2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy Prediction: Bernie Sanders Will Win the White House
My Prediction: Bernie Sanders Will Win the White House (older article, but worth repeating)
Posted on June 1, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Eric Zuesse
On May 12th, I presented my analysis of the polling as of that time, headlining, The Early Signs of Whom The Next U.S. President Will Likely Be: Presidential Polls Look Confusing Regarding Bernie, But Downright Bad Regarding Hillary & All Republicans. Based on the net-favorability ratings of candidates in the first poll that had really meaningful results on that most important of all factors (which poll had just been published), and also based on the latest available reliable poll of Americans ideological preferences (which had been taken in 2011, but thats okay because ideology changes only very slowly), I concluded that Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders was likely to surprise on the upside at the start of his contest, and that, Sanders would probably be able to crush any Republican except perhaps Rand Paul, if he were to win the Democratic primaries. He is already surprising on the upside (though pundits havent yet caught on that Hillarys a dud), and so I am now predicting that Sanders will win, first, the Democratic nomination, and then the White House. But, first, to summarize:
The crucial net favorabilities were shown and documented in that May 12th article to be outright terrible for every candidate except Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Bernie Sanders; they were merely bad for Walker and Rubio; and they were probably marginally good for Sanders, but the latest poll hadnt even included Sanderss name, and so for him I extrapolated from ideologically the only candidate, who had been named, who was at all similar to Sanders ideologically, and this was Elizabeth Warren; and she had a slightly positive net favorability rating, which was by far the best of any of the named candidates (either male or female). Based on information that Ive been provided access to, she will not be entering the contest, and Senator Sanders will be the only progressive candidate running in the Democratic primaries.
The 2011 ideological poll showed that of the five ideological orientations that were named, the one with the highest net-favorability the ratio of positive to negative ratings by the American public, was Progressive, at 67%/22%, or 3.05; and the second-highest was Conservative, at 62%/30%, or 2.07. Like Senator Warren, Senator Sanders is one of the U.S. Senates three leading (if not the Senates only three) progressives. He clearly represents the most-widely-shared ideology: progressivism. If he wins the Democratic nomination, then the nation will be in for its first clear ideological choice since 1932 in a two-major-Party contest between a progressive Democrat versus a conservative Republican. That time it was FDR versus Herbert Hoover.
Of course, FDR won. Back in 1932, the conservatives deadweight load, which the Republican had to overcome but couldnt, was the crash of 1929. In 2016, the conservatives deadweight load, which hell have to overcome but wont be able to, will be his record of supporting or opposing George W. Bushs decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Everyone but Republicans already knows that that was a catastrophic decision in every way, and was never justifiable; so: no candidate who is even on the fence about this important matter can stand even a chance of winning the Presidency if his or her chief opponent has always been clearly opposed to it, as Sanders has been, in both words and actions. Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, was one of the small minority who voted in 2002 against it. And, unlike Barack Obama, who wasnt even a national politician then and who spoke in 2002 about the Iraq question only briefly and in passing (in a video-clip that became famous in 2008), Bernie Sanders spoke against it passionately and repeatedly and then he actually voted against authorizing the invasion. (And heres the final vote, in both the Senate and the House.) By contrast, every current Republican Presidential candidate, except Rand Paul, says that GWB made the right decision based on what was known then (referring to the selective release by Bushs Administration of faked evidence supporting the decision to invade). Marco Rubio contradicts himself about the matter, but basically he says that in the final analysis, The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein does not run Iraq. Even that statement would hurt him a lot in the general election (unless the Democrat is Clinton, since she actually voted to invade), because most Americans arent that stupid, to think that theres any excuse whatsoever for Bushs choice to fake evidence and then to invade Iraq on the basis of it it was clearly a rigged deal from the get-go, to invade Iraq. Rubio is betting that the only way to win the Republican nomination is to support that rigged invasion; but Paul is betting that, by the time of the primaries, enough even of Republicans will have come to the (long overdue) realization that this issue could kill the Partys chances in the general election, and that theyll therefore get in line behind Pauls candidacy as the Partys only hope to get this issue off the backs of the Republican Party. The other leading Republican candidate, Scott Walker, is a pure mainstream Republican on the matter, saying that the decision was based on bad intelligence, but knowing what we know now, we should not have gone into Iraq. This line might suffice for him to be able to win the Republican nomination, but, if Bernie Sanders will be the Democrat hell be running against, then the Democrat will win, no matter how much money Republican billionaires pour into supporting their nominee. (Again, if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, the Republican nominee might win the Presidency and probably will win if that Republican happens to be Rand Paul.)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/my-prediction-bernie-sanders-will-win-the-white-house.html