This is not about who you want as President but about who you think will win,there is a difference. Personally, I think Cruz Will Win ( i want Rand Paul or John Kasich )

I was leaning heavily toward Rubio winning but Frank Bruni (NYT) made some interesting points about Rubio's odds not quite adding up (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/sunday/marco-rubio-doesnt-add-up.html)- basically his Iowa/NH ground game is really weak, and as FiveThirtyEight pointed out, he's going to really need to kill it when it comes to expectations management to come out a "winner" after the first two primaries.

Cruz is at the very edge of what the Establishment might be willing to accept (although I doubt it) and he's the only one with the polling numbers in Iowa/NH to actually compete with Trump as the "Establishment Candidate"- but then again, he's not really much of an Establishment candidate to begin with.

This is honestly a really odd primary because: a) there's no clear Establishment Candidate yet (Bush (!) is still leading in terms of endorsements) and b) the Establishment isn't yet dominant in any way. But they set the rules of the game, and they're going to put up a hell of a fight if they can't get their way.

Karl Rove seems to think it's just a matter of who manages to unite the anti-Trump folk- Cruz doesn't seem like he'll do that since he's just as far away from the Establishment as Trump and Carson (he's got quite a bit of flak from his fellow Republicans and has far from toed the party line). His views on certain things could also be described as extreme even in today's political climate, so I think it's fair to say that Cruz will not emerge as the Establishment Candidate- even in the unlikely situation where he's the Establishment's best bet of beating Trump, he won't be able to get the anti-Trump coalition together because it's hard to see him as the anti-Trump candidate.

So we're realistically left here with Trump (Establishment loses- GOP changes, party realignment might occur, possibly solving the 242 problem), Rubio (pulls together the anti-Trump coalition, beats back Cruz somehow), and Carson.

Carson's had a tough time whenever he's led the polls- he can't really handle the vetting and has demonstrated a lack of chops in things like foreign policy. So Trump or Rubio.

But can Rubio really do it? I mean, clearly things aren't going his way right now but we just end up coming back to him in the end. He's also not appealing enough in certain issues (immigration, foreign policy) to really unite the Republican base. It's going to probably happen late in the primary after some losses in the early contests. I think the GOP's just going to have to settle for him, less as Rubio and more as not-Trump.

Edited 1/3/2016 06:15:22

Trump will win the nomination and then the election. All other republican candidates are lightweights compared to him, and who wants Hillary Clinton anyway?

Establishment support is not necessarily needed. Trump is just a side show and Cruzs new lead proofs that. We never thought trump would ever calm down a bit yet when the other republican debates started, he calmed and composed himself in order to appeal to other voters. My point, just because Cruz doesn't look like he's pulling together the anti trump grouped doesn't mean he won't. I think Cruz had it. He's grass roots and extreme but the establishment would rather have him then trump any day. Rubio is Personally one of my favorite choices as well but I think Cruz has it because like I said, trump is the side show that the establishment is scared shitless about and they will run into cruzs arms once he gains more ground

imo- the worst case for republicans is if Trump barely wins the primaries over Rubio (or anyone else that the establishment tolerates). In that case, I think the superdelegates push Rubio over the line, nominating him, and Trump, the victim of party shenanigans, launches a retaliatory third-party bid, dooming both him and the Republican, leaving an easy path for the Democrats to win the election.

^^ The establishment sets the rules- it controls candidate's data access, the debate schedule, the voting system, etc.

When you set the rules, it's not hard to rig the game and make sure it doesn't stray too far from what you want.

Cruz is not someone the establishment likes. Period. Starting right with his election against Dewhurst, this guy's killing a bunch of Republican sacred cows- Rubio is the better flavor of tea, but Cruz is just too far out for the establishment/insiders. You don't have to look very far to find Congressmen and party leaders that just don't like him- so the odds of him being the establishment candidate are very, very small just because you have to be part of the establishment to do that. He might be the "fuck Trump but this is our only other choice" candidate, but then the GOP is going to have a hard time with the general election (as it would with Trump, who has far from "calmed down" during the debates- he's been gaining ground, but not due to moderation- each debate is just another field day for satirists). Rubio's the only one with broad enough appeal to win both the Republican nomination (he's likeable enough to have a shot, and reliable enough to actually do what the party wants him to do if he gets elected) and the general election against Clinton (although I doubt the GOP's going to win- I do find it interesting how much the GOP overestimates its odds of winning the presidency, but that makes sense due to filter bubbles and political polarization making people think that they're aware of what the general population feels when in reality they're just exposed to the ideas of like-minded people making some pretty odd assertions that they never get called out on).

