Forecast Update Time: How is my Presidential Election forecast given a year ago, looking for the 2016 US election? Darn good in fact...

Time to do an update to a forecast. This is from the side of US politics. Last year, in October 2014, more than two years before the actual election of 2016 and even before the mid-term elections of that year, I gave my comprehensive Presidential election preview and forecast for 2016. Before any of the candidates had even announced. And I said not only that Hillary Clinton would win (the more prevailing position then and now, than that a Republican rival could win and thus not really that remarkable...) but also that Hillary would get a landslide victory of double-digits. I predicted her margin of victory would be at least 12 points regardless of who is the Republican nominee. And this was more than half a year before we heard that Donald Trump would run. Today there are yes, increasingly opinions that a Trump (or Dr Ben Carson or Ted Cruz) ticket could lose by landslide. But last year, and against ANYONE running from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to Rand Paul and Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, I said Hillary will win at a minimum of 12 points. Note that in Barack Obama's bigger victory of 2008 (vs his lesser victory in 2012) Obama only beat John McCain by 7 points. I believe no other published pundit had written in 2014 seriously suggesting that Hillary will have a landslide victory two years later. It wasn't even known if Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren etc would run against Hillary to challenge her for the Democratic ticket, at the time when I wrote the blog. Indeed, not one candidate had yet announced that they would run. Yet I called it that Hillary will win.. by landslide. The biggest drubbing in US Presidential elections since literally Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale in 1984. Totally crushing victory. 

But it was a forecast. And as my forecasts tend to be (obviously mostly in tech and mobile) it was very deeply based on analysis and facts and numbers and I gave all my assumptions etc that went into that bold and brave forecast. I wrote my second longest blog posting on this blog's 10 year history that went through literally every single aspect that matters in US Presidential elections. It has absolutely everything from the candidates to the issues to the fundraising to the endorsements and surrogates and conventions and debates to even such matters as ISIS and Vladimir Putin and the very technical details such as the counting system for US Presidential elections which is called the Electoral College and the issue of 'battleground states'. That blog is the truly comprehensive preview for the 2016 election. It has every aspect covered. And as I was preparing the blog over a year ago, I ended writing this:

There has never been an election where one side held all the advantages. In elections with far lesser advantages, first-time (ie non-incumbent) Presidents have managed to win in landslides like Reagan and Obama. Hillary is destined to win by landslide even if all the luck goes against her. The only possible thing that could derail her is a major health issue like a heart attack and even that would not necessarily end her chances. Pay attention to the 2016 election, it will be historic.

The Republicans are doomed for 2016. Hillary will win by at least 12 points (56% to 44% in the popular vote) which would not just be a landslide, it would be the biggest winning margin in 32 years and the biggest first-election (non re-election) margin since the second world war.

I was - and still today am - dead-serious about all that. The 2016 election seems to be headed to a modern day record blowout. And in my 29,000 word essay (as long as 3 chapters in my hardcover books) I tackled over 50 separate items that have an impact to who wins, from the Tea Party to Citizens United and SuperPACs to global warming. And I arrived at the conclusion that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic ticket holds an unprecedented 'straight flush' of unbeatable cards with an advantage in every single aspect of the race. Never before has one side in US Presidential elections held all the cards. And because of that, I said a year ago that Hillary will win by landslide. Then, as I am prone to do with my forecasts, I promised I will come back and revisit the forecast as we get nearer to the election. So here we are. It is now 11 months to the election of 2016 so about a year to go. Lets do an overview-review of the main points I made and see if there is evidence of that actually happening or not to evaluate how likely is my forecast of actually coming true. I will not bother you with all over 50 separate items. I will select some that seem most significant today.

NO TRUMP, NO CARSON

So first off, I did talk about Donald Trump in mocking fashion in that blog but like most who were looking af the possible field of 2016 Republican candidates, I did not see Donald Trump actually entering the race. (Also I didn't even mention Dr Ben Carson). As they eventually did join, we have had this year become even more bizarre of a 'clown car' than the 2012 Republican race and so far, the most ludicrous positions ever yet taken by front-runners in US elections with 'issues' of astonishing level of denial like that Egyptian Pyramids were used to store grain or that 'thousands and thousands' in New Jersey were cheering when the World Trade Center towers were brought down by terrorists on September 11 in 2001. Or that Mexicans coming to the USA are rapists and murderers. Or that Muslims are not qualified to be elected President... So this is an even more wild and - for the whole Republican party - even worse cycle than I had predicted. But that was not foreseeable. Those issues do NOT make it easier for Trump or Carson or any other Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton next November. These matters will serve to only make the election even worse. They help to SECURE my forecast, not argue against them. But they were obviously not even mentioned. I could not imagine that something like the Constiutionally protected right that people born in the USA might not one day be considered citizens anymore. I mean, isn't every single Republican's fave Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA'? How silly can it get. But lets get to my actual forecast.

FUNDAMENTALS TILT FOR DEMS

So first off. I said that for 2016 the fundamentals, demographics etc tilt the start of the race to the Democrats. And this is how I wrote it: "All this spells a very deep hole for the Republican party going into 2016, before we consider the candidate, the political machine, the message and the campaign. For year 2016 even a ‘generic’ candidate for Democrats beats the generic Republican by something like 2 to 4 points, just because of these demographic trends." That is not big revellation but it is a very significant hole that the Republican candidate, whoever he or she ends up being - starts off at. Mitt Romney lost to Obama by 5 points. The actual candidate next year from the Republicans is starting with an in-built deficit that is already half that. Or so I said. Do we have any proof? We have the head-to-head polling of the lead candidates, Hillary or Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side vs any one of the leading Republicans like Trump, Carson, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush etc. And what do we find. Today, still more than half a year before the actual general election race starts, and still two months from the first votes cast in the NOMINATION races, what do the polls say. A solid Democratic lead on almost every pairing that comes to about 3 or 4 points on average (according to latest Real Clear Polling averages obviously) where the only leading candidate from Republicans that can tie the Democratic rival is Marco Rubio vs Hillary Clinton. Across the field, yes, there seems to be now a systematic bias against the 'generic Republican' that is worth about 3 or 4 points. My forecast from 2014 is perfectly on track on this one aspect.

