Even though the General Assembly is currently debating contentious issues like abortion restrictions, strengthening E-verify requirements, and religious freedom bills, I thought I’d focus today on national politics. To that end, I have two predictions:
1. The presidential election of 2016 will be won by a Republican.
2. It won’t be that close.
Like it or not, Democrats are stuck with Hillary Clinton as their nominee. That could be a good thing if Clinton proves to be an electoral powerhouse, as it seemed like she’d be when she was serving as Secretary of State. Now that she’s back in the political fray, though, Americans are remembering why they dislike her. The recent e-mail scandal has brought the Clintons’ secretive nature back into the foreground. People don’t trust her.
If Hillary gets elected in 2016, it’ll be in spite of her personal image, not because of it. It might be that with foreign policy playing a greater role, people will look to her wealth of experience on the international stage and see her as a leader, despite her chilly and remote image.
Right now, though, I’m betting that Americans will be so weary of the Clintons by next year, they’ll be looking for any excuse to vote for someone fresh. That’s one of the curiosities of U.S. politics: frequently, “inevitable” candidates turn out to be not-so-inevitable. For me, the parallels of Hillary Clinton with John McCain are vast. Both lost their primaries to younger candidates who were more in tune with their party’s base, even though they shockingly won victories in New Hampshire. Both of them became nonpartisan figures after their defeats. Hillary became Secretary of State. John McCain became a media darling, the voice of moderate, “reasonable” Republicans, and his maverick reputation was so strong that he was even considered a potential running mate for John Kerry. Both Clinton and McCain were seen as exceptionally strong candidates afterwards.
We know what happened with John McCain. Despite polls early on showing him crushing the opposition, his “maverick” image faded as he drew closer to the Bush White House. His political career from 2000-2008 resembled a Greek tragedy: McCain allowed the man who beat him in 2000 to beat him in 2008 by tying him so close to his administration. Despite early polls showing McCain winning in even solid blue states, he lost to a one-term rookie senator named Barack Obama.
As Mark Twain said: “History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes.” I think Hillary Clinton rhymes with John McCain. If that’s the case, then 2016 could be a near-landslide for the GOP nominee. So, even though the polls look good for Clinton now, when the dust settles in November of next year, don’t be surprised to see states like Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, and Wisconsin all turn red for whoever the GOP nominates. (By the way – keep an eye on Marco Rubio!)
The GOP will win by improving their performance with Hispanics, women, millennials, and even African Americans, who will turn out in reduced numbers with Obama off the ticket. Republicans will more or less maintain their margins with whites.
This will prompt a full-blown panic from Democrats, who will face a GOP White House, a GOP Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court. As is now the case whenever a party suffers a defeat, they’ll prepare an autopsy report in an attempt to figure out What Went Wrong. To do so, they’ll pore through demographic information, turnout statistics, focus groups. In the end, though, the answer is probably this: History does not favor a party holding the White House for more than two terms in a row, nor does it favor politicians perceived as relics of the past. Instead, history favors the fresh, the new, and the young. And it just might be about to repeat itself, again.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
Whatever your smoking I wouldn’t mind taking a puff.
I am a 62 year-old white man who will NEVER vote for a Republican. And I am the only demographic loyal to the Republican base. Someday even white men will have had enough. There is no chance that we will elect a Repugnant to the White House in 2016.
I think you are wrongon all counts. Repbulicans have utter disdain for womwn. people of color, poor and sick people How could they win?
I feel like I am Ebenezar Scrooge. Oh please, ghost of Christmas to come is this how things will definitely be or can I change things if I change? Oh the latter must be the answer, or why put me through this terrible look into the future. I’ll get out the vote, I’ll give out turkeys. Just tell me what to do.
Has anyone had a whiff of what John has been smoking? It could be a very big seller in Colorado, Washington or any state that may contemplate legalizing recreational drugs. Comparing Hillary in 2016 to John McCain in 2008 is preposterous. McCain’s campaign was doomed because the George W. Bush presidency was an utter catastrophy. You would have to accept an equivalence between Bush and Obama to make the analogy between McCain and Hillary. There isn’t the remotest resemblance between the Bush and Obama presidencies. John might want to to check in with Dick Morris. He may have a big slice of crow left over from the platter he was forced to eat after making his bizarre prediction for a “Romney landslide.”