Prediction:

Iowa: Trump, Cruz, Rubio
NH: Cruz, Rubio, Trump
-> Trump loses support
-> Cruz gains support
-> Cruz loses support but stays as the alternative to Rubio
-> Rubio comes out big on Super Tuesday
-> Trump and Cruz concede
-> Rubio becomes nominee
-> Hillary is the obvious Dem nominee
-> Hillary beats Rubio with ~52% of the nationwide vote, carrying about the same states as Obama in 2012, with maybe NC thrown back into the mix and red states being much redder this time
-> Democrats fail to regain House or Senate; still lag behind in all other levels of government

Edited 1/3/2016 06:15:09

I must disagree on that but here's what I must care about. We can't have Hillary in the white house, we just can't. It would basically doom America to an sustainable debt limit. Of course Hillary would expand health care and make us more like Canada and leave saying she was a success meanwhile the replacement for President, most likely a republican, will have to probably declare bankruptcy and thus scar the republican party as the party that officially took down America.

I think you're overreacting a bit. I agree that debt is a problem, but we're not going to be declaring bankruptcy in the near future as long as most of the debt is domestic (we really only have to pay interest on it every year)- moreover, I think you're seriously overestimating the cost of Hillary's programs and Democratic programs in general (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/)- Hillary is probably to the right of Obama anyhow. That said, not resolving the debt issue in the near future is a risky idea (and making it worse- a la Sanders- is very, very bad) because it's an issue we'll have to confront at some point. Debt on a government level isn't the same as debt on the household level (which is icky)- it's part of the reason we break down economics into macroeconomics and microeconomics, because some meaningful differences exist between the two domains.

But there's no imminent apocalypse. We all like to think stuff like that aliens are among us, 9/11 was an inside job, our lives are significant on some global scale, and that our generation is particularly important, etc.- i.e., we're prone to buying into narratives that shake the monotony of real life, particularly in politics- but that's not actually the case.

Hillary will probably maintain Obamacare (which, at this point, is something that's here to stay unless the economic impacts somehow start looking like what Sean Hannity claims they already look like) but not do much else in the field of health care. Heck, she hasn't even revealed a comprehensive economic plan yet- it's far too early for that- so we don't really know what a Hillary presidency will look like, although Hillary's quite clearly a consummate opportunist (a true politician).

So yeah, no need to freak out- the primaries favor moderation (moderate candidates are historically far more likely to win) so the gap between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee likely won't be that significant- and if it is, well, odds are Hillary's going to win.

In any case, you're straying off topic on your own thread. This is an odds prediction thread, not a voting one. But as long as we're on this topic, can we discuss the reality that the Republicans and Democrats agree more with each other than they do with actual economists (although AEA members tend to favor Democrats by a 5:2 ratio)?

Edited 1/3/2016 07:14:31

The GOP will do everything in it's power to prevent Trump and other anti-establishment candidates from winning. If I had to predict a winner I'd definitely give it to Rubio, as he's the only establishment compatible candidate who's made any sort of ground in the polls. He'd be the smartest choice as well since he's electable enough to grab independents and take swing states in the election.

I do find it interesting how much the GOP overestimates its odds of winning the presidency

I may be going off on a tangent here, but I've noticed a growing number of people who seem to think that the GOP is dying or that they have no hope of winning elections anymore. However, that does not seem to be the case at all when you look at the fact that the Republicans currently control majority in both houses of Congress, majority of Governorships, and majority of state legislatures.

Either the Republicans aren't quite as much of a minority as some people think, or the Democrat voter base has been extremely lazy as of late.

odds are Hillary's going to win.

I wouldn't say that Hillary winning is a certainty. She's faced quite a bit of controversy when you look at Benghazi, the never ending fiasco about her e-mails, and the continuous accusations of corruption being leveled her way. On top of that, she's recently taken flak from her voter base over her new logo design (Yeah, that sentence itself sounds stupid, but we're a political correctness obsessed country now).

You also have to factor in Bernie Sanders, who's basically having the same effect on the Democrats that Donald Trump is having on the Republicans. He's an outsider candidate who's swiftly obtained die hard loyalty from a significant chunk of Democrat voters. Sanders poses a tough threat to Hillary, and while Hillary will probably win thanks to establishment backing, there's still the risk of Sanders' supporters becoming alienated if they feel their golden candidate was cheated in some fashion. The Republicans face exactly the same threat with Trump too, though.