HILLARY IS EVEN BETTER FOR 2016

I wrote that Hillary is one of the best campaigners to run for President who only very narrowly lost to the best in our living memory, Obama. I wrote that Hillary is thus in the same class as the two other great campaigners in recent history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Note, I am not saying she's a great human being or would be a great President. I am saying CAMPAIGNER. She took the best campaigner in US Presidential history, Obama, all the way to the wire in 2008. She was already in 2008 far better than John McCain (who himself was better than and beat Mitt Romney handily, who then struggled time and again in his futile run of 2012). And then the critical forecast I made. I said Hillary would improve to this season. I wrote "single biggest change is that optimism and cheerfullness which we now are witnessing. Its what Reagan had. Its what Bill Clinton had. Its what Obama exudes. And what Hillary had trouble exhibiting in 2008. But what Hillary now is showing in spades."  And many who have debated these political issues with me on this blog had issues with that statement. I mean, a candidate can be too old and lose the edge, just look at Mike Huckabee now (he also ran previously back in 2008 and like Hillary, skipped 2012). But the Benghazi hearings proved it beyond any doubt. Where Donald Trump, of roughly same age as Hillary, is complaining if 3 hours in debate is too long - where he only speaks once every 10 questions with 9 other rivals on stage - and Hillary had to answer a barrage of questions, alone - Hillary took it for 11 hours and was smiling at the end. Trump finds even 2 hour debates too hard and clearly tunes out parts of the second hour. There is no doubt, if you remember Hillary's run in 2008 vs Obama that the new Hillary is the happy warrior who is enjoying herself, throwing jokes and is far more pleasant and likable. I am not saying she's any less cunning and plotting and that this isn't an act, obviosly it is an act. But she HAS IMPROVED as a CANDIDATE. As I predicted. And that means she is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above the Republican field of this year. There is no Ronald Reagan in that field.

TEA PARTY POISONS GOP FIELD

So then on those rivals. We didn't know who would run. I predicted the field might be as big as 16. Not many were saying that in October of 2014. It ended up peaking at 17 before the weakest started to drop off the race now like Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal. Not a bad call haha. But of those candidates. Look what I wrote about their positions: "The current environment in the GOP is driven by the reality-denial wing, the Tea Party, and right-wing celebrities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. So mainstream moderate Republicans are now in hiding and won’t run in 2016." And again, we are seeing that moderate Republicans are either bitching and moaning on the sidelines about how extreme the field has gotten, or else some remaining moderates in the race bitch and moan that the party is pandering to the Tea Party, like for example John Kasich and Lindsay Graham have been saying as their support is minimal in the process or what Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal bitched about as they withdrew from the race. And as we've seen, Ted Cruz is not even the most extreme candidate running. Even moderates like Jeb Bush take extreme positions and others like Marco Rubio abandon previous centrist positions as his immigration plans. Again, good call on the forecast and very relevant to this year.

GENDER GAP

Oh my gosh this is so enormous and like any actual tsunami wave, the real power remains mostly unseen until it truly hits. But the signs are ominous. So this is how I wrote it: "So if you thought the 2012 gender gap was bad, it will now be worse simply because the Republicans have made it worse (even before we consider Hillary on the ticket). No matter how much they hate the term ‘war on women’ that is what the Republican party has been waging on issues that really should have been decided decades ago (abortion, contraception) or should have no place in the 21st century like equal pay. This all before we consider how much more women will show up to vote in 2016 because there is a woman on the top of the ticket. And yes, Hillary’s run will bring the most ardent, feminist fighters up to the fore in the 2016 battle to hammer home the full record of the Republican war on women. Men don’t like to hear that, especially grumpy old white rich men." And have the Republicans done anything to help themselves in this matter? No, they demonize Planned Parenthood with shrill Carly Fiorina peddling her imagined video delusions of 'harvesting baby parts' to the degree we have that deranged domestic terrorist who was quoting baby parts in his reasoning for the killing. It goes on and on. Ted Cruz talks about condoms as if that is the main point with female contraception. It is... ahem... the main point for MALE contraception only highlighting Ted's astonishing ignorance on this matter. What about women in the military? Just yesterday Republicans complain about letting women do all the jobs in the military. And all that is before we consider Goofy McHair talking about Megyn Kelly's mentrual cycle. The Republicans lost the gender gap by 10 points with Romney. Since then they have made matters WORSE. My prediction is that Hillary will get 20 point gender gap. Even if she gets a 5 point gender gap but the female vote experiences a historic surge because for the first time a woman is on the top of the ticket, Hillary is unstoppable. A 20 point gender gap means its a landslide win. And just now Republican leaders are warning that the gender issues are dangerous to arouse an energetic female vote for 2016 and Hillary. I told you so...

HISPANICS

After Romney's loss in 2012 the Republican party issued an 'autopsy' of what went wrong in that loss, and how to avoid those mistakes in 2016. Vital was the change to women and ... to narrow the voting gap with Hispanic voters. Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 45 points !!! He lost Hispanics 72 to 27 to Obama. And the Republicans calculated that for a Presidential election, they need to narrow that gap to 20 points, ie 60-40, for the Republican candidate to have a chance to win, because the Hispanic population is the fastest-growing demographic in the USA so their relevance to elections keeps growing. And what I write: "The Republicans can be relied on utterly silly actions and comments about anything relating to ‘Mexicans’ etc..."  (or as how Trump likes to put it eight months after I wrote that - Mexicans are rapists and murderers). I continued writing "And where is sensible Republican leadership on this issue? In hiding. Afraid of the Tea Party lunatic fringe." How incredibly accurate (and obviously devastating for the Republican ticket). So here is your reality check. Quinnipiac poll this week posted the head-to-heads against Hillary. (Q is a right-leading pollster who often finds a bias in favor or Republicans so this cannot be said to be somehow favoring Hillary). The best candidate among Hispanic voters was Marco Rubio. Makes sense, he is a Hispanic himself. So if the Latino voters of the USA get the chance to vote for the first-ever fellow-Latino for President, Marco Rubio, or a white woman Hillary Clinton, you'd be forgiven to think thats a clear victory for the Republicans wouldn't you. Marco HAS to win this race. But Quinnipiac found that the Hispanic voters say no. By how much? HILLARY BEATS RUBIO BY 51 POINTS !!! Hillary crushes Rubio more than how much Obama beat Romney. Hillary gets 69% vs 18% for Rubio. This is the best case for Republicans. Trump is of course the worst, he would only get 13% of the Hispanic vote against Hillary. The Republican autopsy after Romney's loss said they have to shrink the Hispanic voting gap to 20 points so that their candidate HAS A CHANCE. Instead, the gap has GROWN. EVEN if the Republican candidate IS A HISPANIC and the Democratic candidate is not. This trend, combined with the female vote surge means its a landslide and there is no way the Republicans can win, no way to win, Hillary wins by landslide. If before the national campaign has even started, a well-known Hispanic like Marco Rubio loses to a non-Hispanic Hillary Clinton by 51 points. Note - I also predicted that Hillary will pick the most popular Hispanic politician currently as her Vice President, which is of course Julian Castro from Texas (who has an also highly-beloved twin brother in Congress). The Republicans have poisoned the relations with Hispanics and keep making matters worse with all the talk of building the fence and deporting 11 million aliens and gosh, REPEALING the Obama humanitarian gesture executive action on not deporting the 'Dreamers'. The Republicans face an epic loss simply because of this demographic catastrophy of their own making.

