U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[BigLutz]

The 2014/2016 U.S. Election Thread!​

I can hear you all groaning with excitement! It's that time of year again, for American citizens to be inundated with annoying television commercials and tacky yard signs as the months widdle away toward only 40% go to the ballot box!

Before the start of the thread I would like to give you several links to help you out.
Nate Silver, pollster that uses several confusing equations to help tell how elections will turn out
Washington Post, a great go to source for up to date US Political news and national topics
Real Clear Politics, a great quick read if you are looking for politics/polls
Cook Political Report, a great way to get a partisan rating of a district or state, these ratings give a idea of the built in advantage a certain politician has when running for reelection

Please everyone feel free to join in with their picks, guesses, and news updates but be sure to give a reasonable explanation on why you think a person or party will win, or why that news update is relevant.


Political Maps ( Users )

YourFavoriteUser: Senate ( GOP +4 )
YourFavoriteUser: Governor ( Dem +2 )

John Madden: Senate ( GOP + 1 to Push )
John Madden: Governor ( Dem + 7 )

Political Maps ( Media/Pundits )

Washington Post: Senate ( GOP + 8 )

 

[Peter Quill]

Yeah, so I approved this thread despite me/sogeking closing the last one.

I'm going to be plain, this thread is going to be watched over constantly by myself. There was too much democrat v. republican ******** happening in other threads for my tastes (I mean come on guys I'm Canadian ). If you guys **** up this thread and get it closed I won't be happy and there's going to be bans for everybody involved. I'm not being nice right now but there have been two threads in this section closed because of petty bickering so I think this is well warranted.

In the words of RuPaul: Good luck and don't **** it up.

 

[John Madden]

before we really get started ITT I'd like to add just one more link to the mix: the Princeton Election Consortium, headed by one Sam Wang

their methodology's actually openly out there (that's to be expected, being a blog run by Princeton academics) and they managed to get the 2004, 2008 and 2012 EV results exactly right, as well as 2006 and 2012's Congressional results, and their errors in 2010 were about the size of Silver's

 

[WizardTrubbish]

All right, I'll get things started. I've compiled my predictions for senate here and my predictions for governor here. I expect the GOP to gain for seats in the senate, picking up Arkansas, West Virginia, South Dakota, and Montana, mostly because the map is ridiculously GOP favored ( There are 7 D-held seats up in Romney states and only one R-held seat in an Obama state), but the fact that the president's party has a tendency to take a beating in the second midterm and Obama's below water approval ratings aren't exactly making things easier. On the other hand, I have Democrats gaining three governors seats (Maine, Pennsylvania, and Florida), while only losing Arkansas, for a net change of D+2. The governor's races are going to go a lot better than the senate for the D's for a couple of reasons. Republicans have to defend a number of unpopular governors, many in Obama states. Even Georgia, Kansas, and South Carolina are potentially in play, thanks to their respective governors horrible approval ratings. Additionally, governors races are dominated by local issues, so national politics will have much less of an effect here than in congressional races.

Regarding 2016, I'm going to state the obvious: Hillary is the clear frontrunner. There's nobody in the Democratic primary that can touch her, and she leads all of her potential Republican opponents. That being said, I don't think a Hillary presidency is inevitable. Polls right now mean nothing, and only really indicate name recognition. Besides, history has shown that it's extremely difficult for one party to win three elections in a row. Even if Hillary looks strong now, Democrat fatigue and Obama's approval can doom her.

Now that I've given my own long analysis, I should probably give my personal preference for 2016. Unlike most Democrats, I'm not #ready4hillary. In fact, the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency absolutely terrifies me. I don't think I could ever support anyone on record voting for both the Iraq War and PATRIOT act. And looking at her long political career, what has she actually accomplished? She was a do-nothing senator and the highlight of her tenure as First Lady was a botched attempt at health care reform. She wasn't really that great of a SoS either. As someone on the left so has been severely disappointed by Obama, Hillary only looks like she'll be worse.

Also she tried to ban violent video games ew.

So, who do I support? Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The independent senator from Vermont, Sanders is the only democratic socialist serving in American government and without a doubt the closest to me ideologically. He's one of the few people who have expressed any interest in challenging Hillary from the left, and he brings many of the same criticisms of her as I did. Even if he has next to no chance, a contested primary is healthy for the party and no one candidate should be allowed to waltz into the nomination unquestioned like so many seem fine with Hillary doing. If Sanders does end up running, I'll be proud to support him.

 

[BigLutz]

Regarding 2016, I'm going to state the obvious: Hillary is the clear frontrunner. There's nobody in the Democratic primary that can touch her, and she leads all of her potential Republican opponents. That being said, I don't think a Hillary presidency is inevitable. Polls right now mean nothing, and only really indicate name recognition. Besides, history has shown that it's extremely difficult for one party to win three elections in a row. Even if Hillary looks strong now, Democrat fatigue and Obama's approval can doom her.

I am curious, as this question will come up if she runs, what are her qualifications? Alot of the main things she did as Secretary of State have largely blown up like Russia and Libyia.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

I am curious, as this question will come up if she runs, what are her qualifications? Alot of the main things she did as Secretary of State have largely blown up like Russia and Libyia.

Honestly, I have no idea what qualified her. Her senate career was about as notable as John Boozman's and her tenure as SoS was rocky to say the least. I know a lot of people respect her active role as First Lady, but what did she accomplish there anyway? Hillary care? Lol. Laura Bush and Michelle Obama were both probably much better First Ladies.

 

[Maedar]

I am curious, as this question will come up if she runs, what are her qualifications? Alot of the main things she did as Secretary of State have largely blown up like Russia and Libyia.

What I'm curious about is, who her opponent will be.

Up until a few months ago, the only possible GOP contender that most pundits considered able to challenge her was Christie.

But not anymore.

 

[BigLutz]

What I'm curious about is, who her opponent will be.

Up until a few months ago, the only possible GOP contender that most pundits considered able to challenge her was Christie.

But not anymore.

The GOP has a rather wide field of candidates that have been prepped over the last few years.

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindal
Scott Walker
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul

The list goes on and on, the GOP has spent years prepping a list of young experienced candidates to take on a national stage, call it a Farm Team to use baseball analogies. That may pay dividends in the next few presidential elections.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

What I'm curious about is, who her opponent will be.

Up until a few months ago, the only possible GOP contender that most pundits considered able to challenge her was Christie.

But not anymore.

Jeb Bush is probably the frontrunner right now. The other two establishment candidates (Walker and Christie), have been plagued by recent scandals. Bush has a fairly decent record as governor and could easily secure the key swing seat as Florida. While right now the GOP field is so crowded it could be anyone, if someone put a gun to my head and asked me to guess the nominee, I'd say we'd be looking at a Bush vs. Clinton matchup

 

[Maedar]

With due respect, YFU, Jeb's very name is anathema. Even his mother has advised him not to run. The memories of the two wars his brother started because of WMD that didn't exist, the deaths they caused and the fortune it cost, are still lingering. The name "Bush" is not a name that will likely be successful in politics again.

Of course, if you use the "gun to my head" analogy, I guess I'd have to say so. I'd still say Jeb would lose, however.

 

[BigLutz]

The memories of the two wars his brother started because of WMD that didn't exist

Afghanistan was because of WMDs?

Mind you if luggage from a previous administration is bad, then wouldn't Clinton's time as Sec of State hurt her?

 

[John Madden]

Going to make an extremely preliminary 2014 prediction for the Senate and governor races (I'll make a preliminary House prediction when the Bayesian Crew makes theirs).

Senate: R+1 to push (Rs gain South Dakota and West Virginia by wide margins, Ds barely gain Kentucky and Georgia, everything else is a hold - I'm not as sure about Montana as anything else on either side). 114th Congress: 54-46 or 55-45.

Governors: D+7 (reverse-2010: Dems gain Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin all too close to call on election night, with the most probable switches being Arizona and Arkansas). Governorship lean stands at 28-22 going into 2015.

Senate race map
Governor race map

Mind you if luggage from a previous administration is bad, then wouldn't Clinton's time as Sec of State hurt her?

Only if you expect Benghazi to be a major issue in 2016, as I feel the situation in Ukraine has exploded a bit too recently for Clinton's actions at State to have been a major contributor in most people's eyes.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Going to make an extremely preliminary 2014 prediction for the Senate and governor races (I'll make a preliminary House prediction when the Bayesian Crew makes theirs).

Senate: R+1 to push (Rs gain South Dakota and West Virginia by wide margins, Ds barely gain Kentucky and Georgia, everything else is a hold - I'm not as sure about Montana as anything else on either side). 114th Congress: 54-46 or 55-45.

Governors: D+7 (reverse-2010: Dems gain Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin all too close to call on election night, with the most probable switches being Arizona and Arkansas). Governorship lean stands at 28-22 going into 2015.