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2012/11/01/dick-morris-romney-will-win-landslide/
http://coloradopols.com/diary/18911/dick-morris-admits-what-you-already-know#sthash.SqtWwtMy.dpbs
I thought it was a well thought out sensible piece, and talking about delusional – some of the comments here are pretty wacky. ” Collectively, they never carry more then a few red neck states” Uh friend, even Romney carried 24 states (not to mention over 80% of the counties in the US).
Fortunately I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican – just like in fact where a lot of the country is going. Much of the country isn’t going to pull one lever over another because that’s what “their” party wants. Those that think everyone who doesn’t vote Democrat are unpatriotic or stupid are themselves a little goofy.
As far a Hillary, she is damaged goods. And self-damaged. I think several of the Republican candidates could take her down. If she is where all the Democrat chips are going to be placed, it could easily be a low turnout, big Republican swing. A low party Romneyesk type turnout could happen among those that still vote a Dem party line. I feel sure most of you who commented wouldn’t have seen the complete shellacking the Democrats took in the mid-terms. I know I didn’t. Sure we can blame it on turnout, but don’t think it can’t happen in a presidential election year. Keep in mind a 4% point swing in turnout is all it would likely take (see 2012 vs 2000).
Plus we have to consider what happened at the state level in much of the country. That in itself put a much stronger foundation under the Republican house. A foundation that was crumbled under the Bush years. All politics is local after all.
Can the Democrats win? Of course, but Hillary is a big gamble. Her baggage is really starting to stink. The other problem is a very weak bench. Plus Obama will be a drag – possibly approaching a Bush drag.
Is the Republican bench that much stronger? Maybe not, but it would be hard to get weaker than McCain and Romney, so it’s a good bet whomever the Democrat nominee is, the opponent is likely to be stronger – unless of course it is Bush which would be a gift. Walker has already proven he’s a tough out for example.
Should be fun.
Just for the record, those that think anyone who doesn’t vote Republican is unpatriotic or stupid are themselves a little goofy, too.
If Hillary is a gamble, I’d take that bet over any in the Clown Car Crew of Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Trump, Bush, Walker, Christie, Carson, Jindal, Perry and Huckabee. None of them have near the proportion of the female vote (54% of voters) in hand that HRC does. If it was 2008 or 2012, with McCain or Romney on the ticket, I’d agree with you, HRC would be a gamble. But with one of these ever-right-leaning clowns likely getting the nomination, she’s a very good bet to win.
Bush has the best shot of making it competitive…
The photo of Marco Rubio is enough to make me toss this whole column into the eTrash. If he’s the “fresh new face” of the GOP, they’ll never win the White House again. Not only does he utterly lack the gravitas that’s needed in the Oval Office–as did Dubya, but he had Darth Cheney to provide it for him–he has such weak personal character that even fellow right-wing nut-jobs laugh at him for his posturing, flip-flopping, and grasping at straws to try to be all things to all people, and ending up being a nothing to nobody.
More to the point of the column, there’s not one scintilla of evidence to back up the so-called punditry of this prediction. First, as several others mention, demographics and electoral college arithmetic make it extremely difficult for any Republican to put together a winning coalition these days. Second, not all progressives, including this one, are disheartened by or fed up with Hillary Clinton or her candidacy; some of us even wish like hell she had won in 2008 and stood up to the Rethuglicans on day 1 instead of pandering for friendship with them as Obama did. Unlike him, Hillary knew what was coming, as she had been through it all before when her husband was in the White House.
Finally, any Democrat or progressive independent or true patriot who sits out the election or votes for a protest candidate will have to take responsibility for ensuring a right-wing judiciary, starting with the Supreme Court, for the next 50 years. Hillary will nominate a centrist or honest liberal to replace anyone who retires or dies, whereas any Republican will nominate more and more right-wing Scalia clones up and down the federal court system. And America will cease to exist as a democratic republic.
That alone should make any thinking person who loves this country support whoever gets the Democratic party nomination for president, whatever their personal antipathy or dislike for her. For those determined to oppose her, just remember: NADER = BUSH II = SCALIA & ROBERTS.
One of the very many realities that John Wynne fails to understand is the depth of determined support for Hillary Clinton among women, whether or not that comes across in early polls signifying nothing. Beyond holding progressive views that a majority of us women espouse, we are proud of her as a smart, effective, accomplished leader with experience and expertise none of the potential Republican candidates can possibly match. Beyond that, she is Every One of us, having lived through and overcome successfully the real challenges women face in the work world, in daring to step forward instead of staying passive, even in marriage relationships and more.
