My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« Global Warming Paris Conference: Our Take? If the planet serves you lemons? Make lemonaid of course. Or in other words: time to move to Finland! | Main | Definition of Trumpism (n): Failed neo-fascist fringe political ideology peddled by former reality TV star and former real estate billionaire Donald Trump »

December 04, 2015



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 :-)


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.


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).


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).


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


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.


@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


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 :-)


"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.


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.


"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


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 :-)


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.

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.


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.

Wayne Borean


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 :-)


Tomi, Scott Adams has been predicting quite the exact opposite for Trump (i.e landslide victory, since October:; he first predicted 'Trump victory' in August: + 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: :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati