Forget the debate: Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

Reuters ^ | October 14, 2015 | Clifford Young and Julia Clark

[Amendment10]

"They’re actually highly predictable, with a set of variables that influence outcomes in familiar ways."

The above statement doesn’t take into consideration ballot box stuffing, the alleged ballot box stuffing concerning lawless Obama’s reelection an example.

[Talisker]

Nice article, thanks.

[PghBaldy]

Thank you for posting. Interesting, seemingly reasonable article.

[Personal Responsibility]

Bernie Sanders in last night’s debate said “Congress doesn’t control Wall St. Wall St. controls Congress” and he’s right. His solutions to this problem - put more and different people in charge - are wrong but both him and Trump have correctly identified the problem.

[Art in Idaho]

but when a precinct get 104% vote for Obama, you just can’t defeat theft.

and

It happened in 3 cities in 3 swing states with a high number of electoral votes. 3 precincts. That's all it takes to steal a presidential election.

Amazing info. FReepers in those precincts and swing states, Go For It!

[bankwalker]

FReepers in those precincts

There are no Freepers in those precincts. In one Philly precinct, on election day, the Republican poll watchers got thrown out of the polling area and didn't get back in for several hours, even though a judge ordered it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It’s kind of depressing actually how predictable things are.

Yeah. Especially how high JEB’s poll numbers ain’t.

And the identity of the leading Republican candidate . . .

Actually, I agree with your analysis otherwise. But rather than relying on a “mushy middle” theory, IMHO turnout is usually the trump card.

Same effect, except that the mushy middle theory tells the GOPe that they really are going to win if they avoid associating with conservatives. Whereas the turnout theory says you can gain more by going conservative than you lose in the middle.

[henkster]

You’re right, he did correctly identify the problem: Wall Street controls Congress. But his solution is for Congress (or “the State”) to control Wall Street.

In reality, neither one should control the other.

[jurroppi1]

We’ve been witnessing it for the last 3 election cycles - the old paradigm that the models are based on has no basis in current reality.

[McGruff]

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent.

First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win.

Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.

If we can overcome the democratic party cheating.

[Art in Idaho]

There are no Freepers in those precincts. In one Philly precinct, on election day, the Republican poll watchers got thrown out of the polling area and didn't get back in for several hours, even though a judge ordered it.

Anything that can be done preventively next time? Sheriff's deputy or Oath Keepers with the poll watchers plus maybe some extra volunteers?

[Art in Idaho]

Wednesday, October 14, 2015:

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove"

45% = 14% SUCCESSOR probability of victory

[ek_hornbeck]

We seem to alternate between Democrat and Republican Presidents every 8 years, so most likely we'll have a Republican President in 2017. The only question is whether that Republican will be genuinely different from his Democratic alternative.

I think that changing back and forth between Democratic and Republican Presidents/Congressional Majorities shows that fundamentally a substantial number of people don't really like either party very much. When Democrats are in power and do their typically lousy job of running things, people run to the Republicans, mistakenly assuming a substantive alternative. Similarly, when you get disappointing Republicans (e.g. the Bushes), people think that electing a Democrat will suddenly cure the nation's ills. In fact, both either/or strategies just get us more of the same, to the point where both parties have basically converged.

[rhubarbk]

Dems are good for at least 4-5% fraud vote.

There has to be a strong voter fraud policy & poll security/policing in place or the election will turn out just like 2008 & 2012.

[DoughtyOne]

 
Vladimir Lenin Russia, Mao Zedong China, Adolf Hitler Germany, Fidel Castro Cuba


Kim Tu-bong, North Korea, Ho Chi Minh North Vietnam, Pol Pot Cambodia, Hugo Chavez, Venezuella


Bernie Sanders USA, Mrs. Bill Clinton USA

Communism (rabid Socialism) has never worked before, but Sanders and Mrs. Clinton are here to assure you it can.
Nevermind that Capitalism caused the United States to become second to none, where Communism failed to even
provide a decent society anywhere it has been tried.

Communism / Socialism cost over 100 million lives last century.  Why not give it another chance...  /S

Perhaps others want to sacrifice their nation and families on that alter.  I don't.

 

[DoodleDawg]

Depends on who the Republicans nominate.

[DoodleDawg]

Depends on who the Republicans nominate.

[discostu]

Turnout doesn’t effect things that much. Largely because we’re divided into 3rd. Even if one side has 100% turnout that’s not enough to win the election, you still need people from the middle. Turnout effects how much middle support you need, but you have to have that middle support.

There is the one proviso we get from the exceptions: don’t #$%^ it up. If the GOP seriously alienates their base the turnout could be so low that the currents of the mushy middle don’t help. But if they don’t alienate the base they will win next year. Much like we could tell at this point in 2007 that the Dems could nominate a box of rocks and still win in 08.

[X-spurt]

Three basic unrefutable reasons nobama re-won in 2012.
First, a significant number of GOP/conservative voters did not vote, just could not vote for Mitt.

Second and third, dem vote fraud tipped both Florida and Ohio by just enough to give the electoral college to nobama.

The more shameful thing is that not one damn thing has been done to correct the dem’s abilities to bring in 2 or 3% by voter fraud.

The good news is that nobama and the dems have so pissed in the well that the usual voters are not going for any dem this trip.

[varon]

..........but none of them factored in Mittens and his inept, unwilling-to-fight campaign.

Mittens took a dive......