U.S Election 2016

Post Reply New Topic

I know that the current presidential race isn't over yet, but I wanted to start an official election thread for 2016. The whole point of this thread is to speculate on the state of American politics in four years as well as who you think the candidates will be. When 2016 draws near, this thread can be used for political discussion of the presidential race.

Here's some of my predictions:

1. Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee regardless of who win's in 2012. She denies it now, but the pressure will be too strong to refuse.
2. Gary Johnson is likely to capture 5% of the national vote, allowing the Libertarian Party access to state funding. If this happens, expect a stronger performance by a third party candidate in 2016.
3. If Obama wins this year, the Republican Party will not take their loss lightly, and they will become even more extreme in 2016, further pushing moderates away from their party. If Romney wins this year, it is likely he won't live up to his supporter's standards, and he will lose them to a third party. Regardless of either outcome or something else, the Republican Party will keep losing representation if they keep heading down the road that they're going on.
4. Due to the divisive nature of the two party system today, it is highly possible that a civil war of some sort could breakout before the next election, directly impacting the race.

Post below what you think will happen.

If Obama wins in 2012, our national debt will be over $20,000,000,000,000 in 2016.

Also I think there will be a huge shake-up in management of the Republican party if they don't win this election.

Its probably wildly optimistic but I would like to see a 'third way' in the American congress. A proper progressive social democratic party, politically analogous to the British Labour party. The democrats are liberals, not Socialist.

Its a shame that the American labour movement has no voice in its national parliament.

Maybe then we start to see this horrible binary understanding of left and right in the US and the final nail in the coffin for McCarthyism.

The U.S. has a national bi-cameral legislature. It does not have a national parliament.

ruveyn

Whichever it has, it lacks a healthy diversity of perspective.

Actually I think our current problem has more to do with Democrats trying to get us to be more like Europe.

I don't think emulating Greece is good for this country.

Most Americans do not care for socialism in the sense you mean it. The U.S. is much farther to the right than the Euro-Trash.

ruveyn

Europeans should not presume to know what it's like to be Americans until they've actually been Americans.

Until then, they should at least try to get their facts straight about us.

Sadly, the debt will be just as bad under Romney. This is why the two-party system will destroy America.

With all due respect, you say this about Obama, as if it wouldn't be true with Romney. Washington spending is out of control and neither party has the political will to reign it in.

Certainly she could be the nominee, and I would be surprised if she didn't desire it, but I think its way too soon to say. Its not even clear yet who her democratic competitors might be but someone else could certainly emerge with more popularity. Plus, in 2000 I could have said exactly what you said for 2004 instead of 2012, and it would have seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. I don't think many thought that Obama or someone else would emergy and usurp Hillary, but it happened.


I hope you're wrong, yet I fear you're right. My hope is that Congressional Republicans have been so extreme and non-compromising because their goal above all else (disgustingly enough, even the welfare of the country) was to unseat Obama. Refusing to compromise with Obama helps them paint Obama as ineffective. But in Obama's 2nd term, refusing any compromise at all might still make Obama look bad, but that won't stick as easily to whomever the Democratic nominee is going to be. Besides, eventually, the reasonable wing of their party might wake up and realize that they outnumber the extreme wing, and band together and force their more moderate will onto the party. Unlikely, but possible.


This I see as unlikely. Maybe possible, but unlikely. Civil wars tend to be more likely when there is a geographically divisive issue - such as the southern interest in slavery and northern anti-slavery interest - which makes organizing the different sides much easier and tends to give these things momentum. Without that, who is going to fight whom?

Romney plans to add $2 trillion to defence spending. Other than big bird, he hasn't made plans to cut anything. We are pretty much screwed no matter who wins. At some point the US WILL have to default on the dome level of the debt. The question is when and how much.

Inflation will be high too, most likely. Since that is the plan.

The Fed doesn't really have many options. Repos won't work, as that will most likely raise interest rates.

Raising reserve requirements would cause solvency problems for the banking system; it would literally be like sucking trillions of dollars of liquidity out of the banking system. I don't think the Fed is willing to do that.

So, no matter who wins, things are going to be bad.

1. I think if Obama wins that Hilary will run and won't face much if any opposition. She'll probably sit out Obama's 2nd term as a way of distancing herself from any culpability. If Romney wins, I think it would be 50/50 and that she'd more likely face a strong primary challenge if she did. Andrew Cuomo seems like the Democrats next strongest candidate after Hilary but if Romney wins you'll probably see somebody further left run like a Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, etc.

2. Not sure if that will happen. Gary will probably get 5% in a couple states but 5% nationally seems unlikely unfortunately. The Libertarian Party not getting funding won't cause me to lose any sleep tho, spinning wheels when it comes to that bunch.

3. I think the schism will become much larger for sure. Not sure how you define extreme but the neoconservatives that make up the establishment seem pretty extreme. You'll have the growing libertarian faction and the Tea Party attempt to purge out establishment figures regardless of who wins but Romney winning would give them considerable ammo to fight back with. Lindsay Graham is targeted for removal from a lot of major groups when he comes up for reelection in 2014. Romney winning would definitely set back the anti-establishment forces within the GOP however. I very much doubt we'll see the rise of a third party tho, just doesn't work in our electoral system. Maybe a single third party candidate is possible.

4. A civil war isn't going to happen.



Presuming Obama wins as expected, Rand Paul will be in good position to win the GOP nomination in 2016. He's more of a politician than his father which isn't a particularly admirable trait but it will probably get him further. FOXNews likes him, at least for right now. You'll probably see establishment candidates like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush. I think Christie's popularity will have faded by then and Ryan will be discredited by losing with Romney although I could see him sticking around too.

Rand Paul betrayed many of Ron Paul's fans by joining up with Romney and his ilk. I can't see many conservatives voting for him, but the Fox News crowd might do it cause they're told to.

I think Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow regarding civil rights would come back to haunt him if he runs for the White House. Paul Ryan might have had a shot for the Republican 2016 nomination, except that Romney very probably sunk his chances with his inevitable defeat.
I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is the Democratic nominee for 2016 - - especially since enough time has passed that Bill's philandering behind her back in the White House wouldn't any longer be an impediment to her.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Betray is a little strong of a word but I'm not happy with him cozying up with the establishment either. Hopefully it's for the purpose of winning them over to his side and political advancement then a reflection of his true beliefs. Baring him completely changing the way he votes or someone better coming a lot, he is by far the best senator and by far our best libertarian option in 2016.

That old interview with Maddow won't hurt him. His position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act is the conservative position, it's what Barry Goldwater believed and what his father believed as well. People just hear Civil Rights Act and don't realize a) there were a bunch of them and b)the point of contention is it's violation of private property rights which is only off top of my head 2 parts of the 11 part bill. Its not really a relevant issue regardless, if that's the worst they got then they're in trouble.

I think FOX will do a 180 on Rand the second he stands in the way of their 'savior' Jeb Bush. Only Bush and Clinton running for office, god help us.