The GOP can’t win in 2016. Fortunately, neither can the Democrats.

posted at 5:01 pm on January 19, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Bad news for fans of the Right, I’m afraid. We’ve checked with some of the experts and it turns out that the GOP has no chance to win the next presidential election. The details are found in, The Republican Party’s uphill path to 270 electoral votes in 2016 elections.

A recent conversation with a veteran of GOP presidential campaigns raised this question: Which, if any, of the recent battleground states are likely to become more Republican by 2016? The consensus: very few.

That reality highlights one problem Republicans face as they seek to regain the White House after six years under President Obama. Lots of factors affect elections: the quality of the candidates, the state of the economy, the effectiveness of the campaigns. But in a country whose demographics continue to change, Republicans will begin this campaign with one significant disadvantage.Over the past three decades, the political leanings of many states have shifted dramatically. What once was a sizable Republican advantage in the electoral college has become a decided Democratic advantage..

Well, I guess that’s that then. But look on the bright side… think of all the money we’ll save by not flushing it down a rat hole, supporting a candidate who is just going to lose. No matter whether it’s Christie, Cruz, Ryan, Walker or Palin, the result is the same… ignominious defeat.

But the good news is that the Democrats are going to lose too! The Democrat Party’s uphill path to 270 electoral votes in 2016.

In April 2012, two other political scientists — Seth Hill and Lynn Vavreck — and I did a presidential election forecasting model for The Washington Post. The model had only three factors: The change in gross domestic product in the first two quarters of the election year, the president’s approval rating as of June of that year and whether the incumbent was running. That model forecast that Obama would win in 2012, and — although there is nothing magic about this model — it was ultimately accurate within a percentage point.

It is far too early to do a formal forecast for 2016. The economic and political conditions in that year will be paramount. But given that at least some in the GOP appear pessimistic as of today, it’s worth asking: If economic and political conditions in 2016 were the same as they are today, what would happen? So assume that Obama’s approval rating is about 41 percent. Assume that GDP has grown 1.6 percent in the first two quarters of 2016. And, of course, no incumbent will be running.

Based on those assumptions, the model predicts that the Republican Party has a 64 percent chance of winning the presidency. That is far from 100 percent, of course. At the same time, it doesn’t suggest much cause for GOP pessimism in January 2014 — maybe even some Democratic pessimism, in fact.

Apparently a member of the Libertarian Party is going to win. I have no idea who they’ll nominate, unless it’s possibly Rand Paul if he fails to take the GOP nomination. (Say… that might not the craziest scenario after all.)

The point is that it’s far too early to say. I will admit that if the Democrats nominate Hillary it will be tough sledding. If their party is good at anything it’s building a meme around a “Candidate of Destiny” to capture the nation’s imagination. And the First Woman President will be some powerful catnip for an influential demographic.

But at the same time one has to wonder if a significant chunk of the electorate will keep in mind what happened to them after they elected the last Candidate of Destiny (twice). With the legacy of lost jobs, a trashed health care system, skyrocketing energy costs and more, perhaps … just perhaps… they will have reason to pause and think it through. But the two articles above should provide one important lesson to us all. We need to get through the mid-terms first before we start worrying about that. Such predictions are little more than wishful thinking at this point, and there’s a lot of water to wash under the bridge between now and then.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The GOP can’t win in 2016. Fortunately, neither can the Democrats.

Good. Let’s see what a bunch of no names can do. Can’t do worse.

kim roy on January 19, 2014 at 5:06 PM

But at the same time one has to wonder if a significant chunk of the electorate will keep in mind what happened to them after they elected the last Candidate of Destiny (twice). With the legacy of lost jobs, a trashed health care system, skyrocketing energy costs and more, perhaps … just perhaps… they will have reason to pause and think it through.

Knee-slappingly funny, that notion right there.

If the last couple of elections have proven anything, it’s that we are surrounded by both a moronic liberal voting populace and a stupid Republican organization that is impervious to fact, logic, and critical thought.

Midas on January 19, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Keep the GOPe out of it and we may stand a chance…

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2014 at 5:08 PM

what we need is a new electorate.

flataffect on January 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

If that ‘powerful demographic’ to which you refer is women, I’ll go on record immediately demanding that the First Woman President be well qualified, intelligent, insightful,sensible, possessed of a strong work ethic, frugal, filled with a genuine regard for the rule of law and a deep and abiding love of country, with healthy respect for the rights of American citizens, and a keen understanding of, and unwavering support for, American exceptionalism in the world, and neither related to, nor bearing the surname of, Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

So let’s call it a draw.

rickv404 on January 19, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Hey Jazz, your first WaPo hyperlink leads to a Page Not Found.

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2014 at 5:22 PM

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Great qualifications darlin’
Where do we find this paragon of virtue?

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2014 at 5:23 PM

The point is that it’s far too early to say. I will admit that if the Democrats nominate Hillary it will be tough sledding.

No, if the Democrats nominate Hillary, the Republicans will walk away with it.

But let’s not get complacent. Hillary won’t get the Dem nomination, so we’ll have to earn that victory after all.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

The GOP establishment is not interested in winning, as is evidence by their obsession with radical “progressive” losers like Rubio, Ryan, Christie, Jeb Bush, et al, and their bizarre push for AMNESTY for illegals, and the full democrat agenda.

It’s time for thinking people to dump the GOP and move on.

Pork-Chop on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Yep, mass illegal alien amnesty would mean that, eventually, it would be impossible to elect a conservative president.

bluegill on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

(fix)

… as is evidenced

Pork-Chop on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Let’s see how long the powers that be can keep the QE bubble inflated. They are working and spinning 24/7 to keep it from popping right now. That could be a wild card.

Viator on January 19, 2014 at 5:25 PM

But the two articles above should provide one important lesson to us all. We need to get through the mid-terms first before we start worrying about [2016].

Although we can’t start blogging about it soon enough.

de rigueur on January 19, 2014 at 5:25 PM

If that ‘powerful demographic’ to which you refer is women, I’ll go on record immediately demanding that the First Woman President be well qualified, intelligent, insightful,sensible, possessed of a strong work ethic, frugal, filled with a genuine regard for the rule of law and a deep and abiding love of country, with healthy respect for the rights of American citizens, and a keen understanding of, and unwavering support for, American exceptionalism in the world, and neither related to, nor bearing the surname of, Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

…I thought ….no one likes Sarah Palin!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM

The GOP can’t win in 2016.

Nonsense. By 2016 the Republican war on their Conservative voters will have been won and those unwanted folks banished to a third party. The centrists and moderate Democrats will have filled that empty Republican tent with a winning coalition of… Democrats.

Then the GOPe will be exactly where they want to be and exactly where they are today, playing go along and get along with their Democrat masters.

RJL on January 19, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency under both Presidents Bush and Obama, said Sunday that there have been abuses of the National Security Agency’s surveillance database, but that the abuses have been “very minor.”

“Members of the jury, you need to keep in mind that Mr. Sandusky’s abuses were very minor”

BobMbx on January 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM

bluegill on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

I see you’re still not interested in answering the related question in the last thread.

Jazz Shaw on January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Changing demographics is another powerful reason for supporting an Article V convention if the states so that we can gain more control over our own political destinies at the state level and won’t be at the mercies of whomever has the majority in DC.

Charlemagne on January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM

The GOP can’t win in 2016. Fortunately, neither can the Democrats.
==================================================================

Heres Boehner Giving the Order:
(Snark)

We were Soldiers – Broken Arrow
*******************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAcQtiDeGag

canopfor on January 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

I see you’re still not interested in answering the related question in the last thread.
Jazz Shaw on January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM

I haven’t even seen it yet. I will go check it out shortly.

bluegill on January 19, 2014 at 5:50 PM

…I thought ….no one likes Sarah Palin!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I like her. Unfortunately, I don’t make up most of the population.

Fenris on January 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM

what we need is a new electorate.

flataffect on January 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

You’re getting one – Hispanic.

OldEnglish on January 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

I normally don’t get involved in these kind of spats, but in this case I will. I would ask you to show me one… JUST ONE.. case where I supported amnesty or was in some way on the wrong side of this question.

I would point you to my two most recent posts on the issue.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/07/where-comprehensive-immigration-reform-meets-the-rape-tree/

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/16/illegal-immigration-is-it-a-crime-or-not/

Now you can show me where I wrote something different than that or you are free to say you may have been mistaken on this one.

Jazz Shaw on January 19, 2014 at 5:17 PM

…let me help her!…sometimes she gets lost ^ She can’t seem to get back on her phone…to other threads.
…she liked Rand Paul until someone reminded her yesterday…he wasn’t where she thought he was on amnesty. She wanted to perm his hair…now he’s dirt!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM

…I thought ….no one likes Sarah Palin!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I like her. Unfortunately, I don’t make up most of the population.

Fenris on January 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM

I like her too, but she is too smart and principled to enter the fray…

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM

If that ‘powerful demographic’ to which you refer is women, I’ll go on record immediately demanding that the First Woman President be well qualified, intelligent, insightful,sensible, possessed of a strong work ethic, frugal, filled with a genuine regard for the rule of law and a deep and abiding love of country, with healthy respect for the rights of American citizens, and a keen understanding of, and unwavering support for, American exceptionalism in the world, and neither related to, nor bearing the surname of, Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

I’m with Kool-Aid, sounds like Sarahcuda.

msupertas on January 19, 2014 at 6:02 PM

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM

…they have been calling your name all day…whenever Denver had the ball against New England…7% had a drinking rule!…He got most of America drunk…calling out for you!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 6:08 PM

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Amen!

Barred on January 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

If that ‘powerful demographic’ to which you refer is women, I’ll go on record immediately demanding that the First Woman President be well qualified, intelligent, insightful,sensible, possessed of a strong work ethic, frugal, filled with a genuine regard for the rule of law and a deep and abiding love of country, with healthy respect for the rights of American citizens, and a keen understanding of, and unwavering support for, American exceptionalism in the world, and neither related to, nor bearing the surname of, Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

thatsafactjack: Agreed:)

canopfor on January 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM

what we need is a new electorate.

flataffect on January 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Exactly. We get the government we deserve. Apparently, we deserve shit and then some more shit.

Rational Thought on January 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Jackie/Patriot Gal 2016!

;-)

rottenrobbie on January 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM

AP Politics ‏@AP_Politics 9h

Both parties gear up for Iowa’s nonpresidential caucuses, kicking off 2014 political season: http://apne.ws/19EOSRc
========================================

Both parties gear up for Iowa’s non-presidential caucuses, kicking off 2014 political season

By CATHERINE LUCEY Associated Press
January 19, 2014 – 9:23 am EST
******************************

Attendance is expected to be much lower than in presidential years. Republicans had more than 120,000 attend the 2012 caucuses, when there was an open primary, and more than 200,000 Democrats participated in the 2008 caucuses, the last time there was an open Democratic presidential primary.

Party leaders declined to predict turnout but said it would be nowhere near those numbers. That means the caucuses for the 1,688 precincts will be consolidated into fewer locations this year, with many precincts gathering at single locations — like a high school — before breaking into smaller groups for discussions and votes.(More……….)
==============================================================

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c7dc36497b104e81aebcb9ae2e766a43/IA–Iowa-Capitol-Focus

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics

canopfor on January 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM

So I guess the list of potential candidates will be chosen from 100 names in the Boston phone book?

With apologies to Wm Buckley (as I’m sure I just totally mangled that).

davisbr on January 19, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I don’t know where she is… I wish I did… we could certainly use such a politician possessed of those qualities and beliefs of either sex … but I can tell you categorically that I’m not voting for a woman simply because she happens to be a woman and has the nod from one of the political parties…ever.

thatsafactjack on January 19, 2014 at 6:32 PM

My god, does anyone have a link to that pic of Hitlary in South Africa last month?

NOTHING that looks like that can win a US Presidential election. They’d have to use realtime CGI to fix that.

Who is John Galt on January 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM

If the last couple of elections have proven anything, it’s that we are surrounded by both a moronic liberal voting populace and a stupid Republican organization that is impervious to fact, logic, and critical thought.

Midas on January 19, 2014 at 5:08 PM

And a ballot-box stuffing Enemy that has proven they can win any close election. See Philly, 2012. More votes than registered voters, not one single vote for GOP.

Not ONE GOP VOTE. We’ve been screwed by hardball NE corridor (+ Chicago) tactics. Wake up, fight back!

Who is John Galt on January 19, 2014 at 6:40 PM

…they have been calling your name all day…whenever Denver had the ball against New England…7% had a drinking rule!…He got most of America drunk…calling out for you!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Been drinking beer since the game started…

OmahaConservative on January 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM

No, if the Democrats nominate Hillary, the Republicans will walk away with it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 19, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Why – because Democrats won’t vote for her? Because they wont turn out in droves to vote for the first female President? Because the media won’t be in ‘protect Hillary mode’ 24/7 (hell, they already are), making sure Republicans are painted as misogynists and just more of the ‘war on women’?

Good grief, as obvious a risk as Obama was, people still voted for him the first time. As obvious a disaster for the country as he was, they still voted for him the second time. And the media gladly, willingly, enthusiastically helped it happen.

I think you’re 100% wrong on this; if they nominate her, I don’t see *anyone* for the GOP ticket that would have a chance. Especially after they completely alienate the conservative base and help get amnesty passed so all of those shiny new voters can vote overwhelmingly for… Hillary.

Midas on January 19, 2014 at 6:49 PM

I happen to agree. There is no way the GOP can win in 2016 with their current game plan.

Right now the GOP is happily taking money from the Obama Unions in order to defeat incumbent TEA Party representatives in 2014. Wouldn’t it be a nice change of pace to see them work to WIN ELECTIONS instead of trying to disenfranchise their base? I guess they believe they will get Democrat voters to cross over and vote for them once they pass Amnesty, raise the minimum wage, and put teeth into the Democrat Care TAX law which allows the confiscation of homes of the people who refuse to buy in, right?

2014 will be another TEA Party banner year and what happens in 2016 is up to the voters. If they choose to side with liberal lite GOP they can prepare for a huge Hillary win, unless the TEA Party breaks from the GOP entirely and becomes its own party as threatened recently. Then the White House will be up for grabs.

Americans always prefer the real thing over the generic brand.

DannoJyd on January 19, 2014 at 6:57 PM

I see you’re still not interested in answering the related question in the last thread.
Jazz Shaw on January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM

I haven’t even seen it yet. I will go check it out shortly.

bluegill on January 19, 2014 at 5:50 PM

…can someone flip the hour glass for me!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 7:17 PM

We’re talking about the wrong topic, here. Regardless of party. Dems or GOPe, we have Federal overreach of an Unconstitutional degree not seen since Lincoln in 1862.

If we profess to be a Constitutional Republic ( not lately in reality) we need a massive haircut in D.C.

Scream the cries for a constitutional convention, Let it go down…at least the result will reflect some semblance of reality.

If we go dying Socialist, at least print it on the wall. Otherwise, let the sane regions of the country decide to be sane….and reject the Union.

Remember, the Union was predicated on AGREEING on the Constitution. Most don’t, anymore, both ways. Half see it one way, half see it the other.

So let’s go dutch, and Fluke y’all in D.C. and NY/MA.

Who is John Galt on January 19, 2014 at 7:43 PM

I see you’re still not interested in answering the related question in the last thread.
Jazz Shaw on January 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM

I haven’t even seen it yet. I will go check it out shortly.

bluegill on January 19, 2014 at 5:50 PM

…can someone flip the hour glass for me!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 7:17 PM

…I turned it over twice now!

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Well establishment Republican Bill Gates all but endorsed Hillary on Meet the Press yesterday.

HondaV65 on January 19, 2014 at 8:01 PM

You’re over analyzing this.

Since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, only once has a political party kept the White House for a third consecutive term. That election saw Bush #41 essentially be awarded with Reagan’s third term. Historically, the political pendulum swings back and forth every eight years.

It is a statistical improbability (dare I say impossibility) for the Republicans to lose in 2016.

eaglescout_1998 on January 19, 2014 at 10:04 PM

It is a statistical improbability (dare I say impossibility) for the Republicans to lose in 2016.

eaglescout_1998 on January 19, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Compromised ballot processes are impossible now?

Good to know.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 20, 2014 at 1:58 AM

Compromised ballot processes are impossible now?

Not impossible, but completely moot.

For Hillary to be elected in 2016, two things are needed. (1) She needs to be vice-president. (2) Obama’s popularity needs to be so high that voters would essentially be handing the reigns of power to his second in command. This was how Bush #41 was elected in 1988 and how Gore could have been elected in 2000.

Hillary is not vice-president. That fact alone makes her election unlikely. If Democrats want to keep the White House in 2016, their best shot would be to nominate Joe Biden. Otherwise, they’re not going to be able to stop the political pendulum from swinging back the Republicans’ side.

I’m perfectly willing to eat crow, figuratively speaking, if the “impossible” happens, but I believe 50 years of election history is a better way to gauge how the 2016 election will turn out than public opinion polls or fear of voter fraud.

eaglescout_1998 on January 20, 2014 at 3:48 AM