ECONOMY

If the economy is still growing next year then this issue is automatically a positive for the Democrats. But if the economy turns into a recession and downturn, the Republicans are remarkably vulnerable, because they have in recent past wrecked the economy with irresponsible governing and its been the Democrats for the past three decades who have then had to fix the damage. This is the reality. That is undeniable economic history. But the reputation has been with the Republicans that they are the fiscally sensible ones and the Democrats like to 'tax and spend' like there was no tomorrow. And obviously there is good historical precedent for that sentiment. But it has no longer been true the past three decades. So how will the economic debate go in 2016? I wrote: "The best politician ever to argue the politics of the economy is... Bill Clinton. The facts are clearly on the side of the Democrats, during Reagan the budget deficits exploded. Bill Clinton’s administration brought them back to balance. Then in came Bush the Lesser who again wrecked the budget and produced record deficits and national debt. And what happened in the next Democratic administration, Obama has reduced that deficit to the lowest level its been for a long time. The facts very clearly show, that over the past 3 decades, the party that wrecks the economy is the Republicans. The party that is fiscally responsible and fixes those damages is.. the Democrats."  I then wrote that in 2012, the 'economy' election against Romney, Obama did not (dare to) use Bill Clinton as a surrogate. But now... for 2016, what did I write about Hillary and her hubby: "Bill Clinton is the master at this song. He loves this story as it helps build his growing reputation for his legacy (that his Presidency was more than Monica Lewinsky and his time was a good time in America). Obama rarely used Bill Clinton in the economy-election of 2012. Hillary will happily use her husband Bill everywhere. And he’ll always hammer that message."  Some said Bill might be tired (he clearly isn't and he wants to be on the campaign trail). Some said Hillary will keep him away, she clearly isn't doing that. If the economy continues to be good, then Bill will tell that story. But if the economy goes into a recession, Bill - a highly trusted and by now greatly beloved ex-President - and by far the best to elaborate the ECONOMIC argument of any recent politician - will explain all next year that it was the Republicans who created the big mess to begin with and you don't want to now let them come back and wreck it again. And lastly - every SINGLE one of the Republican budgets by their candidates has by now been scored - and they all would utterly devastate any fiscal responsiblity, ballooning debt to hideous degrees. Tax cuts to millionaires and new ships for the navy.. yeah. Exactly like Bush-Cheney or indeed Voodoo economics of Ronald Reagan.

FUNDRAISING

Candidates are one thing. Issues are another thing. But in US elections, money matters. Often it is money that decides. A massive part of winning US elections is collecting the money in particular for the expensive TV ads on the campaign season that for President runs nearly a year (when primaries are included). Note that in most other democracies the election process is only measured in weeks and TV appearances are often free. But the US system is what it is and most inclumbent politicians in Washington spend a significant part of their time to collect the money for their next election. Fundraising ability is vital for viability. Jeb Bush would have quit the race by now, along with Rick Perry, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal except for the fact that the Bush family can collect heaps of money. He is the best-funded Repulican even as his latest polling numbers from CNN/Orc today give him a paltry 3% support. And what did I write about this aspect of the campaign: I said this would be the costliest election ever (not in any way a bold prediction, almost every cycle it gets more expensive). I explained how in 2008 the best-ever Democratic traditional fund-raising machine, the 'Clinton machine' went against the radical new online and grassroots based fund-raising of the 'Obama machine' and the Obama way won. Then Obama went to win two general elections as the most-funded candidate ever in US politics. Then I said the two powerhouses would now be merged. I write: "So now we get the full Clinton ‘New York’ money machine merged with the Obama online-grassroots fund-raising machine. She will definitely set a new record for fund-raising. Hillary will be so wash with cash, she won’t know what to do with it. And as she faces essentially no serious primary challenge, all the fund-raising power can be concentrated for the general election. Meanwhile the Republican field is wide, spreading the primary donations very broadly, depleting some of the funds that are available for the GOP. So the Republican donor base will be asked to spread their money to probably the widest field there ever was, into probably one of the longest, and most definitely the costliest nomination fight (thanks to Citizens United) ever." Again, all of the above is coming true. The first fund-raising reports were released in October and yes, Jeb Bush was the best-funded of the Republcian candidates but Bernie Sanders outraised Jeb. And the queen of cash? Hillary stood on top of the fund-raising pile. Good call and again, bodes very well for Hillary's landslide next year. But I also wrote this warning about what happens when one side is seen as inevitable winner by the megadonors. They are smart and they don't want to throw money at a losing cause. "Some rich people will calculate that they will then give most of the ‘intended’ money directly to the DEMs rather than splitting it, because its so obvious Hillary will win. Why waste the money on the losers and you want to buy access and favors from the new President and her team. Hillary will get even more money above the huge record-breaking lead she already would have built." This concept has ALREADY been floated in the opinions of Republican megadonors in an article in the Hill, relating to a possible Trump candidacy. Consider how early this panic is setting in. I thought we wouldn't see this until next summer but the Trump catastropy has made the pending doom even worse. But as to the forecast, gosh, I am so on the money on this one too.

FOREIGN POLICY

I said that while the economy usually rules in US politics, this 2016 election will be the more rare foreign policy election like Carter-Reagan of 1980 or Bush 2-Kerry of 2004. I said terrorism, China, Iran and Putin will be on the agenda. So far three of the four have been major elements and terrorism right now is only gaining ground. I discussed these issues plenty in the blog but then in the part about the main Republican voting blocks like Tea Party and Evangelical religious voters (neither of whom will defect to Hillary) I also discussed the military-wing of the GOP. I wrote: "Republicans are strong on defense and national defense is the government’s first priority. The military vote is strong in such states as Virginia, Florida, Texas and Arizona. This will be where ‘Hillary Republicans’ will be found. The current field of Republican candidates (excluding the extremely dark horses like Lindsey Graham) has nobody with any foreign policy credentials or actually served in the miliatry before getting into politics. They are domestic Governors or else Senators or members of the Congress none of whom have served abroad as Ambassador or Secretary of Defence or State or the National Security Advisor or in any such capacity. So if you are a conservative and find national security the overriding reason to vote, and you find Hillary was Secretary of State and then the Republican field has no competence in that area - this is a danger sign. It is a VERY serious danger sign. So they reluctantly go vote for Hillary in 2016 even though recognizing on many social issues, they disagree with her. I would guess the exit polls in 2016 will show that women voters who are registered Republicans and who think national defense or foreign policy is the top issue - such women voters will break for Hillary, yes, she’ll take the majority of that slice of Republicans. The men who hold those views will give a minority slice also to Hillary. She can steal as much as 12% to 15% of total registered Republican vote to be ‘Hillary Republicans’ this way. Because there is no John McCain in the running this time, someone who also has solid foreign policy credentials on that side. That is yet another 3 points in the general election that Hillary steals from the registered Republican voters, into her column." And obviously on the facts, that is exactly true today. Hillary is by far the most competent candidate on foreign policy. Marco Rubio actually said that if it comes to a contest of competence, Hillary is better than the whole Republican field (really dumb thing to say and if Marco is on the eventual GOP ticket, this will be on endless loops on Hillary's ads). But how is the electorate taking it? The Washington Post/ABC News poll two weeks ago that tested this issue (asking who is most competent to deal with terrorism) had Hillary towering over all her Republican rivals on this issue. Duh. But I told you so... And mark my words, this will be a foreign policy election. I said Putin will do his gambit next year, in the Autumn, while Obama 'the weakling' is still in office. It will be even more foreign policy hysteria then. And ISIS? What is the obvious response when they are being cornered and losing on all battlefronts - to strike out at the defenseless. Expect more ISIS (and Al Quada) violence in coming months too. This only plays to HIllary's strongest suit.