Wynne should understand that attacks on Hillary Clinton simply strengthen our resolve to elect her–they look like the same old kind of trash women leaders have always had to endure.
And Wynne should understand women are not stupid. There is no way, no time, we are going to cast our presidential vote for a 90-pound wonder like Rubio when the opposite choice is a women who knows what she is doing.
John Wynne makes a very good point. And Scott Walker will excite working class Republican voters. His malaprops, his lack of education, his apathy for brown people all play to their sensibilities.
Bob, I believe you meant to say his antipathy toward brown people. These people aren’t apathetic about brown people. They aren’t terribly fond of blah people either.
I hope John is wrong, but he’s identified our party’s weaknesses and we should note them.
Not only is much of the public tired of Hillary, she is closely associated with Bill who cooperated with the Republicans to give us NAFTA and who announced that “the era of big government is over.” She’s also too aligned with America’s financial industry.
We need a candidate who is willing to admit that both Republicans AND conservative Democrats have abandoned some of working class Americans’ most important interests, and will fight to regain them.
Elizabeth Warren’s public disagreement with Obama about Fast Track (TTP) would highlight the differences between true Democrat values and those of Republicans and Republican Lites (conservative Democrats). America’s middle class would welcome such a candidate as a breath of fresh air.
(The great mystery: who was able to convince Obama that more trade agreements made by multinational corporate interests will be good for workers.)
Sadly, this predicting is possibly right about one thing. It is very likely that many good Democrats will NOT want Hillary Clinton to be their president, and many independents will turn elsewhere. Hillary should have some competition in the primary. I think a lot of Democrats who wish there was another choice. Why ARE we stuck with her? Oh, I forgot. It is always about the money.
is this some kind of device to motivate the dems and to scare them or is it just an ego piece with no substance whos intent is to get attention? either way i have seen less bullsh@t on a cattle ranch.
Its not impossible that a Republican could win. Its a binary choice and it takes a few million voters in a half dozen states to make a decision based on perceived candidate qualities to swing a close election. The electoral math is very narrow. Even if the 2016 GOP candidate takes Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Ohio and every state Romney carried it amounts to 291 electoral votes. That is hardly a landslide.
Come on! You all are being too hard on Mr. Wynne. Here he goes way out on a limb and makes predictions more than 17 months before the election for the benefit and amusement of us crazy political junkies and you jump all over him. This sort of thing is supposed to be fun. The sort of activity usually engaged in over beer.
I notice he accepts the Clinton nomination as a fait accompli. What? No love for O’Malley? There are a lot of us who would prefer that we nominate a liberal rather than Clinton. I remember when a guy named Jimmy Carter was polling in the low single digits and was laughed at by all the “smart” people. It’s quite a while before the first votes are cast. Perhaps the number of us who are ready for Martin rather than Hillary may surprise.
But whether the nominee is Clinton, O’Malley or a ham sandwich it is hard to figure a Republican victory that “won’t be that close” as Mr. Wynne predicts. Is there a Republican path to victory? Sure. But the Electoral College math doesn’t show an objective path to a Republican blowout. If they win, it will be close. The map favors the Democrats in 2016 in much the same way it favored Republicans in the 1980s.
If we give Mr. Wynne the 4 states he mentions in his post that only gets the Republican nominee up to 244 Electoral votes (assuming he holds all the states Rmoney won in 2012). Still scrambling for 26 more. And I find it difficult to see those 4 all flipping next year.
If the great white hype, Scott Walker, is the nominee then I guess we have to consider Wisconsin in play. Although having Ryan as the VP nominee didn’t flip it last time. I think Wisconsin is something of a tease for Republicans much like Pennsylvania is. You can think of valid reasons why you might take it. Valid enough to devote resources to it and then ultimately be disappointed. But even if I give you Wisconsin and Wisconsin South (Iowa) in that scenario I find it hard to see Colorado (with its growing Latino population) going for Mr. “We gotta stop all this LEGAL immigration” Walker. And, having great familiarity with Virginia, I don’t see that one flipping either.
If you are going to predict a Republican victory that isn’t even close you really need to give us a bit more than you have provided. Otherwise you might as well predict that Ted Cruz is going to be crowned the next Queen of England.
