ignoring them isn't going to help. It's sort of like how McCain said he supported bush 90% of the time.. Clinton is linked to Obama's administration.

That's an absurd characterization of Obama's foreign policy. Remember Libya? The drone war? Yemen? Afghanistan? sanctions over Ukraine? US guaranteed loans to Ukraine? Syrian rebels? bombing of ISIS? Refusal to suck Netanyahu's dick?

There's the other side of it, too, like direct engagement with Iran, something not done since the Carter years & some rather active support of change in Egypt & elsewhere.

 

[Indus]

That's an absurd characterization of Obama's foreign policy. Remember Libya? The drone war? Yemen? Afghanistan? sanctions over Ukraine? US guaranteed loans to Ukraine? Syrian rebels? bombing of ISIS? Refusal to suck Netanyahu's dick?

There's the other side of it, too, like direct engagement with Iran, something not done since the Carter years & some rather active support of change in Egypt & elsewhere.

People remember Iraq more though.. all these others you said are true but in reality are non factors against the quagmire of Iraq.

 

[nextJin]

I really want to see Bernie Sanders vs Rand Paul in the general election. It would put all the bullshit out there and show where the country honestly wants to go.

Either more conservative (minus the bullshit) or more liberal (minus the bullshit).

Every other candidate is basically the exact same shit we have had for decades.

 

[chowderhead]

For some reason it seems like dems don't vote in their highest numbers unless they are 'protest voting' a perceived poor performing president from the other side. Since that didn't exist in 2000, enough republicans voted to get Bush elected. That lack of voting interest on the dem's side may repeat itself in 2016. And of course the right has the best get-out-the-vote campaigners; Fox News. Hillary would need an outstanding ground game.

Democrats have won more votes for President in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections including 2000. The Republicans have a clown car race where they will have up to 10 people debating. That will give each person about 15 seconds to get their sound bite out.

The Republicans have been attacking the Clintons for 20 years. The media has been digging into their dealings for just as long. It is likely if you don't already have an opinion of Hillary Clinton, you have not been breathing.

 

[Indus]

For some reason it seems like dems don't vote in their highest numbers unless they are 'protest voting' a perceived poor performing president from the other side. Since that didn't exist in 2000, enough republicans voted to get Bush elected. That lack of voting interest on the dem's side may repeat itself in 2016. And of course the right has the best get-out-the-vote campaigners; Fox News. Hillary would need an outstanding ground game.

The demographics have changed..

From Dick Morris:

I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.

The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%.

By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote.

The next time in 2016, the under 35 vote (people born 1975-1998) will have a greater share than 19% and they think increasingly liberal.

 

[Jhhnn]

For some reason it seems like dems don't vote in their highest numbers unless they are 'protest voting' a perceived poor performing president from the other side. Since that didn't exist in 2000, enough republicans voted to get Bush elected. That lack of voting interest on the dem's side may repeat itself in 2016. And of course the right has the best get-out-the-vote campaigners; Fox News. Hillary would need an outstanding ground game.

Dems will come out in strong numbers against the shills of the Rich, particularly if they're identified with the Koch Bros (Scott Walker) or the perps of the Ownership society & Iraqi war flimflams (Jeb). we won't even talk about Dems reaction to the myriad of Repub looney tunes vying for the nomination.

2000? Al Gore ran one of the stupidest campaigns ever & still won the popular vote, likely would have won the presidency if the SCOTUS hadn't claimed constitutional authority to give it to Dubya. American voters hadn't yet experienced the full glory of Repubs having it all their way, either.

 

[Balt]

I really want to see Bernie Sanders vs Rand Paul in the general election. It would put all the bullshit out there and show where the country honestly wants to go.

Either more conservative (minus the bullshit) or more liberal (minus the bullshit).

Every other candidate is basically the exact same shit we have had for decades.

Which is exactly why one of those every other candidates will get elected. Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul will both be characterized as fringe crackpots who are almost certifiably insane. The people who actually vote and wield money/influence will never back them.

I have very little doubt that Hillary will win the nomination. I also think she will win the election. The Republican candidate pool is a clown car of past failures. Santorum, Perry, Huckabee, and some guy with the last name of Bush who can't deny that his brother was a complete disaster as president.

Hillary's misdeeds, which the Republicans harp on so much, are Benghazi, Whitewater, a private e-mail server, and some other potentially shady stuff. Fox News, Drudge, and WND make a big deal about all of this. Most people don't care. At all. Republicans like to pretend that the Clinton is name is tarnished, but I'm pretty sure at least 50.1% of people still long for the days of Bill Clinton in the White House (compared to any one other person, at least).

My prediction: Not many people will be able to name a Dem candidate other than Hillary. A lot of people will be able to name at least a few of the Republican candidates. Hillary can begin her presidential campaign much earlier than any of the Republicans who will bicker and throw each other under the bus. I give her the best chance of winning at this point.

 

[dank69]

The demographics have changed..

From Dick Morris:



The next time in 2016, the under 35 vote (people born 1975-1998) will have a greater share than 19% and they think increasingly liberal.

I like how Dick Morris classifies Obama's 2012 win as a "squeaker."

 

[MongGrel]

I'll be dead and won't give a shit.

 

[bradly1101]

People remember Iraq more though.. all these others you said are true but in reality are non factors against the quagmire of Iraq.

What I most remember from Iraq was Bush's status of forces agreement for pulling out the troops when Obama did, and the fact that the Bush/Cheney lackey in charge, Maliki, would not extend legal immunity to American soldiers (and they really need it) beyond that date, because according to the Bush agreement he didn't have to, which forced Obama's hand. So we remember Obama for Iraq?

We still don't call them "boots on the ground." {sigh}

 

[bradly1101]

I really want to see Bernie Sanders vs Rand Paul in the general election. It would put all the bullshit out there and show where the country honestly wants to go.

Either more conservative (minus the bullshit) or more liberal (minus the bullshit).

Every other candidate is basically the exact same shit we have had for decades.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[bradly1101]

Democrats have won more votes for President in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections including 2000. The Republicans have a clown car race where they will have up to 10 people debating. That will give each person about 15 seconds to get their sound bite out.

The Republicans have been attacking the Clintons for 20 years. The media has been digging into their dealings for just as long. It is likely if you don't already have an opinion of Hillary Clinton, you have not been breathing.

I wonder which side will show up to the polls in greater numbers.

 

[bradly1101]

The demographics have changed..

From Dick Morris:



The next time in 2016, the under 35 vote (people born 1975-1998) will have a greater share than 19% and they think increasingly liberal.

The older demographic is increasing too.

 

[bradly1101]

Dems will come out in strong numbers against the shills of the Rich, particularly if they're identified with the Koch Bros (Scott Walker) or the perps of the Ownership society & Iraqi war flimflams (Jeb). we won't even talk about Dems reaction to the myriad of Repub looney tunes vying for the nomination.

2000? Al Gore ran one of the stupidest campaigns ever & still won the popular vote, likely would have won the presidency if the SCOTUS hadn't claimed constitutional authority to give it to Dubya. American voters hadn't yet experienced the full glory of Repubs having it all their way, either.

Gore should have swept that election but the republicans had a lot of money and a good game. If he hadn't made that gaff in the debate or if Nader hadn't split the vote (ever so slightly) then I believe our economy and foreign affairs would be in a totally different place.