Senate race map
Governor race map

The Republican governor of Iowa is extremely popular and leads all of his challengers in the polls by wide margins. It's very unlikely we take him out.

And Rhode island is already held by a Democrat

 

[BigLutz]

Only if you expect Benghazi to be a major issue in 2016, as I feel the situation in Ukraine has exploded a bit too recently for Clinton's actions at State to have been a major contributor in most people's eyes.

Maybe not Benghazi specifically but the pure lawlessness in Libya after our actions there

As for Ukraine remember that picture of the reset button that thing will be in every campaign ad against her as long as Russia remains a problem. It doesn't matter that Ukraine wasn't a problem while she was there, the picture is just deadly in terms of image and a quick sound bite instead of a more nuanced perspective

 

[John Madden]

Rhode Island is held by an independent, and I'm not entirely convinced that Branstad's going to be particularly strong going into the fall (mainly because he keeps showing up on the wrong side of 45%)

Maybe not Benghazi specifically but the pure lawlessness in Libya after our actions there

I'm gonna be blunt here - I don't expect this to be much of a factor, solely because it doesn't involve Americans getting shot at.

As for Ukraine remember that picture of the reset button that thing will be in every campaign ad against her as long as Russia remains a problem. It doesn't matter that Ukraine wasn't a problem while she was there, the picture is just deadly in terms of image and a quick sound bite instead of a more nuanced perspective

I can see that this might be a problem, but she can probably easily throw Kerry under the bus to avoid any real repercussions.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Rhode Island is held by an independent, and I'm not entirely convinced that Branstad's going to be particularly strong going into the fall (mainly because he keeps showing up on the wrong side of 45%)

Chafee joined the Democratic party last May

 

[Maedar]

Okay, Lutz, let's address all of those "potential candidates":


Jeb Bush: The reason I already claimed.


Chris Christie: One word: Bridgegate. His popularity is falling like a brick.


Marco Rubio: Won't even be nominated. The more ultra-conservative GOPs are sure to remember this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/marco-rubio-gay-marriage_n_4569472.html

Rubio is actually helping the Democrats far more than any actual Democrat in Florida.


Scott Walker. Scandals are plaguing him too, and stuff like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/wisconsin-secession_n_5147443.html

...are making him look like a fool.


Bobby Jindal: He opposes anti-discrimination laws: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/marco-rubio-gay-marriage_n_4569472.html

Defended Phil Robertson's comparison of homosexuality to bestiality: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/search.php/?q=Bobby+Jindal

And I'll let this one speak for itself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/eric-holder-bobby-jindal_n_4921083.html

You must admit, he has no chance.


Ted Cruz: No comment


Rand Paul: One word: Plagiarism. (You people complain that Mr. Obama uses a teleprompter, but at least he doesn't copy other people's work.) Anyone with an MA knows that this act is an unforgivable crime in academia, and all Ms. Clinton has to do is mention it in her ads. Not to mention, Paul wants pilots to carry guns, and made a racist comment aimed at Mr. Obama shown here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/rand-paul-nsa_n_4994953.html


Paul Ryan: Have you even read Ryan's budget plan? Not only did both he and the rest of the GOP know it would never be voted on by the Senate - let alone signed by the President - but it simply would not have worked. There were no provisions in the plan at all to pay for any of the initiatives. Ryan is hailed by the GOP as a "financial genius", and yet, he has done nothing to show it.

Besides, he has history against him. Not once has a failed VP candidate won the Presidency. Not once.


I notice you didn't mention Janet Brewer, another name that is often brought up, but I'll mention her anyway. the fact that she even considered signing that legalized discrimination bill makes her reviled in even her own state. She's out too.


I've given my reasons.

What baggage does Ms. Clinton have? All I've heard from the GOP is her age and Benghazi, a phony scandal which is embarrassing the Republicans more than ever now.

 

[John Madden]

Chafee joined the Democratic party last May

It's still technically a Democratic gain from how things stood in 2010

(Also, I'm going to go ahead and say the GOP nominee in 2016 is going to be one of Bush, Christie, or Ryan.)

 

[WizardTrubbish]

Marco Rubio: Won't even be nominated. The more ultra-conservative GOPs are sure to remember this:

Sort of like how the far right stopped McCain and Romney from winning the nomination?

Besides, he has history against him. Not once has a failed VP candidate won the Presidency. Not once.

Except for those four times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920

 

[Maedar]

Warren G. Harding was never a candidate for VP.