View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Strange Election

Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
Maybe Iím fantasizing, but I think that the presidential election on 2016 will be a strange one. So far we have two announced candidates: Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, but they are just the beginnings. Jeb Bush may run, and there's an excellent chance that at least one and maybe two other Dems will throw their hats into the ring. There are at least a half dozen Republicans who are preparing to run. They include Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Kelly Ayotte, Mike Huckabee, etc. Check out https://www.gop.com/presidential-straw-poll/

The Democrats don't have as long a list, but Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chaffee, and Jim Webb say they are running, and there's Bernard Sanders, the Independent socialist Senator from Vermont who may run, but he probably won't run as a Democrat even though he usually votes with them in the Senate. I don't know much about Martin O'Malley or Lincoln Chaffee, but they probably would make decent showings in some places, and they might weaken Hillary a little.

One thing that will work to make this a more interesting than usual election is that the Democrat Party is divided as a result of what Obama has done. The old alliance of organized labor, leftists, neo-liberals, and Blacks has dissolved. Blacks became disillusioned by Obama and didn't vote in great numbers in 2012 as a result. Organized labor has more in common with big business. The lefties would like to find a leftist candidate, but Bernie Sanders would suit them better than any of the Dems. The divisions within the party may result in a large part of their adherents going for Bernie Sanders. Ralph Nader may have thrown the 2000 election to Bush, and Sanders might be able to play a similar role in 2016, but he should be able to pull in a much larger number of votes, and he probably can take Vermont and maybe another state.

The Republican Party is also in a state that may result in it breaking in two. The Tea Party people are intolerant of traditional politics, but the older party leaders know perfectly well that compromise is an essential part of the political process. I have no idea who the Republicans will end up nominating, but it probably won't be Jeb Bush for two reasons: no one wants another Bush after the fiasco his brother made, and Jeb is too liberal. It might turn out that the Republicans won't be able to find anyone who will be satisfactory to a majority of their party, which could result in a split in the party right there, or someone unexpected might be chosen as a compromise. If they want to keep the bulk of the party, they will lose the right wing and vice versa.

Then the Tea Party people will have to find someone for themselves, and they probably will; although it is possible that they will defect to a different party, if something suitable will be available.

We will wake up on Wednesday November 9, 2016 and no one will know who the next president will be. Hillary probably will be ahead with about 35 or 40% of the electoral votes. Bernie Sanders might have about twenty electoral votes, but the Republicans and the Tea Party will have evenly split the South, Midwest, and mountain states, so each will have about 30% of the electoral vote.

That will throw the election into the House. Bernie will be out of it, but there still won't be a majority until one of the other candidates drops. Odds are that the Tea Party candidate will have the least backing in the House and would eventually drop, and that would give the election to the remaining Republican. That isn't where I thought this was going, but that's what would be logical. The trick will be figuring out which of those half wits will scratch enough backs to get the Republican nomination on the fifteenth ballot.

Regardless of what the eventual outcome will be, the 2016 election should be more interesting than most, so remember to vote early and vote right (or should it be often?).

When I started writing this, I was thinking about the election of 1860, when there were four major candidates: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, and Bell. If it had been a two party contest, then Douglas would probably have won, but Breckinridge and Bell both got votes that Douglas would have gotten. Reading about that is instructive; although it is nor directly comparable to conditions now, but there were issues that some people wouldn't compromise on.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-in-2016.html

https://www.gop.com/presidential-straw-poll/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ates.html?_r=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_1860

Updated 04-12-2015 at 07:25 PM by PeterL

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Clopin's Avatar
    Rand Paul please. And I'm looking forward to watching all the inter party debates. I find U.S politics hugely entertaining.
  2. Clopin's Avatar
    The U.K election is also very interesting this year.
  3. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin
    Rand Paul please. And I'm looking forward to watching all the inter party debates. I find U.S politics hugely entertaining.
    He is one of the better people who has come forward, but that won't help him get the nomination. On the other hand he is not a tea partier, and he is not an old line Republican. I can imagine him getting the nomination as a compromise, so he could end up winning.
  4. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Clopin
    The U.K election is also very interesting this year.
    I noticed that recently, and the Scottish National Party might become the second largest in parliament, even though the leader wants independence. At least the UK doesn't waste a year and a half on that kind of foolishness.
  5. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    The Tea Party as a viable separate party is a great topic for a Mike Judge comedy. However, they are far too extremist, hostile to Gays and ethnic minorities, and lacking in political savvy to ever be more than the far-right element of the Republican party.
  6. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
    The Tea Party as a viable separate party is a great topic for a Mike Judge comedy. However, they are far too extremist, hostile to Gays and ethnic minorities, and lacking in political savvy to ever be more than the far-right element of the Republican party.
    There have been political parties in the U.S. that were as poorly focussed as the tea party, but that had one thing that the tea partiers lack, as you mentioned they lack political savvy. If they had any, then they might be dangerous, but they can't attract anyone from outside their narrow group.
  7. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    Obviously, I agree with you about their lack of political savvy. However, their views are so extreme and antithetical to the beliefs of most Americans that no political savvy--short of veiling their actual views--could save them in any national election.
  8. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
    Obviously, I agree with you about their lack of political savvy. However, their views are so extreme and antithetical to the beliefs of most Americans that no political savvy--short of veiling their actual views--could save them in any national election.
    That didn't stop the Republicans in 1860, nor did it stop the Dems in 1932. And who's to say that they won't claim to have changed to in order to win and election; that has been quite common among U.S. politicians.
    Updated 04-23-2015 at 03:05 PM by PeterL (typo)
  9. Pike Bishop's Avatar
    Neither the Republicans in 1960 nor the Dems in 1932 were nearly as extremist as the Tea Party. And the Tea Party won't substantially change; their whole purpose is espousing and fighting for extreme Rightist beliefs even rejected by mainstream Republicans. They will not give up the following:

    1. Their homophobic fight against Gay marriage and for discrimination against Gays
    2. Racist rhetoric and statements like their many racist visual and written linguistic descriptions of Obama
    3. Rejection of workers' legal right of collective bargaining and union/union representation
    4. Rejection of almost all gun restrictions, even those meant to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
    5. Their fight to restrict and effectively eliminate abortion rights, even though they lie about being "libertarian."

    Most Americans reject and will not except these extremist views; so, no, the Tea Party does not have a chance in a general election. And if they water down their views to become like mainstream Republicans, conservative voters will just choose the Republicans.