Adaher 2016 cycle election prediction thread

[Do_Not_Taunt]

I thought we might want to track this one here:

@adaher

I think the Democratic nominee will get about 37% of the white vote. The Democrats’ lawless stance on immigration and wanting to expand the welfare state and raise taxes while killing good paying jobs in the energy industry is going to further push white voters away from the party.

[iiandyiiii]

@Do_Not_Taunt

I thought we might want to track this one here:

Good call. That okay with you, ** adaher**?

[ElvisL1ves]

I dunno, the cause of white flight from the Dems would be hard to prove. How about just predicting that it will happen?

[bethewave]

@Do_Not_Taunt

While we’re predicting things that can never be tested, who do you think would win between Napoleon and Freddy Mercury?

We need to know the context! Win in what?

Life-or-death game of Monopoly?
Iron Chef: Secret Ingredient - Buffalo meat?
Land war in Asia?
Pants off dance-off?

[iiandyiiii]

@ElvisL1ves

I dunno, the cause of white flight from the Dems would be hard to prove. How about just predicting that it will happen?

I’m focusing on the number. If 37 is close to the real number, then I think it’s a pretty good prediction. If the real number turns out to be 43, then it’s not.

[iiandyiiii]

New prediction about Hillary’s VP pick (last paragraph – that it will not be Julian Castro – the others may not really qualify as actual predictions, since there are several possibilities).

@adaher

Astorian nailed it, and I’d add that Clinton values loyalty. She will pick someone she has a long relationship with and who has supported her over the years.

I see these as the frontrunners:

Tom Vilsack
Terry Mac
Wesley Clark

I see these as dark horses:

Erskine Bowles
Bill Richardson
Howard Dean

It will not be Julian Castro. Just stop, people. And media. Hillary Clinton can count, and she lost in 2008 for failure to understand the process. She has to know that the Latino vote will not decide the 2016 election. It’s going to be all about women and African-Americans, so if she does make a direct play for a demographic, it’s going to be Cory Booker or Deval Patrick. And if she did want a Latino she’d just pick Richardson(assuming he could pass vetting), who is ready to be President on Day 1 and is a longtime Clinton loyalist.

[adaher]

I’d note that the only time a VP candidate has been pretty much what people expected was when Kerry picked Edwards. I’d also note that Clinton’s statement about Castro indicated more that she wanted him in her administration in some position. Retaining him at HUD seems pretty likely to me, especially since he only just took the office.

My reasoning on Clinton is that candidates usually pick someone they are comfortable with, and Hillary Clinton puts a high value on loyalty. Given how many well qualified people there are in her circle of loyalists there’s really no reason for her to go casting about for people she doesn’t know well.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

I think Cruz is neither, and he still has a window. He could be the choice that Trump’s and Carson’s supporters might support if they are gone. I wouldn’t go so far as to predict this, though.

It’s sure looking pretty good right now though. Cruz has surprised me. He’s played his hand very skillfully.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

You’re aware Richardson endorsed Obama in '08, right? If your thesis is that Clinton values loyalty, that’d put him out, not in. It’s all irrelevant anyway, since he’s 68, and Clinton isn’t going to pick a fellow oldster to run with her.

It’s clearly going to be Tipper Gore.

[adaher]

True. Endorsing Obama in '08 would probably disqualify a candidate from consideration. I didn’t remember that Richardson had endorsed Obama. I still don’t think it’s going to be Castro though. There’s just no way to know how he’d perform on the national stage. He could be JFK, he could be Dan Quayle.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

Well, shit, adaher, I agree. I don’t think it’s going to be Castro (either one) either.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

True. Endorsing Obama in '08 would probably disqualify a candidate from consideration.

So you think she won’t pick any establishment Democrats? Because they all supported the party’s nominee, surprisingly enough.

[adaher]

When it was over, sure. But she’ll remember who endorsed Obama when it mattered.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

To be clear, Richardson endorsed Obama while the primary was still in full swing. I don’t necessarily agree with adaher’s loyalty hypothesis (I think Clinton would take Richardson in a second if he’d be the best VP to help her win), but if you do accept that hypothesis, you can’t also think she’ll pick Richardson.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@adaher

I would have said that pre-email, but her handling of that issue reminded everyone of what her problem was after a mostly scandal-free tenure at State.

Now I think she’s severely damaged and has little chance. She can only win if the Republican does even worse.

If you ask me, one thing that will really really help Clinton win the general election is a Republican campaign focusing heavily on emails and Bengazhi and the like.

The only effective way to play these things is to focus on issues and let this type of baggage weigh on the opponent in the background. Then it helps you. But focusing too heavily on them creates the perception that you’re all about relatively personal attacks while the opponent is all about Issues Affecting The People, and this is more damaging to you than the baggage is to the opponent.

Unfortunately, Republicans seem to fall into this trap again and again, since the (Bill) Clinton days, at least. (I think it’s the conservative echo chamber, e.g. talk radio etc.)

[adaher]

I agree, but so far the Republicans are focusing fire more on each other, while putting out their ideas, than on Clinton. I don’t think they will fall into that trap. Besides, the media’s doing their work for them. Just let Clinton continue to piss off the media and let the media continue to attack her, while the Republican puts forth an optimistic message.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I agree, but so far the Republicans are focusing fire more on each other, while putting out their ideas, than on Clinton. I don’t think they will fall into that trap. Besides, the media’s doing their work for them. Just let Clinton continue to piss off the media and let the media continue to attack her, while the Republican puts forth an optimistic message.

Have I missed some recent Benghazi or email bombshell? I haven’t heard anything new that would be negative in months, I think.

[adaher]

There’s stuff bubbling under the MSM surface, but even if those don’t pan out, it’s always something with her. And you can be sure the media is looking.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

There’s stuff bubbling under the MSM surface, but even if those don’t pan out, it’s always something with her. And you can be sure the media is looking.

What’ve I told you about fantasizing in public?

[adaher]

Remember what she had to deal with against Obama? She does. I’ve been having fun lately watching Daily Show and Colbert from the period. Just vicious.