The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Post your early predictions.

Dems - H. Clinton, J Biden, A. Cummo. 

Reps - Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Jindal, Palin (flirts but doesn't enter), Bloomberg.

General election Clinton over Jindal.

Early predictions:

Republicans:
* A middle-aged white male who made a shitload of money in financial arena but has little political experience
* An older white male who can work up a good religious lather
* An ethnic minority male who agrees with everybody

Democrats:
* An older white male DC political veteran with recognizable name
* Hillary Clinton
* An ethnic minority male who agrees with everybody

Hillary Clinton vs A middle-aged white male who made a shitload of money in financial arena but has little political experience

President Hillary Clinton

You're forgetting their wild card.  Marco Rubio.  Republican Senator from Florida.  He gets the nomination, he'll carry the Latino vote all over the country.  That could have a major, major impact in deciding the race.

I think you got the Democrats correct but early favorites for the GOP would have to be Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio. I think Christie burned a lot of bridges in the last week with Republicans. Ryan is popular but I wouldn't be surprised to see two very popular minorities (Jindal and Rubio) on the ticket for Republicans. They carry the GOP, and even the Christian, message but attract minority votes. At the very least they would force everyone to discuss the issues instead of the characters which isn't a bad thing.

Christie made the hard core rigthies very angry, but he looks good to the rest of the nation, and more importantly moderates and independents.
The GOP would be stupid not to consider him, just because he did the right thing for his state in a crises.

The best showing Christie could make in 2016 is the same showing that Jon Huntsman just made.  The GOP primary voters are not ready to nominate a moderate candidate; when they are, Christie and Jeb Bush will be at the top of the list.

I mostly agree with Sunstroke's analysis, though I think the GOP got their fill of "corporate baron candidate" this cycle.  I think they are posed to nominate a True Believer in the mold of a Huckabee or Rand Paul Ryan, though they may nominate Rubio in the hopes that Latino voters will mindlessly pull the lever for any Hispanic candidate (because that's how Obama won).

I fully expect Rubio to be in the mix come the next Republican presidential primaries.

However, I'm not sure he could advance based on the fact that Republican voters didn't let any truly insane people past their nomination procedure in 2012.

Don't get me wrong.  Mitt was a horrible candidate in almost every way, but he was literally the best the thing the Republicans had to offer this election cycle.

I'm curious,looking at the names being mentioned,have you guy's figured in Age?
(Romney is 65)
Hillary is 65 in 2012 She'd be 69 in 2016
Biden is 70 in 2012,be 74 in 2016

Our recent Presidents have been fairly young going into office...
Obama 48
G.W. Bush 55
Clinton 47
G.Bush 65

I disagree.

I think that we'd have a President Jon Huntsman, had he run against Obama.

Romney was a uniquely poor choice.  Obama's biggest political weakness when this all started was Obamacare.  Romney created it, thus discrediting his ability to bash it.  He tried the state level vs. national level thing, but nobody really bought that, as evidenced by the criticism of Romney from the right during the primary debates.

First off, realize that 4 years is a long way away.  If Obama's economy now takes off, there may be nothing that the GOP can do, regardless of who they run, which would keep their A-listers from trying.  Conversely, if Obama's economy craps, the GOP could all but be guaranteed for a win if they don't run a lunatic, thus opening the door to a bunch of moderates.

There is likely to be a battle within the GOP in the next few years.  There will be some that want the party to come to the middle on some of the social stuff.  And there will be some that will want to go more "pure" conservative.  They'll have their shot in 2 years to go after some House and Senate stuff again, and depending on how that goes, we'll see what happens for the Presidency. 

Oh, yes, I think Huntsman would have been a fabulous candidate.  I might have even voted for him, but there was no way, no how the Republican establishment would let him run.  Hence, my statement about Mitt being the best thing they had to offer.

Moderates have no place in the Republican party any more, which is why they failed.

Don't be so quick to make this statement.  Their nominee for president 2 times now has been a moderate.  The problem is that they have to shed their moderation to get the nomination and they can't convince people that they're genuine in their search for the middle.

Chris Christie is perhaps the most beloved GOP figure right now, nationally speaking.  He's a moderate.  Perhaps the Republicans will start moving in that direction.  Not all will -- it will have to be a gradual shift.

Which means he can't win the nomination, even though he would be an excelent canidate if he could win the nomination.

I think it is way too early to talk 2016 personally.

Former moderate.  According to Romney himself, he is "severely conservative."

Moderate candidates cannot win GOP primaries.

If you mean beloved outside of the GOP, sure.  But that doesn't mean anything in a primary election.

As Spider put it, former moderates.  And that is a huge part of each of their problems.  One of Romney's main campaign points was the repeal of Obamacare.  But the problem was it was not that different than Romneycare.  Which didn't really fool anyone so he just sounded like a politician who flip-flopped.   McCain had the same problem.  Neither Obama, H. Clinton, C. Clinton, or GWB changed their tune to a great degree to win the nomination. You might not like that tune, but it didn't change much.  Kerry, McCain, and Romney all changed their tune quite dramatically.       

While the former moderates is a cute anecdote, it's total bullshit.  Romney and McCain are moderates.  They can call themselves whatever they want, but saying you're "severely conservative" doesn't make it so.  It just makes you a liar.

Had Romney been able to win his nomination by "hugging" Obama like he did at the debates, maybe he'd be president now.  It's when you try to be something you're not, you come off as a phony.

I won't disagree with you on that.  But the point remains.  You can't win the GOP nomination as a moderate, running as a moderate.  In order to win the nomination you must either be a far right canidate -- GWB or run as as a sever conservative -- McCain'08, Romney.  If you are a moderate running as a moderate -- McCain'00, Guilinai.  You won't win Rep primaries.   

