2015 Time Capsule


Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

172 Responses

  1. Tod Kelly says:



    Someone should do more Trivia Sundays, Mount Rushmores, and Thursday Night Bar Fights.Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    I’ll go:

    If you had asked me back in April, I would have told you “I don’t think that Hillary will be the nominee.” Too many things to go wrong between here and August, too many minefields, too many email server questions, too many scandals.

    As it is… huh. She made it. The only thing keeping her from being the nominee now is some really public capital-I “Incident”. I hesitate to even think of what it might be but something that would get all but the most partisan to drop their jaws. Like, bigger than a Ford-esque stumble coming down off of a plane. We’re talking a Bob Robert’s-esque hot mic kinda thing.

    Her VP will be someone that even 90% of us here have never heard of and if I were to write his (or her, I suppose, but probably his) name down, most of us would have to go to the Google or the Wiki to learn more.

    As for Republicans, we’re going to be looking at Bush/Cruz or Bush/Rubio.

    Which means that we here will be looking at Clinton v. Bush in 2016.

    As we scream “HOW DID THIS HAPPEN???”

    As for the catchphrases, there will be a lot more having to do with Foreign Policy and Europe and Economics than domestic social issues. Bush will talk about how Clinton wants to turn us into Greece.

    Commenters will go on to make jokes about how Jeb wants to turn us into Germany… NAZI GERMANY.

    A good time will be had by all.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird says:

      No way on Bush/Rubio. Same state for one thing so it’s technically unconstitutional, also same state so it’s politically unwise also same appeal so it’s doubly politically unwise.
      Bush/Cruz makes more sense to placate the base.

      I agree that I have no fishing clue who Hillary’s running mate will be. I would presume it’ll depend on where her campaign feels she needs the most shoring up. I’m disinclined to think they’d go for another woman and Warren wouldn’t take the job even if they offered it to her.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North says:

        Same state for one thing so it’s technically unconstitutional, also same state so it’s politically unwise also same appeal so it’s doubly politically unwise.

        I had completely forgotten this.

        Yes, you’re absolutely correct.Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          I wouldn’t have remembered it if I didn’t read the old thread where it was mentioned. So many old names, so many memories. I got misty.Report

          • Richard Hershberger in reply to North says:

            meh. The same discussion came up with Bush/Cheney, both of whom were from Texas. Cheney declared that he actually was from Montana, and that solved the problem. The requirement is one of those parts of the Constitution that taken to include an tacit “but not really”–sort of like the Fourth Amendment.Report

            • Agreed in general. You probably still wanna take your two candidates form different regions. Home son/daughter is worth a couple points in that region IIRC. Bush and Rubio are like clones, what do you get from two that you wouldn’t get from just one? If Bush gets the nod I’ll expect a Walker or other conservative darling to placate the base or, if they’re feeling ballsy, maybe a women Veep nominee to try and fight the Dems on the making history front.Report

            • Cheney had a pretty legitimate claim to Wyoming, though, and forsaking Texas as his “home” caused roughly zero problems. Marco Rubio can’t claim another state unless he resigns from the Senate and even then it’s not clear he has a claim anywhere. And he’d be forsaking a state that’s pivotal to his career.

              Jeb could more easily foresake Florida and claim Maine or Connecticut, but the political costs would be significant. He doesn’t want to emphasize to Florida the fact that he also lives elsewhere. Both Rubio and Jeb are attached to Florida in a way that Cheney was not attached to Texas.

              I don’t see the Cheney option as a real option here.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

        Isn’t the requirement just that electors from Florida (in the case of Bush/Rubio) couldn’t vote for both Bush for President and Rubio for VP? In a close contest, as many as necessary could vote for Bush and then someone else (presumably another Republican) for VP. If that resulted in no one getting a majority of the votes for VP, it goes to the Senate? Granted, a strategy that could result in a VP from the other party in a close election, but a risk that a party could choose to take.Report

    • John Howard Griffin in reply to Jaybird says:


      Jaybird will spend much of the election season explaining how he thinks things are really different. He will explain how he was playing checkers online with a guy from Tibet, who mentioned that he was playing Team Fortress 2. This will remind him that he has a post that he started last election talking about how everything in politics is like TF2. This will lead to several posts about how we could revamp the election system to be more like Steam. After working on it for a while, he’ll mention to Maribou that he thinks people won’t understand because the game is really old. Maribou will gently point out that she thinks no one will understand because he’s trying to use a game as a metaphor for politics, which can be dicey. He’ll miss the pun, but Maribou will laugh quietly to herself while she’s watching Game of Thrones.Report

    • Richard Hershberger in reply to Jaybird says:

      Her VP will be someone that even 90% of us here have never heard of..

      I’m going to go out on a limb: the VP candidate will be either Julian or Joaquin Castro. Who, you ask? Look them up. It is easy enough.

      Where did I pull this from? No, not from there. I am sitting on that right now: pulling anything from it would be very awkward maneuver. It so happens that I know a guy who is a former Republican Congressman. He is part of the early baseball crowd, and has some fascinating insights into the interaction of early baseball and machine politics of the day. He and I have one of those relationships where we both know that we disagree on pretty much everything, so far as modern politics go, but we happily go on to have long discussions, including both 19th century and modern politics. One of the Castro brothers was his prediction, which I am coopting. If it turns out to be wrong, I will blame him. If it turns out to be right, I will claim credit. I love this country!Report

  3. John Howard Griffin says:


    That guy…you know the kind of weird guy that’s a Republican? He has very light colored skin, if that helps. He’s gonna get the Republican nomination.

    And, for the Democrats, that woman with the very light colored skin is going to get the Democratic nomination.

    Then, that person with the very light colored skin wins the general.

    Bad stuff:

    We’re going to be sick of talking about the election starting in two weeks, and ready to vomit in two months. Many months from now, we’ll be yearning for subjects to write posts and comment about that are not about the election, yet some commenters will still bring it up in Mike Schilling’s baseball and music posts. Tod Kelly wants to predict that Trump will win, but he will be too worried that he will be mocked, so he will pick someone else. Mark Thompson will pick the correct Republican, but for the wrong reasons. Fox news will insist that whoever the Republican is will win, up to election night. Karl Rove will storm off again.

    Nothing much will change with the new election though. Corporations will still be people. White people will still be in charge. But there will be more people who don’t have light colored skin in the country, and this will make white people very, very uncomfortable. Especially on Fox.Report

    • I love this comment so much I want to marry it.