BENGHAZI

I said Benghazi is a forlorn hope for the delusional Republican fan-base but serious conservatives already knew that it was hopeless. I wrote that some Republicans will keep trying this tactic but to no avail: "The Republicans will still continue to try to pin a Libya Benghazi-gate on her and she’ll laugh that off." Yes, just recall the 11 hour grilling and who came out on top. Smiling. And then what will the eventual candidate do with this 'ammunition' I wrote: "The GOP candidate will try to keep away from any foreign policy discussions rather than try to beat Hillary on Benghazi." We see clear signs of that already. This was a desperate illusion by conservatives that somehow Hillary was vulnerable on the matter. She isn't. But ANY discussion on foreign policy or the Middle East or terrorism only feeds Hilllary's victory (see above).

TV ADS

And then the bombardment of voters by TV ads. I warned that the TV ad wars would be imbalanced because of Hillary's huge fundraising lead (as seems very likely but obviously we won't know until September and October of next year). But I warned that it would be the nastiest TV ad campaign season ever. That too remains to be seen, but I warned that the NOMINATION battle will see the ugliest TV ads in history. And in TV ads, the bar is truly set incredibly low from the anti-Barry Goldwater ads of nuke war, to the Willie Horton ads against Michael Dukakis to the Swiftboat ad lies by Bush2-Cheney against John Kerry. This is a particular slime pit with its own residence suite reserved in hell. On this election cycle TV ads I wrote: "Nonetheless, the GOP nomination fight will result in the winning candidate having plenty of nasty TV ads and various conservative commentary saying nasty things about him or her. That is inevitable. For Hillary there is nothing new anymore she is a totally known quantity. No shocking TV ads can be made now by the Democratic field and most will have so much self-preservation instinct, seeing how inevitable Hillary is, that they won’t even try to create really nasty ads about her and against her."  And we can see it already happening. On the Democratic side, even Bernie Sanders shook hands with Hillary that 'enough with our damned emails'. But on the Republican side? Oh my gosh, has Trump elevated the vitriol all the way to eleven. It is not unusual for a Republican to call a Democrat a 'socialist' or 'communist'. That is par for the course. Similarly Democrats have called Republicans Nazis or Fascists. But there has never been an election season where a Republican candidate actually running, calls another Republican candidate a fascist or Nazi. Wow. This has truly never happened before but look for example at the Kasich TV ads against Trump. They came for the socialists...  wow. Its not just the sound-bites that Hillary is collecting (but the Republican rival can't get on her). Its actual TV ads run by Republicans in this year's race. Inevitable because of the wide field and long race and unlimited funds of Citizens United. Like I forecasted.

CITIZENS UNITED

Talking about corroding effect of money, the Citizens United decision and unlimited funding. I said in 2012 we saw 7 Billionaires play Presidential Poker and predicted this year would see even more Billionaires join in but differing from 2012, they would not mostly go behind the one front-runner (Romney). I predicted even 10 Billionaires could support as many as 7 different candidates. Well. How's that forecast coming? Based on the latest fund-raising filings we find that 16 Billionaires have joined this Billionaire Bingo of Presidential Poker. How many different candidates have they already supported? Seven! (although two of those have since left he race and those billionaires are now considering new options). And then as a bonus this time, there is the self-funded Billionaire Trump also running so we could say its 17 funding and 8 candidates. But boy was that again a strong forecast and incredbly relevant that is now altering the very structure of the race. When so many megadonors are fuding DIFFERENT candidates, what does it mean? I told you last year in the blog. I wrote: "We might have 10 billionaires supporting 7 of the rivals who tend to be all stronger members of the field, meaning the fight will continue long and become ever more nasty, bitter, hostile and vicious." Yes. the nastiest nomination race in US history (but only on the Republican side). Remember, the GOP Autopsy of 2012 Romney loss said part of the loss was a nasty nomination fight that dragged on forever. This will be worse and longer and naster. All signs point to an epic race in that way (but only on the GOP side with loving cum-bay-yah on the Hillary wagon on the opposite side).

UNBELIEVABLE COAT TAILS

And there is much more in the blog, all of it is coming true. I wasn't going to mention this last part but just yesterday Karl Rove wrote about this danger. So I will add the part about the coat-tails. "All the fundamental factors will favor Hillary over the GOP candidate. All of them. This has never happened before. The stars are truly perfectly aligned. So first, Hillary won’t need to break a sweat to win. Secondly, she has an unprecedented ad budget and unprecedentely strong surrogate team starting with Bill Clinton and Obama. There will be an incredible abundance of support that the ‘top of the ticket’ can give ‘downticket’ candidates. Hillary herself and the two Presidents will go help any Senators, Members of Congress and Governors in any tough races to go win their contests. The rival side has no money to waste on this and no superstar Presidents to spare for this kind of extravagance. There will be a Hillary wave so strong it will break through the gerrymandered Republican House of Representative seats in Congress, which the Republicans now feel are invulnerable. Only a total massive Democratic tsunami-wave could dislodge those tea-party leaning super-safe gerrymandered GOP seats in red states. But those often very extremist conservative politicians have been voting for all the silliness that Hillary - and a huge chorus of Democrats and massive TV ad support - will now be campaigning against. As she wins the general election, her views will also support the replacement of many - by no means all - but enough of the Congress to bring in a Democratic House of Representatives, like Obama last had in 2008-2010 with Nancy Pelosi.And the Senate? Same thing but far more pronounced as Senate seats cannot be gerrymandered very much. So the Democrats will sweep into the Senate and very likely have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats or more. Plus many Governors, and local state-wide offices will be flipped from Republican to Democrat." This is EXACTLY what Karl Rove just warned about, yesterday except that I saw it a year earlier. That there is a distinct danger that this year Hillary will have such strong coat-tails that she will flip the Senate, and even flip the gerrymandered house. He did not say this will happen but that it is a distinct possibility. I said it will happen. All the signs - every single one of them - suggest Hillary is headed for a landslide and never in US Presidential elecitions, has one side held all the advantages. So brace yourself and enjoy the ride. This will be the election we will be talking about for decades to come. Oh, and first woman to be US President too (about time yes, in Finland we've been there done that of course). But yes, nice.