They campaigned as conservatives, and they were rejected for the same.  Jon Huntsman had a very conservative record as governor of Utah, but he chose to campaign as a moderate, and was rejected in the primaries for that position.

You don't win an election based on your record, you win it by convincing people of what you will do (and your record is only part of that).  If the GOP primary had never existed, Romney might have been able to convince the electorate that he would govern as a moderate... but his desperate sprint to the right in the primaries made that impossible.  Pre-primary McCain had some of the most bipartisan support of any politician in decades (look at how he was beloved by The Daily Show), but his actions in the primary, along with his selection of That Woman, undid most of that.

This is legitimate speculation, but it's speculation that I don't believe would prove to be true -- though it's not been tested.  The crazies serve to "scare" the business GOP, but I don't think they're a real threat.  Romney was going to beat that field regardless of who was in it.  I believe he would have still won the nomination by being a sensible conservative.

If Jeb Bush or Chris Christie make a serious run at the position, I believe they can win without getting nuts.  I think that it might actually be good for the GOP to put that to the test and see if the base will actually elect a lunatic: Herman Cain, Bachman, etc.  Then let them get destroyed and reshape the party.

Yes, it has been tested.  McCain ran as a moderate in 2000 and got is ass kicked in the primary.  He embraced the far right in 2008 and won the primary and got is ass kicked in the general election.  Guliani was a ligitimate moderate in 2008 and couldn't get any support.   

Interesting point and I see what you're saying.

I'll counter with this: 2000 was a long time ago -- the political landscape has changed.  Bush was a big name, as was McCain.  And Bush won....something that the far right can no longer do, it seems.  And even Bush ran on a "compassionate conservative" platform, which has since been replaced with self-deportation, contraception, and all these other extreme social positions.

I think that Guiliani lost to McCain for 2 reasons: It was his turn, like the GOP is so famous for.  And he really didn't have a platform, other than "9/11 this, 9/11 that".  But it also goes to my point that McCain is a moderate.  So is Giuliani.  It's not like Giuliani got beat from someone on the right -- just someone acting like they were.

It's not "speculation" at all; GOP primary voters have resoundingly rejected moderates.  Look at the only GOP president primary candidate that never led the field or won any poll of any kind: Huntsman.  What was the defining characteristic of his campaign?  Moderatism.

And you keep saying that they are only "acting" like they're extremely conservative, but what you actually mean is that they are campaigning as extreme conservatives, which is the whole point.  Maybe if they got into office, they might revert to their previous moderate policies... but at that point, "you dance with the girl that brung you" is a powerful argument.  If you campaigned as a severe conservative and won, why wouldn't you govern as one?

Huntsman is a particularly poor example.  He never had any funding to gain ground, he didn't have a name people knew...  He wasn't gaining any ground, regardless of his positions on anything.  He's another boring Mormon with Obama ties -- just one that nobody knew and without a ridiculous war-chest and financial backing.

And I don't agree that Romney campaigned as a conservative.  He campaigned HALF THE TIME as a conservative.  And then ran to be a moderate for the election and campaigned on that stuff. 

I personally don't think that Romney was going to be pushing Pro-Life bills in the White House if he were elected, as you'd have thought if you listened to him in the primaries.  ...but you never know.  He was a business guy who was going to do business things -- tax cuts for rich & corporations, drop regulations, etc.

That is the worst way to campaign -- being two-faced.

Dave, traditionally the argument that the "establishment candidate" (e.g. Romney) makes during the primary is, "My opponents are too extreme to win the general election.  Vote for me, the more moderate candidate, so we have a chance to win in the general."  This is precisely the argument that Huntsman made in this cycle.  He lost in an embarrassing fashion.  (And your arguments for funding or name recognition would carry more weight if Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain had not climbed their way to the top of the GOP primary polls at one point or another.  Huntsman stands alone as the one primary candidate that had no traction whatsoever at any time.)

Contrast that with the primary argument that Romney actually made, which was "I am much more conservative than my opponents."  The guy tried to place himself to the right of Rick Santorum on abortion!  At no point did Romney attempt to make the argument that the less extreme candidate would stand a better chance in the general; instead, he tried to prove himself to be more extreme than his competitors.

This is the problem.  When everyone in your primary is running as fast as they can towards the fringe, you cannot just etch-a-sketch your way back to the center for the general.  Yes, it's well-known that candidates play to their base in primaries and tack back to the center in the general... but when even the establishment candidates are shunning the label of moderate, you are playing in a different league.

^^ I largely agree with the last two points.

This is what Romney tried and failed.  The GOP, realistically, should have been able to beat the Dems with a weak economy.  They ran to the right and couldn't two-face their way back to the middle, thus the loss.  Worse for them, they are damaging the long-term viability of their brand in doing so.

I can admit that I didn't watch the polling all that closely and a good pollster can almost predict his outcome by targeting the right groups but I find it hard to believe both of these candidates (or either) topped any credible polling. Were either of them really looking like the top candidates at any point or does this go into the pulled one out of the ass for emphasis category? I considered both of them idiots but like I said I really didn't follow the polling.

^ Cain and Bachman led the polls but it was smoke and mirrors.  I don't think anyone ever believed that either of them had a legitimate shot at the election.

The GOP primary electorate hated Mitt Romney and successively glommed on to everyone that was Not Romney (except Huntsman) until that person proved completely incompetent.  Romney essentially won by default.

I believe the poll leadership timeline was Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum.