Memories of the 28th Century

Maybe I’m 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