      Again: It is fabulous to see you back in the threads, JHG.Report

      • John Howard Griffin in reply to Tod Kelly says:

        It’s nice to be back in the threads, Mr. Kelly.

        (which means I should probably leave while I’m ahead)

        It makes me smile that I made you smile.Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to John Howard Griffin says:

      Gratuitous Mark Thompson jab is gratuitous.

      But funny.Report

      • John Howard Griffin in reply to Michael Drew says:


        Michael Drew will make a really concise and accurate point about the meaning of all of this, at some point during the unending slog of the election (probably several times), but most people will miss it and only two people will comment on it. One of the people will be Michael Drew. Our chances of averting another disaster will diminish because everyone missed it.


        • I love this thread so much I want to gay marry it! +10 points to Ravenclaw!Report

          • John Howard Griffin in reply to North says:


            North will make predictions, fairly standard, nothing too outrageous, but at least a little outrageous. He will make delightful jokes throughout the election season, keeping our sanity slightly in check. He’ll make excellent points that we forgot to make. But, then he’ll mention something about gay marrying an inanimate object, and some people will wonder if he’s gay or something. North is very very happy, everyone, and that’s a good thing. People on Fox will be uncomfortable. This will make North even more happy.Report

        • Michael Drew in reply to John Howard Griffin says:

          I have no comeback for this.Report

          • Murali in reply to Michael Drew says:

            I wonder what John has to say about me…Report

            • John Howard Griffin in reply to Murali says:


              Murali will write a lot of stuff using words I don’t understand. This will confuse me and cause me to look up the words, and read some articles about them. Eventually, I will be lead to a wikipedia article, and will accidentally click a link that takes me back to the OG. I will not really be surprised. I’ll write a comment on a post that will really confuse Murali. He’ll make a post about my comment, asking for input from others. Wait…we did that already. Murali will instead gently point out (along with Kazzy and Jaybird) when I’m being a huge asshole (unfortunately often). This will get me to calm down, but I still won’t understand a lot of the words he uses – like “epistemic deficiencies”, and when he starts with the “there’s a contention, C, made by a Disagreement, D, that explores Truth, T, within the construct of Bayesian reality, B, …..” I’ll stop trying to understand and go back to making jokes and being quiet.


    • Reading this was a roller coaster of laughing my ass off and wanting to cry. Which is odd for just a couple paragraphs.

      But I can tell you that this prediction is probably wrong this time around (though it’s been pretty accurate the last two cycles):
      “Mark Thompson will pick the correct Republican, but for the wrong reasons.”

      I…..actually can’t even make a prediction right now about the Republican nomination. As in, I can’t even come up with some BS to bloviate about in an attempt to explain why so-and-so will win.

      I’m not sure if that’s because the GOP is such a mess or because I’ve just gotten even more apathetic and cynical about electoral politics or something else. Probably all of the above.

      As for the rest of your predictions, though, my gut tells me they’re mostly accurate.Report

    • Chris in reply to John Howard Griffin says:

      And John Howard Griffin will disappear for months at a time.Report

      • Mark Thompson in reply to Chris says:

        ….And then will return, triumphantly, just as everyone thinks he left for good.

        Also, JL Wall will simultaneously disappear for months at a time, and return, triumphantly, just as everyone starts to think he left for good.Report

      • John Howard Griffin in reply to Chris says:


        Chris will continue his work on breaking through to the Other Side. Of the wall, that is. By continuing to bang his head, and the heads of others – giving us a public service of sorts. He will make reasonable statements, while wearing a radio collar that induces fits of rage in certain partisans. This will have the unfortunate side effect of riling those partisans, which will lead to a series of posts that he has been working on for some time and that youreallyneedtoreaddammit! Tragically, FishingWordPress will eat the posts before anyone sees them.


    • Eh… I’ve seen/written better.Report

      • John Howard Griffin in reply to Kazzy says:


        Kazzy won’t just make his own predictions. He’ll speak eloquently about his students and how they view the world. They’re AMAZING! The things they say, why just the other day several of the kids were trying to figure out the best way to share a cookie. You’d think they would cut it or something, but no. They talked about it and decided the best way was to put the cookie on the table, for everyone to put their hands behind their back, and to just all start eating the cookie at the same time. This will give him a great idea for the best way to hold the election. Be afraid of that idea of his. Be very afraid. It’s not what you think.


        • Kazzy in reply to John Howard Griffin says:

          Pssht. That is how I *said* it went down, but in reality, the kids developed a fact finding commission which instituted a cookie division committee which then perfectly fragmented the cookie so not only did everyone get an equal share, but each share had an equal amount of chocolate chip and cookie. Fearing that their ability to build coalitions would unseat me from authority, I proposed the Hungry Hungry Hippo style cookie battle and then sprayed bubbles in the air because that is all I learned in 6+ years of formal teacher training.Report

    • JHG is obviously out of touch with current events.

      These days, they’re Richard Hershberger’s baseball posts.Report

  4. Will Truman says:

    My boring prediction is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will beat Jeb Bush by a comfortable but not huge margin.

    My slightly less boring prediction, if the above occurs, is that the right-right will argue that this is because they nominated another moderate, and the broad left will say that this will send the GOP further down the rabbit hole. However, the rebounding that’s been occurring since 2012 will actually keep occurring and the right-right’s position will actually continue to weaken.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

      That’s my general thought. Barring any major surprises (Trump running third party as ego overtakes him), the GOP will nominate Jeb or possibly Walker (now that they’ve quashed that unfortunate investigation), who will lose by 5 points or so to Clinton who will pull in at least 50.1% of the votes.

      There will be large Democratic gains in the Senate, and decent ones in the House.

      2018 will see large Republican gains.

      People will continue to ignore the sharply different electorate that turns out in mid-cycle versus Presidential years, and manifest many different and exciting theories about partisanship, national mood, party fatigue, morale, etc — rather than the simple one of “Different people voted”.Report

  5. Michael Drew says:

    I think Bush/Rubio makes a lot of sense, as JB says. Florida, Florida, Florida.

    I don’t know whom Hillary will pick. Presumably not Joe Biden. I wouldn’t rule out a woman.

    What I mostly want to say is this: I understand that there are some pretty solid reasons for thinking of Walker as the leading also-ran to Jeb, and as a very viable possible nominee himself. But I simply cannot imagine that guy ever, ever getting the nomination of a major party for president. I might well be in complete denial about that, which is why I wanted to put this down. Should it come to pass, it will be interesting to be able to look back at this and think about the things I had wrong (I’m not even really sure of my reasons right now) to make me not see what happened as imaginable.Report

    • I’ve been keeping your impressions in mind with regard to Walker, which for a while had me with Rubio as the #2. Looking at the primary schedule changed that, though, because Walker does look good in Iowa and Rubio doesn’t have an early state where he’s looking particularly good. This was solidified a bit in my mind by his announcement speech, was was surprisingly good.

      Walker’s path to the nomination is to win in Iowa, with Jeb almost inevitably winning in New Hampshire, and a two man race. I can see that happening, and I could see Walker winning that (even that’s not where I would lay my money).

      But… if he just doesn’t have it in him… that’s partly why I have Perry and Cruz on the list. If Rubio can’t capitalize, I could see either of them making it a two person race and potentially overtaking Bush. (I have a really, really hard time seeing it with Cruz, but if he does great in the debates and picks up the Trumpets, he could end up being quite formidable.)Report

      • A few things.

        #1 You by all means should NOT be keeping my impressions in mind in your analysis of Walker. I am completely and openly compromised on the subject. Nevertheless, I still think that my impressions are basically accurate and predictive, which is why I’m putting them up against others’ predictions. I wouldn’t recommend other people give much weight to those impressions, but I do credit them and think they’re right and am going with them for better or worse.

        #2 So what are those impressions? I want to be clear: I’m not arguing at all that what you call “the path” isn’t there. It’s there. Good arguments for why he’s a strong contender if not the “sharp money” pick for the nod exist and are very legitimate. But it does depend on how people ultimately vote (since by your own description, the path is a path to a mere two-man race, not a path to an inside nomination track). And, to put it quite simply, it’s that blank look in his eyes. I just don’t think he seems up to the job, and more to the point, I think he is deeply unfit for the job, in such a way that, over time, it will become more and more unavoidably clear that that is the case, so that, during the course of a race with another strong contender, people simply will migrate away from him out of doubt.

        #3 I do think it’s right nevertheless to see him as a clear #2 right now, and presumptively going forward (with Trump as a separate phenomenon), for just the reasons I think you think there are to think that. He’s clearly the darling of parts of both the conservative wing and the establishment wing. He’s going to have his run. My view is ONLY that I simply don’t think he will ever give a speech accepting a major-party nomination: not that he won’t get close and get significant parts of the party to back him for a lengthy run. But simply I think he faces a glass ceiling between being a party favorite and ever being the party standard-bearer in any cycle. It’s glass because I think a lot of Republicans don’t see it right now because a) it’s not really clear it’s there, this is just a theory of mine, and b) a lot of them are still starstruck by his record in coveted Wisconsin (birthplace of the Republican Party), and are seeing what they want to see still. That is, the next Reagan rather than a Republican Elizabeth Warren or, say, Ann Richards (but less capable).

        #4 I was (embarrassingly) unaware of that whole Constitution thing wrt to home states of VPs. If that rules out Rubio for Jeb, then likewise I have no idea who he’d pick. I do feel like if Rubio is the guy Jeb wants (and there are personal reasons to think he could get over it if he couldn’t pick him, but if the brain trust thought it crucial), then the way I read it I think there are probably ways the modern American major political party could get around that obstacle. This is the Bush family and the Republican Party and the State of Florida and getting what’s needed out of the electoral requirements of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, after all. There is a vein of experience there.Report

        • @michael-drew

          #1: I also took your biases into account in my assessment. Even so, the degree of confidence you seem to have that he will not be what a lot of people want him to be matters. Sometimes people with biases are quite right (see Palin, Sarah)

          #2-3: The impression you give me is that you do not believe he has the brightness and/or temperament to be a national figure. FWIW, when I talk of having a “Clear Path” I don’t mean one that they can cross with sheer effort. Merely that they do not need another candidate to fall apart – not just stumble – to become viable. Right now, I think Rick Perry needs Walker (or Rubio, but probably Walker) to fall apart to become viable. That’s not the case with Walker, Rubio, or Jeb… even though only one of the three can win.

          #4: I don’t think Bush was unaware (and if he was, Cheney certainly wasn’t as it was his job to pick the VP). I think that Cheney being able to change his residence was quickly determined to be a viable option. Cheney was a representative from Wyoming and always maintained a residence there. Rubio has no other state (indeed, he represents Florida in the Senate as we speak) and while Jeb could, I think it would be politically dangerous to his Florida prospects to pretend to be from another state (much more “pretend” than for Cheney.Report

          • #2-3 Yes, I see what you mean there. So, as of right now, he’s kind of “top-tier”, or in “Group A,” and would have to fall back for someone other than him, Jeb or Rubio to become a real contender.

            Also, you said it better than I could: lacking the competence to be (and inspire confidence as) a national figure. Ask yourself: what cabinet position would you feel good about him holding? How would you feel about him as merely Veep? He’s certainly more “qualified” on paper than Sarah Palin was, but I don’t feel a lot better about it. Whereas I’m pretty comfortable thinking of even a Rick Perry in the Oval (from a day-to-day competence perspective). I think, over time, that uneasiness will creep in among Republican primary voters as well. (Part of the problem is that, while he is attractive to a number of factions, he’s not any one of their true heart’s desire (except maybe the low-tax corporatist Koch faction), so that there is less incentive to overlook flaws. He’s more in the mode of a well-groomed, well-trained “national contender”-type pol, but from where I sit, he’s not well-groomed or well-trained. But I might well be wrong about how well he can be trained, or how trained he already is.)Report

    • North in reply to Michael Drew says:

      Maybe it’s proximity but I don’t view Walker the way you do. To be honest it may be simply because the only way my circles of friends would be more convinced he was Satan was if he got caught on film capering around Madison in red sexy-devil pajamas poking union leaders and Democratic representatives in the ass with a pitchfork*.

      *I am not saying Walker doesn’t do this, simply that he’s not been caught on camera doing it**.
      **Doing it to people who wouldn’t pay to have it done to them that is***.
      ***Not that there’s anything wrong with that.Report

  6. Burt Likko says:

    Back on November 2, 2012, I predicted:

    l offer a second prediction, after Obama’s re-election. Obama has about eighteen to twenty more months of the way things are now. Since the 1960’s ever two-term President has hit serious stumbling blocks in or around the sixth year of their service.

    Johnson = Vietnam, resulting in no re-election bid in 1968. Nixon = Watergate, resulting in resignation under threat of impeachment. Reagan = Iran-Contra, with talk of impeachment and concerns of incompetence and a then-unknown reality of creeping Alzheimer’s. Clinton = Lewinsky scandal, resulting in impeachment. Bush = Iraq/Afghanistan, recalling Vietnam under LBJ.

    Obama will be no different. Let’s check back around the 2014 midterms and see how this one works out.

    Have I been vindicated, or proven wrong?Report

    • Tod Kelly in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Oddly, I think you have been vindicated *despite* his not really having had any of those kinds of scandals/disasters.

      Seriously, I can’t think of any other POTUS other than Obama who has been so entirely defined by the opposition against him rather than his own accomplishments/failures while in office.Report

      • nevermoor in reply to Tod Kelly says:

        Only even arguably true if you mean in the timeframe @burt-likko set out. And to get there you have to ignore (for example) the Iran deal.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to nevermoor says:

          Unclear to me whether that will turn out as badly as the Republican naysayers have predicted, although it’s certainly not Sadat-Begin at Camp David part II as some Democrats have suggested.Report

          • nevermoor in reply to Burt Likko says:

            I think it gets everything gettable in a nuclear non-proliferation agreement after Bush screwed the pooch, that nuclear non-proliferation agreements are an unadulterated good, that lifting sanctions in Iran may be a net positive in its own right, and that its an impressive achievement in a world where game-theory obstructionism prevents nearly all forms of legislative accomplishment.

            I also think it fits in nicely with New START on non-proliferation and with Cuba on ending ineffective sanctions to firm up some of Obama’s stronger foreign policy credentials. Obviously foreign policy is still his worst area, but still.Report

    • John Howard Griffin in reply to Burt Likko says:


      Burt Likko will make the wrong prediction, but he’ll have a good narrative for why he made the predictions. Later, he’ll make a point about the Republicans that I’ll find really insightful and amazingly negative. It will piss me off for a while, because I’m uncomfortable liking Republicans. I will eventually forgive him.

      Hopefully, he’ll continue writing his great posts on the Supremos.Report

      • Wow. Now I know how Obama feels.

        Thanks, JHG.Report

        • John Howard Griffin in reply to Burt Likko says:

          My hope is that you understood this part:

          Later, he’ll make a point about the Republicans that I’ll find really insightful and amazingly negative. It will piss me off for a while, because I’m uncomfortable liking Republicans. I will eventually forgive him.

          I really meant that you are hard on the Republicans, and are a Republican yourself. I am surprised, sometimes, by the vehemence of some things you say. They are things I have said, or could see myself saying, and they are very negative about Republicans. I have a much larger amount of respect for you because of it.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to John Howard Griffin says:


        Got anything for me.Report

        • John Howard Griffin in reply to Saul Degraw says:


          Saul will continue to write posts and wonder why he gets the same 100 comments on each one. Trying a new tact during the election season, he’ll decide that a brief foray into the uncharted territory of Marxist Libertarianism, nee Utilitarian Rastifarianism, is his new road forward. The number of pageviews for each of his new posts in the “planned” 100 post “exploration of the subject” breaks the narrow shoulders of the OG servers. After the upgrade, the OG hits just over 1,000,000 hits per day. And there was much rejoicing. Saul’s eye begins to wander…


        • John Howard Griffin in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          My hope is that you understood that…I am with you, dog. I hear you. Keep fighting the good fight.

          No blood, no foul. 🙂 Right?


    • Michael Drew in reply to Burt Likko says:

      There is some bad stuff that I have been a little surprised hasn’t been a bigger problem for him. Syria/Iraq/ISIS is obviously a disaster, no matter how one assesses mistakes and apportions responsibility. And the OMB mess is pretty shocking (to me, anyway).

      I guess one thing that Obama is doing to help himself is to pursue a pretty hefty second-term agenda of his own, albeit necessarily a more Executive-focused, rather than legislative, one. This has created a somewhat steady flow of okay-to-decent headlines to counter bad ones.

      But again, ISIS is a blot on his record, even for those of us who supported a roughly complete withdrawal from Iraq. Largely because the handling of Syria has been disastrous (though how much better the outcomes could have been is very questionable). Outrage over OMB has been remarkably muted from where I sit.

      But this raises the question: what is the essence of the kind of situation that rises to the level of ‘scandal,’ specifically the level of scandal your historical list suggests, @burt-likko? It can’t just be run-of-the-mill policy failure (Syria/ISIS) or breakdown/failure of government function (OMB). It actually helps if it’s not-policy related (for Lewinsky to be in that list, and it should be, reflects the boost that sex gives a scandal over policy). But if it’s policy, it has to be either clear, premeditated wrongdoing (Iran-Contra), or catastrophic, generational disaster (Vietnam; arguably Iraq).

      I don’t see that on Obama’s horizon right now. But then one rarely sees it coming (except maybe in the generational failure realm). Maybe something we now know about will expand into second-term-defining-level scandal for Obama. Or maybe something we haven’t even heard of yet will blindside us.

      So what do you think, OGps? If Obama’s presidency were still to be engulfed in era-defining scandal, what do you think that scandal might/could still end up being? Something we know about now? Or something new? Like what?Report

    • Montaigne in reply to Burt Likko says:

      @burt-likko I think, respectfully, that you’re wrong. The Republicans have howled with rage for the past two-plus years, and have labored mightily to gin up a scandal, any scandal, (Benghazi! the IRS!) and have gotten precisely nowhere. Since June, Obama, with the aid of SCOTUS, has accomplished a great deal (I need not rehearse the list), and I believe he is gaining, rather than losing, political steam. The major “stumbling blocks” e.g., the Obamacare rollout, will be seen, farther down the road, as little more than blips on the radar. certainly nothing at the level of Iran Contra (I came home from living abroad in that pre-intertubes time, and wondered if the country had lost it collective marbles).

      Moreover, I think a positive indicator of this is how closely HRC is hewing to, rather than distancing herself from, his agenda.Report

  7. Tod Kelly says:

    Well, now that I’ve been called out I guess I kind of have to predict that Trump will win.

    Which, I suppose, means that our future Vice President will be whoever wins the next Hooters Calendar Girl of the Year contest.Report

  8. Kim says:

    Okay, my predictions:
    1) Team effort from the trollish contingent, There will be laughs from all sides.
    2) There will be at least one spectacular, flagrant mistake from the Republicans… and it will be forced.Report

  9. Burt Likko says:

    The Republican ticket: Scott Walker with running mate Rand Paul.

    The Democratic ticket: Hillary Clinton with running mate Elizabeth Warren.

    On November 9, 2016, we will have found that Clinton – Warren won by about 4% of the popular vote, and an electoral college vote of 288-250.

    This is a prediction, not a wish or a fantasy. I’m decidedly unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton.Report

    • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

      There isn’t enough liquor in the east coast states to make Sen. Warren give up her position for the bloody veep nod sir. I will grant that she’s probably the one woman Hillary would happily offer the role to but Warren wouldn’t accept it.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

        Yeah, see I figure it’ll short up Clinton’s left flank, and a two-woman ticket is exactly the sort of audaciousness that her husband employed with a two-southern-Democrat ticket back in ’92.

        Can Warren really say “no” if Nominee Clinton asks? Could anyone?Report

        • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

          I think she could and would. I don’t think it’d be good for her at all. I see naught but down sides.Report

          • gingergene in reply to North says:

            I agree. I think she’s happy to be the Lioness of the Senate, and unlike Teddy, came to that conclusion without a presidential run. She wants to change things and push leftward. No. 1 Observatory Circle is no place for that. (Insert “warm bucket of piss” joke.)Report

            • North in reply to gingergene says:

              Indeed, also note that really the only real benefit of being veep is it can often be parlayed into an heir apparent role for the next presidential cycle. While Warren is young enough I would not want to take the veep in hopes of being the third Democratic party president in a row.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:


          I don’t think the Dems benefit from having two candidates from the Northeast? HRC would need to pick someone from the Midwest, South, or West.Report

    • Will Truman in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Walker has all but announced that Rubio would be his VP pick. That can change between now and then, but I’m not sure there is anybody that does him more good. It would depend in part on how their relations go on the campaign trail. If it’s not Rubio, I don’t think it will be Paul (Haley, maybe?). And if Rubio wins the nomination, I doubt he will pick Walker.

      I haven’t the feintest idea who Jeb would pick. I mean, really, no clue. Rubio would be about perfect for him, except Constitution and I don’t see a Cheney solution.

      For HRC, I think Vilsack is a pretty great choice. Could be a lot of people, though.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Walker is interesting. He’s probably more dangerous in the general but a lot less dangerous in the primary.

      Which might make him the perfect VP.Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I think Kristen Gillibrand of New York would make a better female running mate for Hillary Clinton. She has the advantages of not being a baby boomer and an up and coming member of the Democratic Party.Report

      • North in reply to LeeEsq says:

        I don’t see the logic of her though. What does she boost, add or cover?Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

          Technically, the President and Vice President can be from the same state, but if so, the Electors from the state of New York could not vote for both Clinton for President and Gillibrand for Vice-President. If the loss of those votes were enough to deny Senator Gillibrand the Vice Presidency, then the Senate would get to decide the issue, which might leave President Clinton with a Republican Vice President.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to North says:


          • North in reply to LeeEsq says:

            Forgive my crudeness but it wouldn’t be hard to get that and also include a penis. This is filthy strategic thinking and utterly unenlightened on my part but I would think a woman VP candidate would have to add something seriously special to the campaign to override the urge to get some Y chromosomes in there to placate the neanderthals in both the party shakers, the media and the electorate.Report

            • Burt Likko in reply to North says:

              You assume a penis is an advantage in HRC’s strategy. Doubling down on the XX chromosome strikes me as the sort of move that excites her base, is superficially audacious but in fact is deeply cynical, polarizes and thus further agitates the base, and nevertheless could actually work so well it will seem obvious and hackneyed as soon as the election is over … Classic Clintonian politics. It’ll feel like the nineties all over again.Report

      • Montaigne in reply to LeeEsq says:

        I’d like to see HRC pick Jim Webb as her running mate. He could fill in a constituency where her support is weak. Dunno if she could talk him into it, though.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Burt Likko says:

      and an electoral college vote of 288-250.

      I’d love to see that map. Like seriously, which states you’re projecting there.

      Florida plus what? (Florida’s actually pretty debatable. It was a squeaker in 2012, but I think the demographic trends are in the Democrat’s direction. OTOH, it’s a “must have” state for the GOP whereas if you look at the 2012 and 2008 maps, it’s ‘nice’ for the Democrats to have.

      It’s not a good sign when a state that close is a ‘must’ have for one party, but not the other. Losing Florida loses the election for the GOP. Losing Florida doesn’t lose it for Democrats.Report

    • Do you really think the Deep South states will allow a ticket where Rand Paul, oddball from Kentucky (with a Democratic governor, its own ACA exchange, and Medicaid expansion), is the closest thing to a southerner?Report

  10. North says:

    Hillary/Jarbird wins against Bush/Walker margins are much like Obama vs Romney 2012 but slightly more generous to the left.
    GOP holds the house, looses a few seats in the Senate but not enough to loose control.
    Right wing collectively loses it’s shit over nominating another Bush. Left wing collectively loses its shit over not beating another Bush in a landslide.
    Trump drops out before election rules force him to disclose that he’s a millionaire instead of a billionaire and before the media discovers that his hairpiece is actually a live stray cat.Report

  11. nevermoor says:

    Clinton / ______ (Schweitzer, Vilsack, Clark, other white man who opens an otherwise difficult electoral front)

    Defeating Walker / Rubio.Report

  12. Jesse Ewiak says:

    Clinton/Kaine defeats Walker/Jindal 332-206. Popular vote is 52.1 to 45.9.

    Dem’s win 10-15 House seats, gain 3-5 Senate seats.Report

  13. Michael Cain says:

    Hillary and another East Coast pol win narrowly over Jeb!®/Walker, as Hillary struggles to get the vote out from the Appalachians to the Sierras. Because of the low turnout, the Dems underperform in the Congressional elections, picking up only a couple of Senate seats net and a handful in the House. Republicans slightly increase their advantage in state legislative chambers and governors.

    California and Arizona pass vote-by-mail initiatives. At least three states legalize marijuana by initiative. At least one state approves a personhood-begins-at-conception initiative.Report

    • Jesse Ewiak in reply to Michael Cain says:

      There’s a zero percent chance Walker accepts being VP. He’s been pumped up by his money men and the conservative outrage complex as the new Reagan – why would he accept being Jeb’s VP?Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

        What’s his opinion of what the country would look like in 2020?

        If it’s Jeb v. Hillary, we’re looking at Hillary.

        Come 2020, what’s *THAT* field going to look like?

        Also: How does he feel about his Governorship over the next couple of years? If he stops being Governor in 2017, he’s *NOBODY* come 2020.