If you want to read the best analysis of the 2016 election, that has been spot-on, on all aspects of it, and is the most comprehensive view of all the aspects of that race, read (or re-read) the 2016 Election Preview I wrote last year. It is some of my very best work on this blog.

Comments

[cornelius]

Tomi, Thank you for the analysis. You mentioned the private e-mail server gate briefly, but you didn't talk about its impact. I believe this thing is already factored in and will only fade away as the election goes forward. But I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi cornelius

The email server was not known as an issue in October 2014 when I wrote the original 2016 preview and forecast. It only emerged as an issue this summer. I think its far past its relevance already. Hillary most definitely handled the initial issue slowly and clumsily, but it was the first thing to hit her freshly-launched campaign; she was rusty. Her campaign has clearly learned from that and now has been reacting far better on whatever happens to be the issue-du-jour.

On the issue's merits. Hillary did nothing technically wrong but she clearly was not picture perfectly clean either. Its somewhat typical 'Clinton' behavior. Will Republicans try to bring this up? They have to, they don't have much of anything to go on. Same as with Benghazi. They do have to try. So they hope the investigations can give them something. They will point to how untrustworthy she is, and by innuendo suggest there is more to the email issue than we know. And that the Obama administration is shielding her etc etc etc. Those who hate her, will point to emails (and Benghazi) as clear evidence that she is unfit to be President. That is most of the Republican base so you'll find tons of people who believe this and Fox and various right-wing media will keep harping on it.

The Democratic voters will see this as a witch-hunt. It was asked and answered last summer and is long gone as an issue. The point is the Independents in the middle. They will tend to see the Republicans as desperate, on a hopeless witch-hunt and that this is unfair. It is likely to come up in one of the debates between Hillary and her eventual rival and you can expect Hillary's answer will hit it out of the park and the matter will be instantly closed. With her answer, you might even see the Republican rival say - in an attempt at sounding reasonable and moderate - to use his/her speaking chance to say to the debate moderator, I have nothing to say here, lets move on... Hillary will have had more than a YEAR to prepare that debate answer and it will be epic. That will bury the issue and deflate the Republicans even more. But exactly like Benghazi, it is to Hillary's advantage that these fake issues remain on the Republican agenda, so they spend more time on the useless unwinnable issues, and less time actually attacking her on stuff that matters or can work.

Now. If some honest real US government secrets are found that she had stored on the private server, that would be a different story. But Hillary knew when she started the job, and also when she decided to have her emails stored at the private server at home - she knew this was all going to come up in the general election, which back in 2009, Hillary knew she'd be running again in 2016. There will be not one sensitive actual (then classified) secret item in her email server. Some items will probably be found, that the US government system failed to classify properly as secrets, that would not be Hillary's fault and such emails would be (unsecured) with many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, none of who are under the witch-hunt that Hillary is under.

So yeah, I think it will linger as an issue but its impact has long since gone. It is likely to re-emerge once, briefly, in the final general campaign, and could be the subject of a question in a TV debate but that will be then also put to rest comprehensively by Hillary on an answer she's memorized to deal with for more than a year, by then. Similar to how she'll have a well-rehearsed line about Benghazi should that item come up.. both to include a jab at her eventual rival, and both to end on a joke that is guaranteed to get the audience to laugh with Hillary and likely against the debate moderator.

One last point... there will be ENORMOUS issues at stake by September and October 2016. ISIS, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan; Iran; Al Quaeda (who don't want to be seen as the lesser terrorists). Putin and Russia. China. The economy. Taxes and the budget. Abortion, contraception, equal pay, minimum wage, voting rights, gun rights, on and on and on. Its very likely that the 'real topics' especially with Hillary's huge TV ad budget advantage, and her two powerful surrogate speakers (Bill and Obama) nobody will even bother to waste time on the trivial matter of an email server years ago in her basement that ended up having no government secrets... So imagine Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee. Then the very real issues of his campaign on anything from the Supreme Court judges to what kind of contraception 'should' be available... will be real issues where the two campaigns differ radically - the contrast between Hillary and most of the current Republican field would be the greatest political contrast of the two finalists in 50 years.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Catriona]

Please explain to me why you are so infatuated with Hillary Clinton? She would be a complete disaster for the country. Race relations are markedly worse after Obama, and Hillary would do the same for gender relations, since she'd blame all her opposition on sexism. This administration has been marked by gross incompetence. Hillary was at the center of it. She owns Obama's foreign policy. She developed it. How did "leading from behind" work out in Libya? How about that "red line" in Syria?

The only reason Clinton has a chance is that she has managed to get Trump to infiltrate the GOP and create a nasty nomination fight. Trump is running for 2 reasons: 1) to publicize himself, and 2) to get Hillary elected. Without that, even Bill's ability to raise $2.5 billion so his wife can fight the corrosive effects of money in politics wouldn't save Hillary.

Rubio will be the nominee come hell or high water, but the worst result for him would be a brokered convention. That said, it is highly unlikely the GOP will lose the House. They have too many advantages at the local level. As I've written, and as some honest left-leaning journalists have admitted (but not you), the Democratic party is rotting from the bottom up. The GOP's problems are at the national level and more public, but the Democrat's problems are more structural and more difficult to fix.

Look at Rahm Emanuel. Hillary and Obama can't throw him under a bus and run away from him fast enough. All because of a revolt by African Americans because of a police shooting. I think African Americans are slowly realizing that Democrats have been treating them like dirt and taking their votes for granted for decades. Black Lives Matter is just the beginning. Eventually Latinos will realize they are being played like violins by the Democrats, as well (where was the comprehensive immigration plan Obama promised Rep. Luis Gutierrez in 2010 in exchange for his support for ObamaCare)?

On EVERY one of those enormous issues you have pointed out, Hillary is the old white candidate promising more of the status quo. She's running to be Obama's third term.

[Catriona]

On the private e-mail server's merits, Hillary's e-mail server could have been hacked a lot more easily than a secure server. It's clear from her answers she has no clue about anything technical. All her responses were about the physical security of the server. She said nothing about the use of encryption, firewalls, or any logical security measures.

The thing that Rubio pointed out on a debate that the Congressional panel didn't point out is that the emails proved Hillary lied about Benghazi. Within an hour of the attack she's telling her daughter that the attack was caused by an al-Qaida-like group. After that she parrots the line about the dumb video (which the Obama administration continued by arresting the guy on bogus charges - now THAT should be considered a criminal act).

