CoolBlue71
JUB Addict
Thanks, to everyone, for all the responses!
My predictions for the 2016 United States presidential nominees are: Donald Trump (R-New York) vs. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont).
For Trump, he is vanquishing his party opponents leaving the likes of John Kasich and Jeb Bush and whoever else one should name fighting for second place. But when carrying caucus and primary states, the only one else on the map so far is Ted Cruz who, frankly, looks like he could only get an impact on the map like a 2008 Mike Huckabee. Marco Rubio imploded. And Chris Christie will soon be followed by the rest of the pack—Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina immediately spring to mind—who soon will find they can’t afford to hang around.
Another fact, favoring Trump, is this: Iowa entered the presidential primaries/caucuses in 1976. No Republican who ended up nominated lost in both Iowa and New Hampshire. For those who won one but not both states, in non-incumbent (term-limited presidents) years and opposition challenger years (against an incumbent Democrat) … New Hampshire has a 2-to-1 record over Iowa in voting for the eventual nominee. From Iowa, eventual nominees Bob Dole (1996) and George W. Bush (2000) prevailed but did not win New Hampshire. From New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan (1980), George Bush (1988), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012) won here but not in Iowa. With Iowa having voted for Mike Huckabee (2008) and Rick Santorum (2012)—and with Ted Cruz the winner in 2016—there is a sense that Iowa is not a strong indicator of eventual party nominee … making it likelier, should the pattern hold, that New Hampshire, not Iowa, once again carries for the eventual nominee.
For Sanders, the entrance polls (Iowa) and exit polls (New Hampshire) reveal a divide that shows that the future of the party is wanting aggressive left wing leadership and policies. The 18–29 voting-age group carried in the mid-80s percentile for Sanders in both states. The 30–44 group were won by landslides in both states. The 45–64 group carried in New Hampshire for Sanders.
In both states, Clinton lost to Sanders people who make less than $50,000. Even worse in New Hampshire is that the only income group she carried was $200,000-plus.
The last time a candidate from this party won New Hampshire by 20 percentage points or more but not go on to win the party’s nomination was in 1956. (David Sirota tweeted a link to that.)
What Iowa and New Hampshire do, for part of their purpose in being the first two states (one a caucus state; the other a primary state), is get the ball rolling—and that includes the demographics—with the race continuing to play out through the rest of the nation. I think the Republican nomination will come rather easily for Trump compared to the Democratic nomination for Sanders. But, the apparent leads Hillary Clinton has with African-Americans—whose national size of the vote is skewed in the South (Old Confederacy states)—and Hispanics will shift away from Clinton and toward Sanders.
How would one expect Hillary Clinton to counter the 18–29 results from both Iowa and New Hampshire? I don’t feel she will manage to do so. That is a headwind.
The Millenials are essentially making a realignment of the Democratic Party take shape. And I think that has to do with their lives—their experiences of being in college and having massive debt which sticks with them for too much of their lives (especially if any jobs aren’t paying much to reduce down that debt)—and they are not of a collective mind for Democrats here in 2016 as the 18–29 group were in, say, 1996 or… .
My predictions for the 2016 United States presidential nominees are: Donald Trump (R-New York) vs. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont).
For Trump, he is vanquishing his party opponents leaving the likes of John Kasich and Jeb Bush and whoever else one should name fighting for second place. But when carrying caucus and primary states, the only one else on the map so far is Ted Cruz who, frankly, looks like he could only get an impact on the map like a 2008 Mike Huckabee. Marco Rubio imploded. And Chris Christie will soon be followed by the rest of the pack—Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina immediately spring to mind—who soon will find they can’t afford to hang around.
Another fact, favoring Trump, is this: Iowa entered the presidential primaries/caucuses in 1976. No Republican who ended up nominated lost in both Iowa and New Hampshire. For those who won one but not both states, in non-incumbent (term-limited presidents) years and opposition challenger years (against an incumbent Democrat) … New Hampshire has a 2-to-1 record over Iowa in voting for the eventual nominee. From Iowa, eventual nominees Bob Dole (1996) and George W. Bush (2000) prevailed but did not win New Hampshire. From New Hampshire, Ronald Reagan (1980), George Bush (1988), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012) won here but not in Iowa. With Iowa having voted for Mike Huckabee (2008) and Rick Santorum (2012)—and with Ted Cruz the winner in 2016—there is a sense that Iowa is not a strong indicator of eventual party nominee … making it likelier, should the pattern hold, that New Hampshire, not Iowa, once again carries for the eventual nominee.
For Sanders, the entrance polls (Iowa) and exit polls (New Hampshire) reveal a divide that shows that the future of the party is wanting aggressive left wing leadership and policies. The 18–29 voting-age group carried in the mid-80s percentile for Sanders in both states. The 30–44 group were won by landslides in both states. The 45–64 group carried in New Hampshire for Sanders.
In both states, Clinton lost to Sanders people who make less than $50,000. Even worse in New Hampshire is that the only income group she carried was $200,000-plus.
The last time a candidate from this party won New Hampshire by 20 percentage points or more but not go on to win the party’s nomination was in 1956. (David Sirota tweeted a link to that.)
What Iowa and New Hampshire do, for part of their purpose in being the first two states (one a caucus state; the other a primary state), is get the ball rolling—and that includes the demographics—with the race continuing to play out through the rest of the nation. I think the Republican nomination will come rather easily for Trump compared to the Democratic nomination for Sanders. But, the apparent leads Hillary Clinton has with African-Americans—whose national size of the vote is skewed in the South (Old Confederacy states)—and Hispanics will shift away from Clinton and toward Sanders.
How would one expect Hillary Clinton to counter the 18–29 results from both Iowa and New Hampshire? I don’t feel she will manage to do so. That is a headwind.
The Millenials are essentially making a realignment of the Democratic Party take shape. And I think that has to do with their lives—their experiences of being in college and having massive debt which sticks with them for too much of their lives (especially if any jobs aren’t paying much to reduce down that debt)—and they are not of a collective mind for Democrats here in 2016 as the 18–29 group were in, say, 1996 or… .