        If, however, he (voluntarily) stops being Governor in 2019? He’s Scott Walker: Slayer of Dragons.Report

      • North in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

        I disagree Jesse. Walker is a young politician. Assuming they lose he’d be the natural heir apparent: next in line in the next in line party plus a conservative darling and he’d be facing a party that had put two Dems into office in a row. Them’s pretty good odds, I could see Walker being tempted by that.Report

        • Jesse Ewiak in reply to North says:

          That’s old school Republican thinking. Look at Paul Ryan – he was the VP nominee and the supposed intellectual future of the GOP but even before he demurred from running, couldn’t crack 10% in public polling.

          No, if you want to be the 2020 candidate, you beg off any kind of VP nomination, you barely even speak at the Republican convention if Jeb is nominated (and if you do, your speech is all about how awesome you are), and then, after Jeb loses, and you leave the Governor’s mansion, you spend the next 18-24 months on every radio show, FOX News panel, etc. decrying how the GOP needs to nominate a ‘real conservative’ and how you would’ve been able to take on Hillary head to head.

          Of course, in all of this, it helps to be the Koch Brother’s boy.Report

          • There is no blueprint for what you’re talking about. Ryan’s numbers weren’t great, but they were better than they would have been had he not been on the ticket. And if he’d made noises about running, which he never really did (and he deferred very early on), he would probably be in the first tier of candidates, whereas otherwise he wouldn’t.

            Whether Walker would accept would depend mostly on things we simply don’t know yet, because they’d depend on how well he does and why he comes up short.Report

    • I don’t think Hillary will struggle in Appalachia as much as Michael does (though I don’t know what state that means she’ll win instead of losing), and I defer on the Mountain West, but other than that I think he’s spot-on in terms of Congress and statehouses. Dems may do a little better than just a couple Senate seats, but the upshot will be that Hillary will have in effect no coattails, and she’ll face a fully Republican Congress. It will be interesting to see how she handles that – how stiffly she’ll fight to protect Democratic programs and priorities, and what those turn out to be for her.Report

  14. gingergene says:

    (R) Pres: Bush, Jeb!
    (R) VP: Kasich, John

    Gets the two big swing states, FL & OH, plus Kasich can provide the ticket some “compassionate conservatism” and pragmatism for his Obamacare medicaid expansion to try to woo the center, or at least look a little less extreme. The base will grumble, but what are they gonna do, vote for Clinton?

    (D) Pres: Clinton, Hilary
    (D) VP: Not a clue. Possibilities: A westerner, like Udall or Wyden (or Hickenlooper), or maybe one of the VA sens: Kaine or Warner. I’m gonna go with Kaine; he looks the sufficiently “presidential”, and he’s 57 vs. Clinton’s 67, so he’ll bring some “youth” to the ticket.

    Prediction: Clinton will win, by more than Republicans anticipate but less than Democrats do. The Democrats will pick up seats in Senate, probably winning it back but not enough to prevent a filibuster. (States that flip R to D: Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania)Report

  15. Saul Degraw says:

    Rep: Bush or Walker. Rubio as a likely VEEP pick. Though I don’t know how two from Florida helps the GOP if it is Jeb! for Prez.

    I give Bush a good chance of losing his home state in the general election especially,

    Dem: Almost certainly HRC. The only thing that can probably stop this is a death or seriously incapacitating experience. Biden and Warren come in if HRC needs to bow out. Maybe Sherrod Brown does as well. Veep pick: Probably someone from the Midwest or West. She will probably pick someone at least a decade younger than her. Maybe 15-20 years. Potential picks: Kamella Harris, Cory Booker (even though he is from NJ), Michael Bennet, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley. I can’t think of any governor that would fit the description. Brown is too old. Inslee doesn’t really have a brand. Maybe Mark Dayton? I doubt Steve Beshear would be picked.Report

    • If Jeb is the nominee, Rubio virtually can’t be the VP because Constitution. I don’t think there is a Cheney option here. No way Jeb changes his residence to Maine and Rubio has nowhere to change it to other than maybe DC.Report

      • zic in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Yeah, I just read that. I think Walker has some serious problems, too.

        Honestly? I think Republicans are scared of themselves right now. So they’ll do what conservatives do, look back, and pick Jeb. Perry for VP. The southern ticket.Report

        • North in reply to zic says:

          Maybe I’m suffering over confidence but it seems to me that given a chance to choose between a Bill Clinton successor and a son of HW Bush the electorate will landslide to the Dems and privately thank god(ess?) they were permitted to turn time back and fix the mistake they made in 2000.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to LeeEsq says:

        That’s a really, really weak argument. In a race where there are two statewide elected Republicans running for the nomination, I find it very unrevealing that Walker fundraising trips to Texas are meeting with limited success. Nor do I find it particularly revealing that writers for the Washington Post and Mother Jones think he’s too mean. (I think the criticism may have merit, but… come on, Waldman saying it and Drum repeating it don’t constitute much of an argument.)Report

  16. Saul Degraw says:

    Julian Castro is an option for the Democratic VP spot. He won’t turn Texas but it will give him a nice platform and he can help shore up the Latino(a) vote.Report

    • aarondavid in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Dammit, I couldn’t think of his name, but that is who I think it will be. Hispanic vote mas importante, Franken only brings the dedicated, and we know who they will vote for.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to aarondavid says:

        Clinton will need people to show up to win. That was obama’s biggest political weakness – people didn’t show up unless they were voting for Obama personally.

        Clinton does not have and will not get that connection with the voters. However, just nominating an ‘x’ where x is some ethnic, racial and/or gender identity is insufficient to motivate ‘x’ to come out to the polls. That candidate needs to connect with those voters – the way Obama did, and still does. I haven’t seen enough of Castro in action to be able to tell if he has the stuff (maybe he does I don’t know)Report

        • SaulDegraw in reply to Kolohe says:

          Do I just know all the Leslie Knopes of the world? I know a lot of women who are HRC fans.Report

          • Kolohe in reply to SaulDegraw says:

            There are, but they lost in 2008. There numbers are still the same. The support now that makes Clinton the overwhelming favorite are rank and file Obama supporters that have decided ‘okylee dohkylee, it’s Clinton’s turn’Report

  17. Damon says:

    Not much will have changed from the current status quo.