How, pray tell, do you get to a Republican blowout? Please, as my math teachers used to require, show your work. Bold predictions are fun if you lay out a plausible way to get there. Without some further elaboration and explanation of why you think this is plausible it is kinda like listening to the loud drunk guy at the end of the bar making bold predictions.
Reince, is that you? John Wynne is no Democrat–I never heard such preposterous pearl clutching in my life. Wynne’s whole premise is completely wrong. Republicans are not going to win because they don’t have a sane candidate or potential candidate among them. IF anyone here ever catches Wynne trying to step into a Democratic office, evict his hopeless butt.
If 2016 ends up being another Clinton vs. Bush election my guess is there will be a fair amount of grumbling. At the same time my guess is that a lot more people have fonder memories of the last Clinton administration than they do the last Bush administration.
If progressives don’t rally soon and reject the ‘establishment’ democratic candidate being shoved down our throats by the US. ‘disinformation media’, which is constantly reciting one phony poll after the other, I fear John is absolutely right. The republikan’s want nothing more than a demokratic Hillary ticket as that will open the door for Jeb to waltz into the Oval office – and that is the establishment’s plan, totalitarian rule by the extremist right-wing . Regardless of what the lying US. media says repeatedly, Hillary Clinton is anathema to most reasonably minded progressives and she is unelectable.
Unelectable? Only Walker and Bush could make it a fairly close race, but I don’t see either of them winning either. Bush, because he’ll have a tough time separating himself from his dad’s and brother’s tired policies and mistakes, and from Big Money. And Walker, because he’s vapid, without any foreign policy experience, his economic record in WS is pretty sorry, he’s too prone to malaprops, and he’s not savvy enough to handle pointed media questions/examination.
And if HRC chooses a running mate that excites and captures people’s attention, and sends a progressive message as to where the Dems are going in the future, it wont be even a that close a race….
What you vision-impaired demokrats fail to understand is that the Cheney neo-cons (which are the brainchild of Natanyahu in Israel) outright control the US federal government. They put George in the WH. because the GWOT was already in the pipeline; they put Obama, the ‘closet republikan’, in the WH. to appease US. voters with false hope and buy another 8 years of cover for the Cheney/Bush war criminals. Like Obama, Hillary is also an establishment insider – closet republikan, and she would change nothing even if she could be elected, which she can’t. Wake the hell up, the travesty that is the US. Federal government is nothing more than scripted ‘theater’ to keep the onlookers convinced that they are actually participating in a democracy. Jeb is the man the they intend to install in the Oval Office and nothing is going to stop them; domestic terrorism will supposedly then reach critical mass, added together with all the other false flag incidents, and martial law will be declared – Gen. Tommy Franks assured us of this during the 911 ordeal. The ‘powers that be’ have prepared for this moment and the US. corporate state will not be denied – passage of the TPP is the bellwether for the completion of this transformation.
John – didn’t you predict a Romney win? LOL Yea, I think that sums things up.
One word in response to this particular blog: delusional.
“The GOP will win by improving their performance with Hispanics, women, millennials, and even African Americans…”
This phrase alone qualifies this whole column as complete hogwash. Clinton leads in poll aggregates against every single potential GOP nominee, and the primary season hasn’t even started yet. Enjoy watching the Tea Party nutjobs drag your only few potentially-electable candidates so far to the right that they become completely unpalatable to the other 75% of the country.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
I can positively state that your news feed is now terminated along with your emails. I recommend that ALL North Carolina democrats do the same.
I might not agree with Mills on very much, but assuming an ostrich like posture with head buried in the sand, something the Old Guard in the NC Democratic Party has done for 30 years, is but a repeat of old, worn out garbage. Clinton or no, if Democrats cannot criticize the Party, and be actually heard and questions addressed, then it will continue to fumble along with the Tories still driving it, ignoring the hoi polloi for ‘”their favorites” and rich folks–until no Democrats turn out to vote.
The party of NO. The Republican party has a problem with 47% of the voting public. They don’t like Blacks, gays, Latinos and they have problem with Women. The math is not for a Republican win in 2016. A Republican win for 2016 would need for White Males to increase by50% and that will not happen. They want to destroy Social Security and MEDCARE and MEDCAID and ACL. A voter that earns less than $60,000 a year should never consider voting for the Republican party. If a person uses brains they will vote for Democrats and that includes state and US House and Senate positions, We Democrats have problems but we are a much better choice for middle class voter.