[Catriona]

Remember with Karl Rove (you would be a lot more credible if you spelled his name correctly), he needs to be alarmist today because that's his business. The GOP establishment is genuinely horrified by Trump, but if he eventually fades, I doubt the tone will be anywhere near that alarmist. First of all, not many governorships are at stake in 2016. Most states have their elections in off-years. Second, David Vitter's decision to retire actually improves the odds that the GOP will hold the Louisiana Senate seat. The Democrats will probably re-take the Senate regardless because of sheer inertia (the GOP is defending over 20 seats), but most House seats are pretty secure. Remember the wave that put Democrats in control of Congress took place in 2006, not 2008. Wave elections generally result from a revolt over the party in control of the White House. Even Obama's larger-than-expected victory in 2012 didn't even come close to flipping the House.

Hillary's cakewalk nomination isn't doing her any favors, either. She clearly feels entitled to the presidency almost as a birthright. While Democrats rolled over for her (taking a page from the GOP, which usually nominates the person who came in second last time), it leaves her vulnerable to a genuine campaign. Hillary lost the only real campaign she fought (winning statewide in NY as a Democrat is easy), and to a first-term Senator on top of it. She can lose again to another first-term Senator (either Rubio or Cruz).

[Catriona]

As for the deficit, Obama "lowered" it only in comparison to the emergency measures taken in 2008 and 2009 (2009 was technically a "Bush" budget year - Obama's failed stimulus notwithstanding). Obama bragged about extending 98% of Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts.

If Romney had gotten elected in 2012 and the economy and deficit were exactly where they are today, the NY Times would be writing headlines about how unemployment looks artificially low because the labor participation rate is the lowest since before women and the Boomers entered the workplace in large numbers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They'd be complaining that wages have fallen 8% since Bush left office. And if Romney had passed something like Obamacare they'd be complaining that the working poor are being forced to buy health insurance that has $6,000-$12,000 deductibles and thus provides only illusory coverage.

Instead, the media is too busy ransacking a crime scene in San Bernardino right now. It's not Fox doing that. It was CNN and MSNBC who literally broke into a sealed apartment and rummaged around on live TV.

[Wayne Borean]

Catriona,

Ah, but the Republicans, with the exception of Rand Paul, don't seem to see militarized police as a problem. Enough Democratic politicians do to keep Blacks and Hispanics (whatever Hispanic means).

Most of the Republican candidates are Corporate Socialists. This will hurt them. Hillary is a Corporate Socialist too, but not as obviously.

The only declared Presidential candidate who isn't a Corporate Socialist is Bernie Saunders. It should be interesting seeing how Bernie does.

[Catriona]

@Wayne, I'm not saying African-Americans are going to vote for the GOP. They aren't. But they might decide not to show up.

George W. Bush got 44% of the Latino vote in 2004. Eventually the GOP will come around on the issue of immigration. It may just take the rest of the Reagan Democrats (who are now Republicans and the core of Trump's support) dying off in enough numbers to not be relevant as a political force.

As for "Corporate socialism" (which I equate to cronyism), big business generally secretly prefers Democrats. After all, 5 years after Democrats passed a law to end "too big to fail," the biggest banks are even bigger. Obama and Hillary are bigger cronyists than most of the Republican candidates. I'd say Cruz and Paul are the least, but Cruz's social issues are toxic in the general election, and Paul is a weird combination of social conservative and anti-neo-con.

We all know how Bernie is doing. He's getting crushed. He's just Hillary's token opposition to make the Democratic Party appear Democratic.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Catriona

First off... come on please. You've been here to debate these issues with me for more than a year. Don't you have that little bit of common courtesy to at least admit, darn, that was an incredibly accurate forecast from a year ago, on so many issues nobody else was saying at the time? Come on Catriona? Seriously? You're going to bitch about the spelling of Karl Rove's name and you can't have the courtesy to at least admit on ALL THOSE POINTS I was correct (at least so far) and that therefore that blog had INCREDIBLE amount of value?

I'll deal with the rest of your comments after you show a bit of courtesy and if you don't want to be nice, I might not like you anymore :-)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Catriona
"Please explain to me why you are so infatuated with Hillary Clinton? She would be a complete disaster for the country."

You are really illustrating all the ails of the GOP: Refusing to see reality. A prediction is about what will happen if the current affairs proceed. Prediction is not about what you really want to happen.

What you write here is that Tomi should not predict who WILL win the elections, but who SHOULD win the elections. This is the delusion that all supporters of the GOP candidates have displayed here. And this is also what will make sure the GOP will not do what is needed to win the elections.

[Winter]

@Catriona
So far, your predictiins about this race were not very enlighthening. Tomi's were, ..., predictive.

So unless you can serve us more than Fox news "facts", I prefer Tomi's.

[Winter]

@Catriona
"The data just isn't there to back it up. I'd give the odds of a Hillary victory at slightly more likely than not right now."

An excellent illustration of your approach. Given the gender, yought and hispanic gaps, no GOP candidate makes a chance in the public vote. You do not address this problem by anything but wishful thinking.

[Wayne Borean]

Catriona,

Actually, Bernie Saunders is the best. And I think we'll see him win at least five states. I'd like to see him take the nomination. I think he'd be good for the USA, far better than any of the Republicans, and far better than Hillary.

But Hillary will take it. The polls right now don't show the bump she'll get when she starts addressing the Republican nominee directly.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Wrong answer Catriona

I deleted all your responses after it, and 5 of your past anwers. You can be honest and continue on this blog or you can be gone. You know how this goes. You don't get to come and piss in my pool when there is a party of a forecast that has been going good. I've always treated you with respect even when we disagree on most points. I have always answered you honestly and fairly. You will do the same or you will never come back to the CDB blog again and all your past will be erased.

One more comment from you or you will never return. What's it gonna be? Think carefully :-)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter and Wayne

(gosh, fingers slipped and a long reply got lost... time to write again)

So thanks Winter and good point about forecast vs desire. Catriona doesn't seem to (or want to) see the difference. I am calling it as I see it and signs are clear that there will be a landslide and what was only a forecast last year, now seems to have a ton of confirmation on most of its major points.

On the delusions, gosh that is weird and bewildering to see, how supposedly intelligent adults can willfully refuse to accept reality. So women. Obviously Hillary is going to be on the top of the Democratic ticket and its almost impossible for Carly Fiorina to be the GOP nominee by now. So the Republicans will nominate a man in the historic race where the women get a woman choice for the first time. If after the black wave of the immediate two past elections, Obama 2008 and 2012, isn't enough to wake you, nothing will. This is THE worst time IN HISTORY to wage a war on women's issues. THE WORST TIME. Yet.. Planned Parenthood. Abortion. Contraception. They're idiots. Or Hispanics? Look at the voting gap. It was 27 to 72 for Romney last time. Now even if the GOP nominate their most popular latino, Marco Rubio, against a white woman, then Rubio can't get to 20%. Its a massacre. This is the wrong time to wage a war against the Latino vote with fences and deportations and blocking the vote on Immigration Reform. Its a madness and its truly bizarre to watch. I was honestly expecting that 'autopsy' to bring some devious half-solutions and platitudes from the Republicans to try to court the womens vote and the Hispanics for 2016. I wasn't expecting them to dig a hole, throw in a live hand grenade into that hole and then jump into the hole following the grenade (two grenades in fact).

Or wait, its everything. Its gun control, its climate change, its minimum wage, its gay rights, its tax cuts for millionaires, its.. everything. They're the reality-denial party. They are now living inside a Fox News bubble. Its truly bizarre.

PS perfect analysis in short comment on Catriona's own wishful thinking.

Wayne - I agree that Bernie Sanders probably would be a good wise kind gentle President but even if he was elected, he would not bring big coat tails, he would be very polarizing in a political spectrum 'ooh, he's a Socialist, come lets vote against the communist, he's actually a Marxist..' and he doesn't seem to have any strength to get things done. He could be the wimpy version of Obama haha. A very nice man yes, with very smart viewpoints but I am afraid as President Bernie would be weak and the Republicans would run all over him, with centrist Democratic support often. Even so, he's probably get some of his agenda inacted which would be very good for the USA. What Bernie is suggesting would not destroy America in any way but would in very many ways make it better.

That being said, Hillary has mostly overlap on her positions with Bernie, so if you consider the issues not the personalities, Hillary as President would enact domestic policies that Bernie supporters would approve, but Hillary's version may be milder than Bernie's. However, the contrast with the Republicans is a night-and-day issue. None of the Republicans would advance Bernie's agenda. On the personality side, Hillary is nothing like Bernie obviously so yeah there are many on the Democratic side who doubt or fear Hillary who find Bernie more honest and genuine. I agree on that point that as a 'person' Bernie would be a better, kinder, gentler person than Hillary, not unlike the generally very good human being that Jimmy Carter was and was proven to be also after his Presidency. But Jimmy Carter was an ineffective President too and had trouble with getting his agenda enacted getting ever worse as the world politics and world economy overtook his Presidency. The next years are likely to be a similar period of extreme turmult (with much of the same players from Russia to Iran haha).

On Bernie five states, thats a stretch. He could win more than one. I'd say he's likely to win New Hampshire but the next states don't fit him well so it will seem like game over by the time March rolls in and Hillary has won in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, heading into the expensive March states where TV ad time will be critical. Bernie might steal Iowa but Iowa is a state of organization not of political support per se, and Hillary learned that lesson in 2008 when Obama beat her on that dimension. She isn't going to make that same mistake twice. I expect Hillary to over-spend on the organization and crush Bernie in the actual turnout compared to the polling going into Iowa. But we'll see in less than two months haha... finally voting time is coming near and the hypothesis-building and speculation time can be passed and we can see actual performance.

On the head-to-head gosh yes, that is so true. Up to now most Republicans have been hitting each other (quite viciously) and on the Democratic side they've argued mildly but Hillary has not been striking at the one final Republican rival directly, on whatever vulnerabilities he or she has. When that starts, it will show not only Hillary's political strengths (most of the front-runners are VERY poor in a general election political match-up) and the power of the positions that the Democrats hold, but it will also bring to bear the power of TV ad spending and the power of Hillary's surrogates. So consider Donald Trump. Hillary knows she has to respond to everything and to BEAT him on everything and most of the things Trump is in the news, are for vile things he said. Most of the Republican rivals to Trump have been bullied into not attacking him directly (unless the candidate is near dead already) but Hillary will take him to task every time. Then consider the media. Up to now they have not known how to deal with Trump who does his interruptions with that Trumpian 'excuse me' who then talks over the reporter with his talking point. They will learn and adjust. Trump has gotten much of a free pass on the ridiculous positions he's taken. And many of his positions, he hasn't apologized (ne never apologizes) and Trump hasn't taken the positions back. What happens? Hillary gets to RUN THOSE ISSUES as 'valid'. And she will. So take Mexicans are rapists and murderers or McCain is no war hero, etc. If Trump had said, sorry, I mis-spoke, then Hillary would seem petty to bring those issues up. But now, imagine if Trump is the nominee, what will be featured endlessly at the Democratic convention? Hispanics will talk about 'rapists and murderers'. War veterans will talk about John McCain - could even be that McCain himself might visit the Democratic convention haha, the maverick. And so forth... Very good point, Hillary has shown political skill and talent that she has not brought to bear against the Republican rival yet. But the Repulicans are not that experienced and skilled. Look at Marco Rubio, how he praised Hillary as most competent, or Marco forgot to mention in the debates how smart he was about Putin etc - even when Marco had the foreign policy question teed up for him by a debate moderator. They are outclassed by the grandma.

Thanks, good stuff, keep the comments coming

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

Things get more bizar by the week. See the headline:

The GOP’s Advice to Beat Trump: Be a Respectable Trump
Right now Ted Cruz is the only candidate that seems to have gotten the memo.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/ted_cruz_is_trying_to_be_a_respectable_donald_trump_that_s_the_gop_s_advice.html

But Trump will never beat Hillary. Will a "respectable" Trump fare better? What is a "respectable" Trump?

Here are some quotes about how to win the hearts and minds of independends and latinos:

Baker is trying to talk around it, but he’s encouraging candidates to play with Trump’s fire in a nice way. Run against unauthorized immigrants, but don’t call them “rapists”; raise the specter of dangerous black criminals or “Trojan horse” refugees, without saying it outright.

Unlike Trump, Cruz won’t endorse bogus crime statistics from a white nationalist Twitter account, but he will warn his listeners that “the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats” and that “the Democrats know convicted felons tend to vote Democrat.”

On the same score, Cruz won’t make a blanket attack on all Latino immigrants, but he will come close to that line when he tells conservatives that “the Democrats are getting more and more open that they are the party of illegal immigration. … They support amnesty. They support releasing criminal illegal aliens.” And while Cruz hasn’t gone the full-Trump on refugees—the Republican polling leader is opposed to all refugees from Syria, full stop—he does support a religious test for accepting any refugees into the country.

[Winter]

And more troubles for the GOP:

Why Chris Christie’s Sudden Gains Are Good for Trump
The last thing the GOP establishment needs is another candidate dividing the anti-Trump vote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/12/chris_christie_rises_in_new_hampshire_polls_his_gains_help_donald_trump.html

[Wayne Borean]

Tomi,

I think that five states is a reasonable call for Bernie. Yes, Hillary could run the table, and he might get none, but Bernie has a lot of support. Not enough to take the nomination, but enough to make Hillary work for it.

And that's good. The last thing Hillary needs is to be rusty when going up against whoever the Republican nominee will be.

I'm really hoping that Trump takes the nomination. While I think he'd be a disaster as President, he'd be wonderful as Republican nominee for the Democrats. Having a Trump/Cruz matchup would ensure that the Democrats would take both houses, and might flip just enough state legislatures Democrat so they could dismantle Republcan gerrymandering.

Do that, and the next election is solidly Democrat too, and the following one...

Getting away from predictions, the USA really needs to become a Democracy.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter and Wayne

Winter - great links thanks. I had seen the first one but not the second one. On the advice of how to use Trump's issues without sounding as bigoted... that is classic GOP 'dog whistle' tactics. Use code words and hint at the issues so the particular voters know what you mean, without saying it directly so you won't easily get caught being another bigot. That used to work in the Republican party but recently the voters are fed up with the 'politically correct' language of avoiding calling a spade a spade, so to speak. When Trump comes along and actually says nasty things about immigrants or military vets or women or now the Jews, he is cheered specifically because of that history of 'dog whistle' tactics of using code words and hinting at the bigotry.

Would it work? Yeah. Will it work as well as in the past? No. And will it highlight to the really racist extreme voters how 'honest' Trump actually is, compare to the corrupt and lying 'normal politicians' ... absolutely yes. So it would still help, not hurt Trump. But there is method to that madness yes, only it will likely be far less effective this year, because of Trump. Still, was an interesting read.

As to the damage done by Chris Christie now.. haha, that also is true but the moderate 'majority' or at least the largest voting block of the Republican party if divided into more than two parts, should recognize that Jeb Bush is dead meat and Chris Christie at this stage has more of a chance than Jeb and most of the moderate field (one can argue which is stronger, Kasich or Christie haha). But its true that his emergence only diminishes the chances of other moderates. That is the nature of the beast, its a zero-sum-game, someone has to lose if another is to gain. Now, what is the position on Marco Rubio? He came in with the Tea Party support and against party bosses and wishes out of Florida. Then he's been pretty hostile about his job at the Senate. He is one of the most conservative candidates running while not as extreme as Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee but far more conservative than Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. Some think Marco would be the perfect 'compromise' candidate to unite both the conservative wing and the moderate wing. If you take that calculation, then also Christie's rise damages Rubio's chances.

Meanwhile Ted Cruz has the very conservative wing almost exclusively to himself, now that Dr Ben Carson is falling. Someone on a political talk show said there are now three 'lanes' in the Republican race. There is the moderate lane where Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina etc are running. Then there is the very conservative and religious lane where Ted Cruz is far ahead of the few left in that race like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum (and Ben Carson). And the third lane? Is Donald Trump's private lane where he is alone. This also means, if the party electorate were to break roughly evenly across those three lanes, we'd have roughly 33/33/33 split of delegates by June and a deadlocked convention. And back to my delegate count original analysis on this blog, I did say the three strong candidates who had the best chances to win the delegate hunt were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio (obviously each also the leader of their respective lane in this way of thinking of the race).

Wayne - yeah, I can see Bernie could have luck and some rebellion by his side and win 5 states. I think it'll be more like 3. And I agree its good there is some challenge to Hillary, its good for the process and its good for her, and its good for the Democratic party to think that they have at least a reasonable amount of choice in the matter. If it had been Hillary and Bernie and Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren plus the few who were in it like Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley etc, then it would have been quite an interesting race, somewhat like what Mitt Romney faced last time (without the circus obviously) where Hillary would have been 'hit' from all sides. That it ended up being only Bernie and a few midgets, did make it pretty boring but yes, she will have to fight for it, while not fighting particularly hard. It is good, kind of a practise run before the real thing.

On Trump (and yes, a Trump/Cruz ticket would be very likely if Trump takes it as Cruz might very well end up second in the delegate hunt) yes, that would be good for Democracy overall and certainly flip the Senate for the Democrats, and quite likely also flip the House. If Hillary had both chambers of Congress, she'd definitely run all sorts of 'pro democracy' laws that would counter the gerrymandering and the anti-voter initiatives that the Republicans have recently resorted to. That would be very healthy for democracy, devastating for the Republicans, and would help them get over their love of hate politics and being the rich white old men's party.

Here is where I disagree with you. If Trump is the candidate, then the Republicans will have a catastrophic election yes, at all levels, but they would have a clear scapegoat - Trump. He was clearly not a true conservative. He was only a pretend Tea Party very loyal fighter for 'the cause'. So the conservatives would not learn the vital lesson they have to learn, that embracing such extreme positions as the Tea Party makes it impossible to win in a general election (more than once, and when gerrymandering is extinguished). So if Trump was the candidate in 2016 (and lost). Then the Tea Party and extreme conservatives would say, lets do the proper real conservative next time - ie Ted Cruz in 2020 - and only after THAT failed, can the party really 'learn'.

So there would be more chaos and more tantrums and nonsense, but if Hillary took both houses, at least those noises would be on the fringes and mostly in statehouses and by Governors of red states. But the nonsense will continue until a true conservative like Ted Cruz runs (and loses enormously). That is their 'Mondale Moment' which Trump won't be. Trump will be labeled as a loonie after he's lost and an easy scapegoat, that they just sent the wrong guy to go against Hillary. With hindsight, Trump will be obviously a total buffoon that could not win rat catcher in the Bronx...

Now, regardless of whether its Trump or Cruz or Rubio, Hillary will be winning and winning huge. If she doesn't flip the House in 2016 she will do it in her re-election when she has an even bigger victory margin (most incumbents have bigger re-election margins than initial margins like Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush 2) and if part of the House is taken back in 2016, the rest would come by 2020. The sickness now inflicting the Republicans and damaging democracy in the USA will be fixed to some degree at least.

Now... the problem is VERY sincerely that after the period of least scandals under No Drama Obama, when the Democrats look to their volunteers to join Hillary's cabinet, she will have to pick from second and third string Democrats. And where Obama put a particualarly high premium on integrity, I think Hillary will be looking far more for loyalty to Clintons than to particular integrity. That means a lot of sleazy characters will end up in her administration(s). And there will be scandals. And they will become ever worse by her second term when the Democrats will be down to their fourth and fifth string players in their bench. That scandal reputation is likely to be the biggest damage that Hillary brings to the 2024 election as the grand old grandma. Also its likely there are at least as many wars if not more by then and the nation will be quite war-weary by then. A very sober, honest-to-the-core conservative could arise then as the new hope for the 2024 election, from probably the religious wing of the Republicans. But that religious Republican would be the 'new modern' Republican religious conservative who will allow for abortion as choice, and accepts gay rights etc. That could be a fascinating race (against Vice President Julian Castro running to become Hillary's third term ie Obama's fifth term).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[virgil]

Tomi, Scott Adams has been predicting quite the exact opposite for Trump (i.e landslide victory, since October: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131749156346/the-case-for-a-trump-landslide-part-1; he first predicted 'Trump victory' in August: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius + Trump )

I would say that he has more reasons than you to say that his predictions turned out allright so far.... but in either case, if would be fun to see you two talk about it. He appears to be interested in starting a podcast, so maybe you can join him for a chat: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/134656018086/who-would-you-like-me-to-interview :)