    Shit still be doing in the middle east.
    The economy will still be limping along.
    We’ll be bombing/droning/whatever to someone, somewhere.
    Freedoms will be slowly eroding
    Cops will have killed more people and there will be outrage…again.
    There will be a new outrage of some “ism” to be morally against.Report

  18. Kolohe says:

    Clinton – Franken 284 51%
    Perry – Rubio 254 48%Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Kolohe says:

      Perry-Rubio is a bold prediction.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Pepper Brooks agrees. But really Dan Scotto’s posts have me thinking that Perry is a pretty good darkhorse, if he can get past this quarters fundraising crunch.

        Also really, Franken is the perfect VP nominee by ideology and regional balance, and would be perfect perfect were he about 5-7 years younger.Report

        • North in reply to Kolohe says:

          I love Al but is Minnesota really shaky enough to need shoring up?Report

          • Kolohe in reply to North says:

            Not Minnesota, but there is the weird Wisconsin dynamic next door that keeps Walker in office although they gave no love to favorite son Paul Ryan. (But again, that’s a function of Obama on the ballot or not)

            What it does more is motivate liberals in eastern swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and nowadays Virginia that have a hankering for prairie socialism, but will only get scraps of its yankee counterpart at the convention with a prime speaking spot for Sanders.Report

            • North in reply to Kolohe says:

              Wisconsin hasn’t voted for a republican since Nixon. Frankly I don’t see any GOP national candidate being anywhere near the weird flavor that lets pols like Walker and Ryan slip through the weird state electoral mechanic that lets the GOP win in that very blue-purple state. Not if they want to keep the south happy.Report

              • Kolohe in reply to North says:

                Well Ryan can win in the house because just about anyone can win in the house regardless of the overall state political hue – Bachman (once upon a time), either King, etc.

                Walker is the odd case.Report

              • North in reply to Kolohe says:

                I honestly don’t believe for a cold second that he could flip Wisconsin. He can’t stay the same politician he is now and secure the nomination and only the kind of politician he is right now can win enough people in the Badger state to just barely star in office as Governor.
                I mean for fish’s sake, he didn’t exactly waltz into office in a landslide as Governor.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Kolohe says:

          Well, if my dad ever realizes that George Pataki is attracting zero interest, I suspect he’s likeliest to switch his support to Perry. When I asked what he’s looking for in a candidate, the response was “smaller government,” and pretty much only Perry is talking about that in a meaningful way.Report

        • Michael Drew in reply to Kolohe says:

          Franken is the perfect VP nominee by ideology and regional balance, and would be perfect perfect were he about 5-7 years younger.

          If this is true, and I think it is, then Amy Klobuchar is in fact the perfect VP choice, which I think is the case and have thought for some time. (I only don’t push her for VP because I prefer she wait and plan a run of her own, and I didn’t predict it because I just don’t see Hillary picking her for some reason.)Report

  19. aarondavid says:

    Alright, Alright, Alright. I am going to take the other side of the coin than most here at OT.

    Hillarty/[Hispanic] v. Walker/Rubio

    Hillary will keep dropping in the polls as people see more and more of her. As we get towards primary time and the field thins out Walker will break out due to his retail politics. News media will go insane, but barring the R’s torpedoing themselves, He will take it in a squeeker.

    R’s will continue to dominate down ticket, but the D’s will pick up a couple in the senate. House will stay the same, though R’s will pick up more in the states.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to aarondavid says:

      Well this made me shudder. I don’t know how Walker overcomes not scaring people with his hardcore social conservatism. This is not 2004. SSM-bans can’t be used as a favorable wedge issue unless you have a tap on secret America and expect an outpouring of homophobes.Report

      • Montaigne in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I think Walker’s big problems will be:

        1. How deeply unpopular he is right now in Wisconsin. People will be (hopefully) taking a hard look at his activities as governor there, and I’m not sure, given the polling, that he’ll end up passing as the kind of red-state governor blue-state voters will like, regardless of what conservatives want to believe right now.

        And 2. I don’t think he’ll perform well in the debates, he’s already shown he doesn’t think well on his feet, and I think the pure mean-spiritedness of his conservative positions will cause people to turn away from him. I just don’t see him as going the distance, Koch Bros. $$$ or no.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to Montaigne says:

          Frankly, I see a lot of mean-spiritedness in the GOP right now; this seems to resonate with likely primary voters. And Walker can be fed pre-programmed quips and trained to use them, like any specimen of his breed.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to Burt Likko says:

            As someone recently said about a different candidate:

            “He’s a belligerent, loudmouth racist with not an ounce of compassion for less fortunate people. In other words: He’s exactly the kind of person the Republican base consists of and identifies with.”Report

      • Montaigne in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        My predictions (mostly to preserve future snarking privileges):

        Republican: Jeb!/Rubio (I know, the FL thing, but they can finesse that somehow, and who else is there? Walker probably wouldn’t, Paul is toxic to the establishment, and the rest of the field are a bunch of no-hopers)

        Dems: HRC/one of the Castro Bros. (as mentioned above, I’d like to see Webb as the VP nominee, but he probably wouldn’t do it, and HRC will likely want to pick a lesser-known politician so as not to dim the lustre of her anointed halo. I just like Webb ’cause he’s kind of cantankerous). The Castro pick would be a smart counter to Rubio and would help lock in the Hispanic vote.

        November 2016: HRC wins 4-5% of popular vote. I’m too lazy to do the Electoral College analysis.

        Personal resulting 2016 predicition: cirrhosis of the liverReport

    • North in reply to aarondavid says:

      I would drink a lot.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

        The best way to kill the pain and not remember a few years.Report

      • aaron david in reply to North says:

        I know you like Hillary but I don’t think she is as solid as the left thinks. And while the left HATES Walker, I think to a lot of people he comes off as one of the guys, especially after the shenanigans in Wisconsin over the last few years.

        Me, I would love Rand Paul, but I just don’t see that happening.Report

        • SaulDegraw in reply to aaron david says:

          I never got the whole one of the guys school of decision making.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to SaulDegraw says:

            A lot of people have a really poor grasp of how politics can effect them personally. When your like this, one of the guys school of decision makes a lot of sense.Report

        • North in reply to aaron david says:

          My fondness for Hillary is 25% spite against the right, 25% she was kindof right in 2008 about the “hope and change” thing and 50% the Clintons were running the show as I came to political awareness in the late 90’s (what can I say, she makes me feel young again).
          We don’t need Hillary to be solid; she just needs to be present. As long as a Dem is in the White House the filibuster will survive which means any serious GOP nutbaggery can be stalled out in the Senate (the GOP wouldn’t heave the filibuster because what’s the point if it just lets them send bills into the maw of a veto).

