Steve Beshear, that’s a great choice.
That’s probably a good bet in itself. He does bring the appearance of youth/energy, Hispanicness, key-swing-state residence, and, perhaps more important, articulateness to any ticket. He’s been as vigorous an immigrant-basher as any of them, but not enough to stand out and it won’t cost him in relative terms.
Rubio certainly wouldn’t be any more of an embarrassment than Paul Ryan or Dan Quayle, not they were ever able to leverage it into something more, even if another nominee back in 1920 (
so what?) once was.
I don’t think this is a prediction so much as wishful thinking, but I would really, REALLY like to see Brian Schweitzer on the ticket. His populism is great, and he might even make Montana competitive.
Clinton (or whoever the Dem nominee is) might look at Jerry Brown, but I think that voters might have a problem with the ticket being dominated by two candidates who are both older than 60. As much as it pains me to say it - because I think Brown is a fantastic governor - picking him for the VP doesn’t facilitate any real advantages, given that there’s no doubt as to which way CA will vote in 2016.
Schweitzer would be another great choice.
I think it’s probably Bush vs. Rubio for the GOP nomination. My guess is that Jeb edges it, but I’d call it 55/45 right now.
Hillary wins the Dem nomination and the general election, both comfortably.
I doubt either party’s VP is currently a declared candidate.
But you said it “only” happened twice as if it were a rare occurrence. There have only been three instances in the last 100 years of a party holding office for 12 years straight. So two out of three is more often than not. Although, something with such a small sample size doesn’t have any predictive value anyway.
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
The Electoral College cannot vote for a president and vice president from the same state.
[/quote]
This is not true.
Not sure if you’re nit-picking his language or something, but the general idea expressed is right there in the Constitution:
“The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”
It’s not the entire Electoral College, but only the electors of the state in question. It would only matter if the Bush-Rubio ticket won in a squeaker. Rubio couldn’t get Florida’s votes, keeping him short of 270, and the VP election would go to the House - which would then certainly elect Rubio anyway.
No biggie.
True. The letter of the law does not preclude this and the current makeup of Congress would ensure a Republican Veep.
No party has ever dared flout this, though, in more than 100 tickets. The intent of the Founders was forced diversity. Well, the intent was keeping Virginia or Massachusetts from having both spots; the Founders were both big-minded and petty at the same time. It won’t happen this year for Florida; the distraction alone would hurt the ticket.
But I yield to the Gentleman from Nitpickistan.
Given the way Trump perfectly reflects the voter base the Republican Party has nurtured and cultivated, this is like someone gearing up to amputate his own hand with an axe, and would have similarly painful and messy results.
Anyway, a shorter-term prediction – there will be a government shutdown, and it will push Trump up by about ten points in the polls (with similar but smaller effects on lesser-light outsiders Carson and Fiorina). The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the GOP Establishment pundits will be even louder and more desperate than it is already.
I think Clinton will get past the email server thing and get the nomination. I’m less sure of that than I once was though.
On the Red side, I don’t know. I could see it going like 2012 with different candidates on top at different times until Bush finally sews up the nomination. However, the primary voters may actively resist that path since it ended in abject failure the last time.
I’m also from Nitpickistan, and I’m here to point out that the House only selects the President in the event of a non-majority in the EC (by the weird mechanism of each state delegation getting one vote.) The Senate selects the VP by the more standard one-Senator-one-vote mechanism. Same outcome, since this would happen prior to the new Democratic majority being sworn in.
I can’t even begin to predict the GOP candidate, but if it is Jeb, he’d be smart to pick Kasich as his running mate to try to nail down Ohio. That’s may be true for whoever gets the nomination.
The GOP nominee will not be Bush nor Rubio, let alone a ticket with both of them.
The next US President will be neither Trump nor Clinton. More likely, whoever gets the Anyone But Trump vote on the GOP side: possibly Kasich or Christie.
I agree that it won’t be Trump of Clinton, but Christie or Kasich need a lot to fall the right way for them to win.
Rubio is the default nominee and he’s campaigning like it, not really trying to hard but just waiting to be the guy. The downside to that is that if a credible alternative does emerge, such as Christie or Kasich or Bush, he’s toast. The upside is that he might actually be the only plausible nominee, so why spend all your money?
And there go two more of your most confident recent predictions.
Note: Short-sell your shares in Rubio.
I hope I am wrong, but I think the Republican nominee is going to be Trump.
I predict he is going to be the Taylor Hicks of presidential politics. For those who aren’t big TV contest watchers, Taylor Hicks won American Idol season 5. Hicks was totally NOT what the AI producers were looking for - he was a high-end lounge act* rather than pop star material and he barely made it to the semi-finals.
Then he proceeded to win the competition every single week**. One could feel the consternation of the judges and producers mounting - much like we will feel the consternation of the Republican Party and the other contestants …ummm I mean candidates… as Trump wins every single primary, hands down.
Then the GOP may try to blame Dems crossing over and voting in the open primaries for Trump’s terrific success, much as some Idol watchers attributed Hick’s success to a campaign waged by a web site called Vote for the Worst. But they will be wrong.
The “pledge to support the winner” that the GOP extracted from all candidates will then come back to bite their collective asses.
It will be an interesting year because of that pledge. I’m wondering if the GOP will resort to using their Murdoch-Ailes-Fox News media machine to sabotage their own candidate.
Just my prediction - I hope it doesn’t come true. I’m scared to call the general election in the same way I’m scared of saying " Beetlejuice" three times in a row
- Today, Hicks is among the most financially successful Idol alumni, not because of his recording career but because he has a permanent stage show in Vegas.
** This is not official. AI does not announce who got the MOST votes each week, only the three lowest ranking contestants. However, independent sources like Dialidol.com which extrapolated the data by monitoring the busy single percentage on their speed dial program reported him as the likely winner every single week.
I expect that they will try diverting all available resources downticket in an attempt at damage control, and pray that the Democrats aren’t smart enough to maintain a steady drumbeat of “Do you agree with [latest Trump insanity]?” and thereby tie the boat anchor to their whole party.
Right now, I give the Republican race about a 60% chance of Rubio, a 30% chance of Trump, and a 10% chance of Cruz. I don’t think anyone else has a chance.
On the Democratic side, it’s about 80% Clinton, 20% Sanders.
If the Republican candidate ends up being Rubio, he has about a 30% chance of winning versus either Democrat. If it’s Cruz vs. Sanders, it’s Cruz 20 to Sanders 80. Any other combination, the Democrats are over 95% to win.
In no case will either running mate be someone who’s currently running. O’Malley is clearly aiming for that, but he’s not going to succeed.