2016 Nominee Prediction

Assuming this place is still around in 18 months feel free to bump this mofo up and see how wrong I was.

GOP: Scott Walker for President with Susana Martinez in the VP slot

DEM:
Not Hillary. Seriously she's not a good politician and I don't think Bill (who is a great politician) can carry her over the line.
Not Martin O'Malley - the real life Tommy Carcetti took a big hit yesterday. Plus he's an asshole
Not Biden. Too damn old and too damn crazy
Not Jerry Brown. See Biden

So it's probably someone from this group: Andrew Son of Mario Cuomo (Gov - NY), Crazy Jim Webb (former Sen - VA), Elizabeth Warren (Fake Indian - MA), Mark Warner (Sen - VA), Brian Schweitzer (former Gov - MT), Evan Bayh (former Sen - IN)

Please let it be Biden. Please.

Added bonus: 2016 Senate races.

34 total seats up (24 GOP/10 DEM) - this is the class of 2010 Year of the Tea Party.

18 GOP Holds: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

8 DEM Holds: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington

2 DEM Pickups: Illinois, Pennsylvania

2 DEM Held Tossups: Colorado, Nevada
4 GOP Held Tossups: Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin

Let's just have the red vs blue civil war and get it over with.

Hillary will be the candidate. Come on. She's known and has a built in 80% of the base that will vote for her. Bring in anyone else and they lose that. You're using the republican logic that says "let's all destroy each other prior to the general so that the other party can swoop in and win". The democratic party has been amazingly unified over the last 8 years, and I suspect it to continue in the 16 election. You won't agree, but I think the distancing from president obama that a lot of the dem candidates did during this election actually hurt them. It was hard to tell what exactly they stood for so the only base that went and voted were republicans.

Not sure distancing or embracing Obama hurt or helped Dem candidates. Only Shaneen won in distancing but both MD and IL govs lost after bringing in Obama.

Hillary is not a natural politician - Bill is but she's not. However, she will be 69 in 16. She might get Dem nod but God she's a polarizing figure. The general would be a war.

Pretty depressing outlook...

The one in the suit paid by big money will win. That's my prediction... it's been right since 1776.

the mainstream media will do everything they can to keep Hillary from getting the nomination.. I'd personally love to see Bernie Sanders get the nomination, but he's a bit too bright and logical for the American electorate.

I'd go with a safe Democrat nominee like Bayh, Warner or Cuomo..

as for the Republicans - it's pretty much whichever candidate can convince the base that he/she is totally insane. Won't be Carson (he's black).. won't be Huntsman (he's too logical, bright and would appeal to the mainstream), won't be Nikki Haley (too brown.. she's also a woman).. won't be Bush or Christie..

I'd love to see it be Cruz or Scott Walker - it would be entertainment on par with pay-per-view wrestling to see those two try to out-lunatic each other.

my guess is that Rand Paul has a better than average shot this time around.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Not sure distancing or embracing Obama hurt or helped Dem candidates. Only Shaneen won in distancing but both MD and IL govs lost after bringing in Obama.

Hillary is not a natural politician - Bill is but she's not. However, she will be 69 in 16. She might get Dem nod but God she's a polarizing figure. The general would be a war.

That really depends on who the pubs put up against her. If it's some dork like the last two cycles, look out.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Not sure distancing or embracing Obama hurt or helped Dem candidates. Only Shaneen won in distancing but both MD and IL govs lost after bringing in Obama.

what hurt Democrats was abandoning their base and allowing the mainstream media drive the narrative.. which was that the country is in bad shape.

Obama isn't perfect but the economy has been consistently and steadily improving, people have access to quality affordable healthcare, the Dow is at record levels, the cost of homes is steadily rising..

but the limp-spined Democrats allowed the GOP and their willing accomplices in the media to convince a gullible public that their life is so bad, the only thing that will save them is to elect a bunch of rich christian white guys who have been persecuted their entire lives... which is why I've consistently said that I hope the Democrats lose.. and I'm glad they did.

ya gotta love America..  

Pretty depressing to see another Clinton or Bush in the white house if it happens. We need new blood. We dont have ruling families in America. Clinton is just another old timer hack who's never accomplished anything on her own thats meaningful. Her stint as SOS was disastrous but she got out in front of it and blamed it all on Obama.

Clinton would just do the same failed policies of Obama but she'd probably work more with the GOP. But America can't afford another pathetically weak leader which Clinton is.

Rand Paul is the darkhorse. He is the young, good looking fresher face. He polls great with young people too.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
what hurt Democrats was abandoning their base and allowing the mainstream media drive the narrative.. which was that the country is in bad shape.


ya gotta love America..  

The country is in bad shape. Records level of debt, printing money up the ass just to artificially prop up the stock market because interest rates are at zero, over regulation causing business to not hire and a stagnant economy, people are making less money now than they did 6 years ago...government controlled healthcare resulting in forced mandates that people didn't want...and that doesn't even being to talk about the scandals or the pathetically weak foreign policy.

Obama's arrogance coupled with his mentality that America is the problem in the world has not been good. Poll after poll after poll has shown that Americans dislike the direction we are heading in and they view the economy as crappy, which it is. Those are facts--not spin.

The_Dude wrote:

The country is in bad shape.  Records level of debt, printing money up the ass just to artificially prop up the stock market because interest rates are at zero, over regulation causing business to not hire and a stagnant economy, people are making less money now than they did 6 years ago...government controlled healthcare resulting in forced mandates that people didn't want...and that doesn't even being to talk about the scandals or the pathetically weak foreign policy.

Obama's arrogance coupled with his mentality that America is the problem in the world has not been good.  Poll after poll after poll has shown that Americans dislike the direction we are heading in and they view the economy as crappy, which it is.  Those are facts--not spin.

you can call it what you want..

but I think you're giving Americans way too much credit, in terms of their intellectual curiosity. Did you know that 1/3 of Louisiana Republicans blamed President Obama for the government response during Hurricane Katrina?

when there is a party like the Republicans - whose whole existence is based in fear and paranoia - that is able to convince Americans that brown people are coming for their jobs, their guns, their houses, their bibles.. their silly little materialistic American way of life.. it doesn't matter what reality is.

The_Dude wrote:We dont have ruling families in America.

lolwut?

The_Dude wrote:
Rand Paul is the darkhorse. He is the young, good looking fresher face. He polls great with young people too.

It's a shame those are the things that matter, in a politician, to the people in this country.

xsanguine wrote:

lolwut?



It's a shame those are the things that matter, in a politician, to the people in this country.

You mean like black folks voting for a guy because he's half black?

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

You mean like black folks voting for a guy because he's half black?

Or white people voting for the other guy because he is not black? It goes both way, LWS.

Turtleneck wrote:

Or white people voting for the other guy because he is not black? It goes both way, LWS.

I am not the one lamenting the voting on a candidates looks, xsang was.

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

You mean like black folks voting for a guy because he's half black?

Actually, yes. That would be an example.

Turtleneck wrote:

Or white people voting for the other guy because he is not black? It goes both way, LWS.

As would this.