Looking at the 2016 Election

It will be quieter than usual around here for the next couple of months. This is a very intense time at the day job, culminating with a big trip to Southeast Asia in May. It’s all great stuff, but it means a lot of link posts and short pieces until things settle down in the summer.

In the meantime, I thought it might be fun to post a retrospective. There may be several of these over the next few weeks. Many of the links below go to an old blog site that acts as a sort of archive of old posts. The dates on those posts are the archive date, not the original posting date.

Perhaps we should start with a list of predictions about the 2016 election posted over the years:

Feb, 2011 – Sarah Palin won’t run for President.

June 2011 – The 2012 GOP nomination is descending into an embarrassing reality TV spectacle.

September 2011 – Republicans are guaranteed to nominate a nutjob in 2016.

September 2012 – How Romney’s impending loss is setting up a GOP Electoral College nightmare (preview of the Blue Wall).

November 2014 – Mid-term election results demonstrate that Republicans are now locked out of the White House.

December 2014 – The GOP base will pick the ’16 nominee.

January 2015 – Why Jeb will probably lose.

January 2015 – Why Cruz should be considered the front-runner for the nomination.

December 2015 – Why Republicans cannot hold the Senate.

January 2016 – Cruz will win Iowa by 3-5 pts.

February 2016 – No one can avoid a contested convention. Trump cannot win the nomination without winning a delegate majority. Cruz’s superiority in ground organization means he has the best odds in a convention contest. The Red Wedding Scenario.

February 2016 – The dynamics of a convention contest.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
24 comments on “Looking at the 2016 Election
  1. flypusher says:

    Here’s a posting from a Trump supporter:


    Were I on his campus, and heard this from him, here’s what I say to him: yes, immigration and trade are important issues, and yes the GOPe has been focused on what benefits their donor class rather on what benefits the working class American. But the reasons you give for supporting Trump are all about style, with no real substance. You praise him for “not backing down” and “never apologizing”. But there’s a dearth of details about HOW he would realistically fix immigration and fix trade. His tax plan is just another variation on the theme of trickle down economics. As his rapidly changing stances on abortion shows, he hasn’t thought through things that he should have already thought through, and will just say the first thing on his mind. That’s no way to run the most powerful nation in human history. Not backing down can also go too far – the man makes completely false statements, and even when presented with evidence against them, digs in his heels. Failure to admit error and learn from it is not a good quality in a person who would have control of nuclear weapons, and then there’s the matter of his notoriously thin skin and gigantic ego. You are articulating your preference in a more coherent manner than the “knuckledraggers”, but at the end of the day, you’re just flipping a more refined bird at the GOPe.

    • johngalt says:

      I can’t say I have much respect for the opinions of a first year Ph.D. student in “Cinema Studies” (?) who thinks that voting is an “inherently violent and immoral act” and who has no intention of voting for any office other than president.

      • flypusher says:

        Yeah, that line raised my eyebrows too, and he really didn’t make much of an attempt to justify it. I’ve conversed with young libertarians like him before. All too easy for them to throw out lines like that and one of my favorites: “all taxation is theft!”.

    • 1mime says:

      I still think Cruz will be the nominee. Have stopped thinking about Trump. Eight months is more than enough time for him to do himself in. Just can’t see it happening. Putting all my thought into what happens if Cruz is nominee running against a terribly weakened Clinton…
      Of course, neither Trump nor Cruz are acceptable, but, I think it will be Cruz. One interesting thing to ponder. What if – Sanders overtakes Clinton (same 8 months), then you’d have a Tea Party, religious fundamentalist running against a Jewish socialist…..

      Only in America (-;

  2. johngalt says:

    You are looking very prescient, Chris, though I have to say given the chaos this represents I wish you were wrong a little more often. Any thoughts on the NCAA basketball champion? This week’s Mega Millions numbers?

  3. 1mime says:

    We are all so fixated on what’s happening in the presidential campaign that we chance overlooking something very important happening in the House. The Freedom Caucus, that group of Tea Party ultra conservatives have used their block vote to wreak havoc in the House, are emboldened and working to expand their membership only group. This group deserves our careful attention.

    Politico reports: “The alliance of roughly three-dozen hard-line conservatives is drawing up a list of GOP-leaning open seats it could target this year and is quietly meeting with prospective candidates for the seats of Freedom Caucus members who are either retiring or running for Senate. The caucus’ political arm is raising money for members facing tough challenges. ”


  4. Rob Ambrose says:

    Trump says he can totally eliminate the entire national debt in 8 years. With a tax plan that cuts taxes on the rich more then anyone else.

    How’s he doing to do this? By “renegotiating all new trade deals”.

