Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reuters admitted they had a weak modeling base. The smaller the base, the less accurate the model. They then gathered more data by using other democracies to reach their conclusion.
But I am not at all sure how many other democracies are so similar to ours as to be pertinent. And this is one of the rare elections where neither party has a predictable successor candidate.
At the beginning, both parties had legacy candidates, a very unusual thing that didn't happen in the 20th century, and the early years of the 19th century were so different I don't think much can apply. Now that the campaign is underway, it's apparent many voters on both sides reject the notion of electing a legacy. The Bushes, father and son, seem to have been enough of that for those voters.
The historical data is also questionable, as the nation and the world has never been so closely connected to each other. None of us have ever been aware of all the goings-on in government on a daily basis either.
The digital revolution is as profound as the industrial revolution was; we are all living in the Information Revolution, and its all brand new territory for humanity. We all know more than ever before, whether we want to know it or not, and the digital revolution has changed the ways humans think and act in ways that never existed before.
So is Reuter's prediction correct? Historically, the answer is yes. But I honestly don't think history gives us any kind of accurate forecasts into our future when it comes to politics any more. We aren't evn into the 2nd generation of the 21st century, and its obvious to me that if this prediction had been published in 1999, before the 2000 election, everyone would say it missed the mark by a mile.
The 2000 election was the first ever decided by the Supreme Court. And from then on, the 21st century increasingly looked less and less than the 20th politically. This has not changed. We are now living in an age that is very unpredictable and unlike anything that has existed before.
Im not going to address these idiotic reflections. EXCEPT, where the Hell is it a law that POTUS has to be Christian???????????
First, I never said that the POTUS had to be a Christian. I said that he comes off as disingenuous. He claims he a Christian, because that is what people want to hear. Do you honestly believe an atheist would win the Republican nomination?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Rubio, along with the rest of the career politicians, is on the record as supporting amnesty.
No thanks!
I didn't say I like him. But ultimately, the Republican party is going to lean towards choosing someone who is actually electable. And most of the candidates simply aren't electable nationally. Ted Cruz is the best example. Ted Cruz is basically "Mr. Conservative", but pretty much everyone who isn't on the far-right, hates him.
If the Republicans lose either Ohio or Florida, they can't realistically win. At least if Rubio is the nominee, he can pretty much lock-up Florida. That means everything will be on Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada.
The question is, can the Republicans win both Ohio and Virginia? I'm not convinced.
In my view, the Republicans need to completely reshuffle their coalition. Because the electoral map is looking uglier and uglier for them all the time.
I don't expect to be able to vote with a clear conscious for anyone as president, unless I have a third party to choose from on the ballot, such as a Libertarian.
I have never seen the Republicans in such disarray. ....
Yet they control the Senate, control the House by historic margins, control the majority of governorships, and control the majority of state legislatures.
If you think this is out of control, then you simply prove that you don't judge based on fact. It's the other party that has lost most of the electorate making all of this possible. It will happen again in 2016.
This computer prediction says nothing about how the Republicans will make it to 270.....
Just like they took control of the US senate in 2014. By reminding the people of the Obama Administration's record. Even The King is trying to distance herself from him now.
Just like they took control of the US senate in 2014. By reminding the people of the Obama Administration's record. Even The King is trying to distance herself from him now.
Ah yes, just like they took control in 2010 too....oh wait, that was 2012, and this is 2016.....notice a pattern here?? No? I didn't think so, well let me explain this for you, in 2010 and 2014 the Democrats have more seats to protect than the Republicans do, this will be the same problem in 2018 as well. In 2016 and 2020 the Republicans will have more seats to defend than the Democrats and will see a number of them be lost in more moderate states, especially if the GOP put forth a candidate that is too far right wing or if the Democrats have a great turnout for the presidential election. It is very easy for Senate races to ride the coat tails of who ever is winning the Presidential Elections....the off year elections don't have that same luxury and politicians typically try to campaign on distancing themselves from the president or if they are lucky the president will be very popular at that time and they can still use that influence, but that is fairly rare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.