This election will be a lot trickier than some of the others. Both major parties now have a popular anti-establishment candidate who could create severe rifts depending on how things go. Personally,I wouldn't mind it if both Sanders and Trump run independent to bust down the two-party system. An election with Sanders vs. Trump vs. GOP Candidate vs. Clinton would be interesting to see.

@Eklipse: You're right- both parties are guilty of overestimating their position. The Democrats ignore that they're outnumbered in virtually every level of government other than the presidency; the Republicans overestimate their odds of getting the presidency without noticing the Blue Wall that stands in their way (the Democrats just need to pull 38 EVs on top of the 242 they've had every election since 1992 to get the presidency).

The thing about Benghazi/e-mails/etc. is that it's a very partisan issue (or non-issue), just like the Iran deal and is portrayed very, very differently on different media- Sean Hannity's gonna tell you that Obama just handed the "mullahs of Iran" nukes, while Joe Klein's gonna tell you that it's a pretty good deal that beat all the alternatives and pushed back Iran's nuclear timeline by at least a decade or so. I haven't seen the logo be an issue (it's ugly, bad design, etc., but most people don't vote based on that).

Basically, in the Internet age, we inhabit parallel worlds of information- for the right wing, they live in a world where Obama's clearly failed, where Hillary is some sort of crook, etc.; for the left wing, it's a world where Obama's economic policy has succeeded by most measures, where Hillary is a politician and an opportunist but not a Disney villain, etc. We're deluded by these filter bubbles into thinking that we understand the community when in reality we tend to ignore actual statistical data.

You also have to factor in Bernie Sanders, who's basically having the same effect on the Democrats that Donald Trump is having on the Republicans. He's an outsider candidate who's swiftly obtained die hard loyalty from a significant chunk of Democrat voters.

He's Ron Paul pt. 3. His odds of winning the primary are far, far below Hillary's- and again, just because of a bunch of Millennial voters caught in a filter bubble, we've started thinking he's got a shot.

Well, yeah, it's going to look like a bunch of people prefer him to Hillary if you look in an echo chamber. But not if you look at endorsements or polling averages. He's not coming out ahead after IA/NH.

This election will be a lot trickier than some of the others. Both major parties now have a popular anti-establishment candidate who could create severe rifts depending on how things go. Personally,I wouldn't mind it if both Sanders and Trump run independent to bust down the two-party system. An election with Sanders vs. Trump vs. GOP Candidate vs. Clinton would be interesting to see.

Or a very boring one. We've had the same sort of "omg it's exciting" coverage for every election- because the media needs exciting coverage to get views. But if they're latching onto fringe possibilities like the scenario you've just listed in order to make things interesting, well, then it's pretty clear things aren't actually interesting at all.

Clinton v. Rubio with a clear Clinton win (300+ EVs) and third party candidates pulling in <5% of the vote as per usual. Willing to take that bet any day. :)

I like sanders due to the excessive number of war hawks, and the fact that He is the sole candidate left enough for me to agree with on more than 90% of issues. Also, the millennial vote has grown to a much larger share than the last election, as such a Ron Paul pt3 may actually prevail, but it seems unlikely. Democratic side is going to be a game of momentum. If Sanders can win Iowa and New Hampshire, and put up a good fight or even steal South Carolina and Nevada, he probably wins, but it's more unlikely than Obama. Whereas, if Clinton wins Iowa or New Hampshire, the race is probably over for Sanders. Sander's also lacks a "First" scenario that propelled Obama past clinton amongst african-American voters, so it seems unlikely. The race may be over by New Hampshire, or may extend to the very end.

As for the Republican race, I would prefer rand paul due to the fact that he's a non-interventionist, but in reality the current 4 front-runners are the only ones that have rational chances, and I agree with Knyte's general analysis above on the republican party. That being said, I feel that it is going to end up as Cruz, not Rubio just due to his lack of support nationally compared to the other 3, and that Carson/Trump supporters are more likely to flock to Cruz than Rubio.

Edited 1/3/2016 18:11:39

go Trump

honestly Japan, I like sanders, hes a nice guy, hes honest, I love his environment polices ( except keystone that was just a democrat talking point ). however, his philosophy and his economic beliefs scare the hell out of me. Hes a socialist, no way around it. Free college, free healthcare, free everything! sounds nice and good morally until the average citizen finds out she or he is paying for irresponsible teens to go to college where they may or not drop out. Taxing a citizen so others can have free healthcare or college is unlawful and unconstitutional because your making someone else pay for somebody elses cost. Something else to consider is this, if college becomes free it actually makes a college degree less valuable. why? because its more common to the point where its an every day thing it will take the value of a degree down. if you take down the value of a college degree that's not good ( their are some good things to this internationally but that's another point ). I am sorry, but I don't want to pay for someone elses college, healthcare ect. it may sound selfish ( as many democrats have screamed in my face before ) but one day I am gonna have my own problems and my own costs so the last thing I want is to pay for some teenage idiots college. my own parents are gonna be stretched extremely thin because my family is full of special needs people which already costs a lot of money but now the government is saying they have to pay for other peoples healthcare plus their own. people talk about how great their Obama care insurance is......everyone on those adds that is lol. my familys regular insurance has gone up a lot because Obama care has forced the rates up. when Obama said " if you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare " he was right, hes not forcing anyone under obamacare......hes just making hellish not too. its kinda the out of the frying pan and into the fire problem, theres no way to win. if Bernie or Hillary wins they are gonna most likely expand this to college which will cripple my family and many others. it will bankrupt the middle class to put these taxes in place to give free everything. my final point, we must look at the world with realistic view. if we implement free healthcare and college together today, we will all die of bankruptcy tomorrow or at least most of the middle class. btw I am libertarian

#RandForPrez

#Icansettleforrubio

#pleasenotbush

#killmeiftrumpwins

#kasichisbae

#cruzwillkillusatthechurch

#Carsoniscurrentlynapping

#fioriniaisneverhappy

Well I'll agree with you on a few points and provide my point of view on others.

1. Socialist and democratic Socialist are two different things, a pure Socialist means the government running every aspect of the economy, and giving everyone everything equal the same(pretty much Communism with a gov't). Democratic Socialism is a further left version of liberalism, in which the gov't is tasked with attempting to even the playing field for everyone, and eliminate harmful businesses.

2. https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ explains his general economic plan, which should cover majority of your issues, there was also a NYT article that I can't find that explains how he would actually end up with a net surplus in the governmental budget

3. Obamacare, I agree is not necessarily a good idea. It maintains corporate structure costs along with new governmental structure costs, which just compound on each other, you go full one way or the other, and I believe that a fully nationalized health care system makes more sense that returning to the former system. This is why Canada or Scandinavia have much lower health costs than the US does.

4. US health costs are stupidly high because physicians cannot be certain that they will be paid properly, a nationalized health system would insure that, and most likely drive down prices.

5. Also, people profiting off of your health is just plain messed up.

it works in Scandinavia and Canada because their population is so small and tolerate with a completely different culture. It won't work in America because we have a completely different mind set and culture plus national health care is extremely expensive for the middle class but in countries like Canada and Scandinavia where living prices are smallerand you get paid more by average, it won't kill them to pay high taxes for things like national health care because they can afford it based off the things I just mentioned, everyday Americans can't

Edited 1/4/2016 02:19:22

I Want and expect Cruz to win.

Marco Rubio should wait a few years and then run again.

Christie would have beat Obama in 2012 but did not run.

Bush is hated for his name, I hate him for his views on certain areas.

Fiorina and Carson get the Sarah Paylin award for getting 15 minutes of fame and then next to nothing

Rand Paul is barely a Republican.

Kasich,Huckabee,Santorum and Gilmore (who is terribly representing my home state of Virginia) have no support what so ever.


No one has even heard of Fellure and Martin...

(the ones that dropped out)

I wanted Perry and or Scott Walker but Trump took away any and all attention they could have gotten for their campaign.




Is it me or did Virginia lose the ability to make good leaders after the first 5 presidents...

Virginia lost the ability once you guys began BIG LIBERALS

Mate, Blame Fairfax and Arlington, the two counties that told washington to fuck off, and is now washingtons bitches

Edited 1/4/2016 05:28:50

I don't want Cruz. He won't work with the other side and he won't gain the middle vote. Not only can't he win, he won't even be able to win the national election

1. Obama doesnt cooperate on anything, he got 2 terms... 2 TERMS AND HE IS ONE OF THE WORST


2. The Senate and House are Republican, and with any republican picking the Supreme court, we are fine on all three branches


3. and Trump would be any better working with liberals?