2016 Election Prediction Thread

[Statistikhengst]

Your sockiness is fun to watch.

Much more entertaining to see yours

Tell us RuPaul, what will happen tomorrow? Following your patterns, of course. Be specific. sim sala bim.

Well, I am not RuPaul, I don't even know who he is. But tomorrow I am going to be here. Who knows if you will. Shazaam.

You don't even know that lol. Maybe you'll be poisoned by hair dye, or choke on a cloud of rouge in your sleep. Áyo, maygain.

I read up. RuPaul is a gay figure. Not interesting to me. Next.

It's simply a matter of cosmetic preference. I understand you're a Maybelline Man.

This shows how little you understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Sarah G]

You are right, McCain was campaigning in grocery stores when Palin came along and gave him a slight bump. Crowds were nowhere near Obama's but she did okay until she started doing interviews. People began to think about McCain's age and her being first in line of succession and attitudes toward her changed in a big hurry.

Absolutely correct. The 10 latest polls leading up to McCain announcing Palin as his running mate, Obama lead McCain by an average of just 2.2 percentage points. Compare that to the last 10 polls taken just one month later ... Obama's lead stretched to an average of 5.3 points.

WH2008 General

Only the truly brain dead thinks that Palin didn't sink McCain.

Only the truly braindead thinks McCain needed help losing that election.

You missed the point, but that's ok, whackie Righties usually do.

No I didn't. Sarah Palin would have been elected Vice President of the United States had she a better candidate to run with.

Oh, my. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

She was never going to be allowed anywhere near the WH.

 

[dcraelin]

the only reason Hillary would run would be to lose, Its the Republican's turn in this fraudulent "2-party" system we have.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Much more entertaining to see yours

Tell us RuPaul, what will happen tomorrow? Following your patterns, of course. Be specific. sim sala bim.

Well, I am not RuPaul, I don't even know who he is. But tomorrow I am going to be here. Who knows if you will. Shazaam.

You don't even know that lol. Maybe you'll be poisoned by hair dye, or choke on a cloud of rouge in your sleep. Áyo, maygain.

I read up. RuPaul is a gay figure. Not interesting to me. Next.

It's simply a matter of cosmetic preference. I understand you're a Maybelline Man.

This shows how little you understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Max Factor! Trés chic!

 

[JoeB131]

Bush leaving the country swinging in the wind lost McCain the election. That is true. But Sarah being the loon she is certainly did not help him.

Well, yes and no.

Palin's presence on the ticket did energize a lot of movement conservatives who were unenthusiastic about McCain, who they felt the establishment fobbed onto them and most of them really didn't want.

Here was the thing. Wall Street wanted Romney, (at least after Giuliani crashed and burned) while the evangelicals in flyover country wanted Huckabee after they figured out Fred Thompson only sounded smart when Dick Wolf was writing his dialog. So they were stuck with a compromise candidate that no one was thrilled with.

I do think between the unpopularity of the war and the September stock market crash, nothing was going to save the GOP nominee, no matter who he was.

 

[JimH52]

Actually, no. You are way out of your league, here, and have no idea how much data flowed that showed that Palin sunk and already damaged ship.

You are right, McCain was campaigning in grocery stores when Palin came along and gave him a slight bump. Crowds were nowhere near Obama's but she did okay until she started doing interviews. People began to think about McCain's age and her being first in line of succession and attitudes toward her changed in a big hurry.

Absolutely correct. The 10 latest polls leading up to McCain announcing Palin as his running mate, Obama lead McCain by an average of just 2.2 percentage points. Compare that to the last 10 polls taken just one month later ... Obama's lead stretched to an average of 5.3 points.

WH2008 General

Only the truly brain dead thinks that Palin didn't sink McCain.

Only the truly braindead thinks McCain needed help losing that election.

You missed the point, but that's ok, whackie Righties usually do.

No I didn't. Sarah Palin would have been elected Vice President of the United States had she a bettercandidate to run with.

That is hilaroius!

 

[candycorn]

I would think Hillary would be very supportive of the LGBT since she's bi-sexual! Is she trying to hide her queerness?

You should try harder to hide yours.

 

[candycorn]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

Nice post.

Thanks. I try to give a serious answer although it's getting harder and harder to take what is posted here seriously.

 

[candycorn]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

 

[candycorn]

You are right, McCain was campaigning in grocery stores when Palin came along and gave him a slight bump. Crowds were nowhere near Obama's but she did okay until she started doing interviews. People began to think about McCain's age and her being first in line of succession and attitudes toward her changed in a big hurry.

Absolutely correct. The 10 latest polls leading up to McCain announcing Palin as his running mate, Obama lead McCain by an average of just 2.2 percentage points. Compare that to the last 10 polls taken just one month later ... Obama's lead stretched to an average of 5.3 points.

WH2008 General

Only the truly brain dead thinks that Palin didn't sink McCain.

Only the truly braindead thinks McCain needed help losing that election.

You missed the point, but that's ok, whackie Righties usually do.

No I didn't. Sarah Palin would have been elected Vice President of the United States had she a better candidate to run with.

Oh, my. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

St dumbass needs to put down the crack pipe.

 

[candycorn]

Bush leaving the country swinging in the wind lost McCain the election. That is true. But Sarah being the loon she is certainly did not help him.

Well, yes and no.

Palin's presence on the ticket did energize a lot of movement conservatives who were unenthusiastic about McCain, who they felt the establishment fobbed onto them and most of them really didn't want.

Here was the thing. Wall Street wanted Romney, (at least after Giuliani crashed and burned) while the evangelicals in flyover country wanted Huckabee after they figured out Fred Thompson only sounded smart when Dick Wolf was writing his dialog. So they were stuck with a compromise candidate that no one was thrilled with.

I do think between the unpopularity of the war and the September stock market crash, nothing was going to save the GOP nominee, no matter who he was.

Good synopsis. McCain had to cut staff so badly he was carrying his own luggage at airports sometimes as I recall.

 

[Synthaholic]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

 

[JimH52]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

 

[candycorn]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

 

[The Rabbi]

Predictions,

1. Hillary won't run because of two reasons A. She is far, far too old and B. She isn't rabidly enough supportive of the church of LGBT currently in full control of her once-great party.

2. Christie will try to run, but the good old boys that still jump when Cheney snaps his liver-spotted fingers will kill his nomination. Christie would pull in a landslide victory against anyone, including Hillary that the left decides to run.

3. They won't run Bush because the middle voters have HAD IT with the name "Bush". No exceptions. The rotten apples will never fall far from that tree.

4. Elizabeth Warren during a time of multiple and escalating crises is like electing Pippie Longstockings to run the US Marine Corp.

5. The democrats will settle on someone who won't win the 2016 election because the pressures and financing from the FARRRRRRRRR left will guarantee nobody in the middle with a modicum of common sense will go near their candidate.

6. I could be wrong about all of the above, but probably won't be about half of it.

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

McCain and Romney... ROFL The two oldest and leftmost republicans of all time. Can't imagine why the kids didn't vote for crabby old great great grandfathers.

 

[Synthaholic]

McCain and Romney... ROFL The two oldest and leftmost republicans of all time. Can't imagine why the kids didn't vote for crabby old great great grandfathers.

Can't imagine why you "conservatives" nominated them.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well, at least this guy has no shot.

 

[candycorn]

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the **** up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, at least this guy has no shot.

Ahhh, but Ted is guaranteed to landslide in Calgary!!!