[wright2bear]

Interesting take, especially from Reuters. Thoughts? My first Posting, so help me if I did it incorrectly.

[Amendment10]

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

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

[Talisker]

Nice article, thanks.

[PghBaldy]

Thank you for posting. Interesting, seemingly reasonable article.

[McGruff]

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

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

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

If we can overcome the democratic party cheating.

[ek_hornbeck]

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

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

[DoughtyOne]

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


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


Bernie Sanders USA, Mrs. Bill Clinton USA

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

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

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

 

[DoodleDawg]

Depends on who the Republicans nominate.

[DoodleDawg]

Depends on who the Republicans nominate.

[RetiredArmy]

Naw, they ain’t gonna win. They always find a way to blow it to a liberal, progressive, commie, socialist from the dimocrat party of slimeballs. Hillary, the commie Sanders, John “Vietnam Vet” Kerry. Any one of them will beat a RINO from the Rinocrat party.

[x]

That conclusion is based on the results of a data model we created, and is primarily the result of two factors, both related to the challenges faced by “successor” candidates — candidates from the same party as the incumbent. First, a Republican will win because voters typically shy away from the party currently in power when an incumbent isn’t running. In fact, a successor candidate is three times less likely to win. Second, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are too low to suggest a successor candidate will take the White House.

Certainly, but I'm confident that if there's a way to lose, the GOP will find it.

[ReaganGeneration2]

Wait, does this model assume there are free and clean elections?

Does it also assume a free and unbiased media?

Does it work in “elections” in oligarchies or monarchies?

Also, the model only need look at the 1-3 swing states Hillary needs in the Electoral College. If she wins FL, or OH and any other medium swing state, it’s over.

[dynachrome]

Welcome President Hildabeast.

[CottonBall]

good job!

[rikkir]

Very smart take and good article.
Polls are way too unpredictable this far out. Plus pollsters are having a much harder time getting respondents because so much of the nation is mobile.

Also glad to see an article I haven’t seen 6 times. Some have forgotten to use the search feature before posting.
Good job on your first.
We’re almost twins. I started on FR in 2003.
Glad you’re here!

[Candor7]

Good job, FRiend!

Post frequently , honestly and creatively!

[RasterMaster]

Cycles of elections tend to show a DUmocrat gets a run of several years of economic destruction, then along comes a republican just in time to get the blame when the consequences materialize.

[Diggity]

2 reasons they won’t. The 47% is now 52% and voter fraud which at least 5% of the demo vote.

General Buck Naked could win the white house in 2016