          Obama secured quite a few gains. The sensible thing to hope for now is a solid successor who can cement those gains for a couple cycles. By 2024 the ACA will be unassailable unless the GOP somehow can come up with a plausible and workable AND popular replacement (I’m not holding my breath). Hillary’s #1 goal once elected would be securing reelection and I can’t think of anything the GOP could dangle that would convince her to go along with sacking the ACA or starting a land war with Iran.Report

          • Murali in reply to North says:


            No, Hillary will need to do more than merely be present. She will have to do fantastic. The reason is that she is essentially a female Al-Gore (or a female Kerry) in that she lacks the kind of personal charisma that connects with voters. The people she has to convince to win are swing voters who are generally less politically engaged. They are more likely to vote for people who make them feel good about themselves for voting. For reasons of a) latent sexism and b) lack of charisma, she is going to have a tough time getting swing voters to have the warm fuzzies for her. Her republican opponent is going to be a man, and depending on who it is possibly a lot more charismatic than her. Two things that she has on her side is that Obama has done a fairly decent job (per the evaluation of the swing voter) during his two terms and the demographics have changed since 2000. But that is no reason for complacency. Anything short of a fantastic VP pick will scuttle her chances.Report

            • north in reply to Murali says:

              In terms of electability I’m not unsympathetic to your view but I’m dubious. The Obama era lessons were on the chimeric nature of the “swing voter”. Base mobilization seems to be more the order of the day which is also not a Hillary forte… But we will have to see who her opponent is before we can hazard to guess how easy or hard her task of getting elected is.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to aaron david says:


          I think you are being a bit partisan here. Your libertarian sympathies clique more to the Republicans than to social liberalism and sometimes it reads as having a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Democratic viewpoints and policies.

          You also seem to be reading your dislike of HRC into a broader thing in the American public. The WaPo article mentioned that the GOP candidates are much more disliked.Report

          • aarondavid in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            Well @saul-degraw yes, I am probably being a bit partisan. There is a reason why I left the D’s, and it isn’t because I am against social liberalism. But that a tale for another day.

            And while I do dislike HRC, that poll shows that I am not alone. One thing that the R’s have going for them is that outside individual areas (Wisconsin, Florida etc.) they aren’t as well known as she is, and so they do have room to go up. She doesn’t. And when you have some one who is not exactly unsympathetic to the D’s pointing this out, well it is something to look at. Much how many on the right point out flaws with Trump or Cruz etc.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to aarondavid says:

              One thing that the R’s have going for them is that outside individual areas (Wisconsin, Florida etc.) they aren’t as well known as she is, and so they do have room to go up.

              Actually, that’s wrong. See, what happens with unknown candidates it that the less known they are (save for party affiliation), they generally poll closer to “generic Republican” in terms of favorable/unfavorable ratings. That’s because if you don’t know a candidate aside from party, you can (and do) project your “ideal candidate” onto them. They haven’t slipped up, they haven’t taken contrary positions — they are, in fact, as perfect a candidate for each individual as possible.

              What happens as candidates get more known is their favorables drop as they are forced to take stances and actually get known to people.

              In terms of head-to-head polling, Clinton being so well known means that she’s unlikely to go down much at all. But any given GOP candidate is likely to drop a lot more.

              You can see this all the time in generic Republican/generic Democrat polls. Last I checked, Hillary was actually beating generic Republican which is a very, very, very bad sign.Report

              • aarondavid in reply to Morat20 says:

                Dude, did you look at the chart? She is dropping steadily, every time she talks in public she drops.Report

              • north in reply to aarondavid says:

                Maybe but only in general stand alone measures. In head to head matchups she beats the entire gop field. The election isn’t “Hillary! Thumbs up or down?” It is “Hillary or Jeb? Or Hillary or walker?”Report

              • Morat20 in reply to north says:

                Hence my point. last I checked — and is has been awhile — she was beating “Generic Republican”, the absolute strongest possible opponent she could face, as “Generic Republican” is unhampered by actually being a person and having done things.Report

  20. Richard Hershberger says:

    On to more serious predictions, as of November 2016 the Cubs’ record will be unbroken at 108 years and counting.Report

  21. Jeb/Cruz loses solidly to Hillary/Castro (say, she gets 300 electoral votes and 50.5% of the popular.) Dems get the Senate back by 52-48, but the GOP keeps the House.Report

    • John Howard Griffin in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      Continued (been waiting for this one):

      Mike Schilling will offer a varied response to the predictions. 50% of his answer will deal with baseball references. 50% of his answer will be jokes so opaque that people aren’t sure if he’s joking or if his cat walked on his keyboard. And, 50% of his answer will be actual predictions. He’ll begin with a story: He was at a conference that had lots of scientists and other nerdy types, some in costumes, and on the first day while he was waiting in line at the new Juice Bar, he began talking with some of the other people around. Well, there’s this one drunk guy, and he starts going on about how he went hunting the previous weekend. “I shot a moose, once”, says the drunk guy. “So, I tied it to the top of my car, and started driving away. But, I didn’t get very far when I realized that the moose was still alive.” Mike will be spellbound. “I have no idea what to do with this huge moose on the top of my car starting to wake up and move around. So, I start driving back into town, when I see this costume party. I go up to the door and knock. Eventually, the door opens and the host is standing there. And, I’ve got this woozy moose standing behind me. So, I point to the moose and say ‘You know the Solomons’. And, the host welcomes the moose and we go in.” Mike has forgotten about dinner and is having his third gin and tonic now. “Well, we have a great time at the party, and at midnight they announce the best costumes. They announce that the first prize goes to the Berkowitz’s, who have come dressed in a moose suit. The actual moose comes in second.” Mike laughs. The drunk guy continues: “So, at the end of the party, I figure I’ve got to get that moose back in the forest where I found it. So, I take the moose back to the woods. But, I didn’t realize that I actually took the Berkowitzes back to the forest, and Mr. Berkowitz is shot, stuffed and mounted…..at the New York City Golf Club.” Everyone stares, even Mike. This isn’t so funny now. The conference will end and Mike will leave feeling like things just aren’t completed, like the final piece never landed. Almost like a joke without a punchline. Maybe the jokes on them, though, because when he gets to the front of the line, he realizes that there’s no Juice allowed.Report

    • north in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      Man I would get so happy drunk I’d have to call in! You’d need to post a suicide watch at the gop hq and at Mcconells office.Report