    Like, seriously, wtf? Does this guy have ANY idea how the global economy works? Does he not realize that even if he manages to lower the trade deficit, those funds don’t go directly into government coffers?

    This guy isn’t nearly as big of a joke as those that actually support this clown.


    • antimule says:

      I figure that most Trump “supporters” are not voting *for* Trump, they are voting *against* anyone else.

    • moslerfan says:

      One of the reasons Trump can say things like that is that almost nobody has a clue what the “national debt” means to our economic and fiscal system. That includes Democrats. Sometimes I think that there are Republicans who do understand it, but they won’t tell anybody because it’s such an easy way to bash the Democrats when they (Rs) are out of power.

      • 1mime says:

        Mosler, I hope you got to see the Jack Lew interview by Charlie Rose. It was incredibly interesting to hear him talk about the breadth of his responsibilities as US Treasurer. It’s about far more than writing a budget.

      • moslerfan says:

        Mime, he did a good job of defending sanctions policy, but surely that’s the State Department’s responsibility, isn’t it? Also he mentioned sluggish demand and wage policy, and even taxes, which are very much Congress’s responsibility. It was perhaps good stuff from a bully pulpit POV, but the only issue he adressed that was clearly a Treasury issue was who will be on the ten dollar bill. Kind of a strange interview, I thought.

      • 1mime says:

        I thought Lew handled himself very well. He managed to get the point across that the admin’s fiscal priorities are limited by, well, Congressional obstruction without be snarky. I’d say that’s an achievement. His detail about how they were using financial sanctions was more important that “what” means they were using. IOW, there is a great deal of cooperation between Treasury and State vis a vis foreign affairs. What was interesting to me (probably not so much to you due to how well informed you are in domestic financial matters), is the range of the role of US Treasurer. Given his prior role as Director of OMB, he would have to have a tough hide, which must be a positive when dealing with both terrorists and Congress (-;

      • moslerfan says:

        Lew is very articulate, and has a really broad background including as Obama’s Chief of Staff. I was surprised he wandered so far afield from what I’d have thought as Treasury’s core area, which is really to be the Federal Government’s disbursement and receivables department. The Treasury Sec has traditionally been an important part of the administration’s economic team, and I guess the administration has a lot of trust in Lew personally.

      • 1mime says:

        Obama had to have someone he could trust and who understands how the economy impacts all other areas of government. Plus, Lew is a tough negotiator. I wish he had been O’s chief of staff from the get-go. For all these reasons plus more I haven’t stated or thought of, I’m glad Lew is on board.

    • flypusher says:

      Why shouldn’t Trump try that con? The GOPe has been selling that trickle-down snake oil for decades, and there has been no shortage of buyers. Kansas went back for seconds.

      But the die-hard Trumpkins are more concerned with flipping everyone else the bird anyway.

  5. Ed K says:

    Nice body of work. Thanks for making me smarter.

  6. flypusher says:

    Blue skies to you, Chris!!

    Now while there have been many predictions of the Donald’s premature political demise (guilty as charged, there), this abortion gaffe at the very least is going to do some lasting damage. It’s quite the accomplishment to get both sides on that issue so mad at you. The GOP just might have dodged a bullet this year, but the forces that spawned Trump are still there. If the GOPe sticks to more of the same tax-cuts-for-the-rich-&-you-blue-collar-Whites-are-just-not-bootstrappy-enough line, this will happen again. You may not be so lucky next time. Trump’s political heir just might be smarter, and better organized, and will have thought out his/her positions, and think much better on his/her feet, and be much less ruled by his/her ego.

    • 1mime says:

      This gaffe marks one of the first times Trump has been pinned down by the media. He’s been allowed to equivocate, change the subject, talk in circles – IOW – dodge the subject. It is a direct indication that the man has no business even running for President. And, it’s only April. There are 8 months remaining before the General Election. How will Trump hold it together?

      That said, his “heir apparent” is already in circulation – Ted Cruz. He will have answers but his agenda is frightening. We still aren’t clear where the FBI investigation of H will go but remember, the director of the FBI is a staunch Republican, and this email probe is guaranteed to be one that will push all boundaries.

      I, for one, believe this 2016 election is where the Republican Party has to crash and burn. There is simply too much at stake for both parties. Waiting in the wings is a much stronger GOP candidate for 2020, Paul Ryan. We may only have this election and the next two to four years to achieve some fundamental changes that have languished.

  7. 1mime says:

    How exciting for you personally and professionally to be working on a project that will take you to SE Asia. “Your” gang here will keep things in play – we’ve been carefully groomed.

    I honed right in to the middle of your link list – “The GOP base will pick the ’16 nominee”. What’s interesting is how completely you nailed what has happened. I think even Democrats join you in saying, “bye, bye, redbird, let’s get this over with”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: