The Democrats will win again in 2016

@Ragman,

That's a little harsh, Rag.

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I think it depends on how many states revamp their Electoral College votes between now and then.

That's extremely unlikely. Some Pennsylvania GOP legislators have made some noise about this, but that's going nowhere. Nobody else has even put a proposal on the table.

Although there's nothing preventing a state from distributing its electoral votes as it pleases, almost all states have adopted the winner-take-all format because it gives the state more "clout" in national elections. If Ohio or Florida distributed electoral votes by congressional district, would either of the presidential candidates visited those states this year? And with campaigns spending billions of dollars, it has become an economic issue with a lot of states. I think Iowa's economy is based on the quadrennial infusion of cash that presidential campaigns provide for the caucuses.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Truth IS harsh.

Rubio is hardly a viable Prez candidate.

Sure as hell they won't retread Gingrich. He's toast.

Name a current viable candidate.

Jindal? Puh-leeze!

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Pretty much the only one I know of is Christie (and I don't really think he would win a high-profile matchup with Hillary).

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You do realize that Obama won in 2012 with a smaller margin then he did in the 2008 election. The EC was a blowout for sure, but it was still a smaller # then it was in 2008.

2 Replies

I never thought in my wildest nightmares that GW Bush would get elected governor of Texas. When he got the nomination for president, I expected the media to ridicule him out of the race. Never thought he could get reelected. In short, I have no idea who will win in four years.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

You do realize that Obama won in 2012 with a smaller margin then he did in the 2008 election. The EC was a blowout for sure, but it was still a smaller # then it was in 2008.

And? He won by a landslide in 2008, it would have been damn hard for him to improve on that result. Mittens did better against Obama than Grandpa did, but neither had what it took to beat him.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Does that actually imply that, were all states to divide electoral votes according to the proportion of the vote won by each candidate in that state....insofar as that would be possible....a candidate not from either party could conceivably win?

Possible perhaps. Conceivably? That's subjective, but I have to say "No".

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Too early to really know.

That's what makes it fun. The odds are stacked against predictions at this stage. There's no fun in calling it when it's a sure thing.

Quote:

There was a time when people swore George W. Bush would never get a second term and yet he did.

Not all predictions are created equal.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Of course. Why do you ask? Nothing I said indicates otherwise.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

No. Though it certainly contributes enormously, the primary reason for the two party system is not the winner-take-all electoral vote distribution in place everywhere except Maine and Nebraska but the first-past-the-post part of the system and even if the electoral college were abandoned entirely, making each vote count on its own, the first-past-the-post systems inherently favor the large parties and disfavor the small parties, inevitably trending toward two-party duopolies.

But like Joe said, nothing is going to change on this front anyway.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I want to make my prediction more specific and say that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

So Dems win, with Hillary, and it will be a greater margin (in popular vote) than 2012. This is my long-ball prediction for 2016.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I predict that the Democratic Party will win the presidential election by a wider margin in 2016.

I hope you're right.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I want to make my prediction more specific and say that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

So Dems win, with Hillary, and it will be a greater margin (in popular vote) than 2012. This is my long-ball prediction for 2016.

Now there's a daring prediction!

I agree with you on the op prediction; this one I have to give some thought to.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Although, on second thought, you're probably right. The Dems don't really have anybody else. And after the 2008 campaign, I think she's quite electable.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Really? I didn't know that. So winner takes all when it comes to the electoral college is not written into your constitution?

No. The basic rule is that every state is in charge of its own elections, including federal ones. Several constitutional amendments have changed this basic rule to expand voting rights, but the mode of populating your seats in the electoral college remains unchanged: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." That's the only qualification: No senators, no representatives, no federal government officials. Otherwise states can appoint electors in whatever way they choose.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

My own prediction: The outcome of the 2016 election will turn on how the economy changes over the year before election day. The Democrats will win if the employment-to-population among prime-age workers increases. ("Prime age" means 25--55 years.) The Democrats will lose if the ratio decreases. (I hope the Green candidate wins if Democrats lose, but I'm not holding my breath.) If employment remains more or less the same, it'll be a tossup.

While I am pretty certain that the economy will be better four years from now than it is today, I have no idea how it will change from November 2015 to November 2016. So I cannot make a specific prediction.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You don't think she'll be too ancient to appeal to voters in the 25 - 40 bloc by then?

(she seems ancient to me now and I'm almost in her demographic)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

My only concern is that she'll be too ancient period (as in too old to be trusted with the office) by then. As long as she's healthy (and I think she will be) she'll do fine with my demographic.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Was it you who posted the link to the video on the effects of the first past the post system? That was interesting.

1 Reply

The Democrats will win again in 2016

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know