Very first 2016 post

by Andrew Gelman on November 7, 2012 · 22 comments

in Campaigns and elections

Hillary Clinton vs. Paul Ryan. I know, that’s a boring speculation, but as a statistician I gotta go with the highest-probability event.

{ 22 comments }

Lynn Vavreck November 7, 2012 at 1:01 am

I think HRC for sure, but I think there’s a political entrepreneur out there in the GOP who sees the writing on the wall for the party and moves it toward non-white voters, not further from this growing population. I say Ryan is a “no way” option at this point. But I don’t have a better thought at this point. I would’ve said Thune, but I’m thinking even he is too old-school GOP at this point. Fun to speculate!

Aaron November 7, 2012 at 2:54 am

HRC? No way. She won’t run. Mark it down.

David Tomlin November 7, 2012 at 4:59 am

How is a failed VP candidate who hasn’t won statewide a high probability for a presidential nomination?

zbicyclist November 7, 2012 at 6:27 pm

I seem to remember similar thoughts about Bill Miller. Don’t remember Bill Miller? Well, that’s the point.

David Tomlin November 7, 2012 at 10:54 pm

That wasn’t entirely a rhetorical question. I thought Gelman might actually have an explanation.

IOW, Ryan might be the most probable choice. But it’s not immediately obvious to me why he would be.

Andrew Gelman November 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm

David:

My (unsystematic) impression went as follows: Republican primary voters want someone who is conservative, and Ryan is a leader of the conservative wing of the party, without seeming as factional as Santorum. Christie maybe, but I’m guessing he’s too moderate. Also, if the economy rebounds by 2016 and the Republicans thing they’re going to lose anyway, the right wing has no reason to compromise on principles just for an irrelevant bit of electability. Jeb Bush . . . sure, that’s always a possibility, I suppose.

Meanwhile the hardliners won’t blame Ryan for Romney’s loss, they’ll blame Romney. That’s all a guess. I suppose I’d give Ryan a probability of less than 50% of being the nominee, but he still seems like the most probable choice.

Acilius November 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm

He’d be a fool to run. The Republican nominations for governor of and senator from Wisconsin should both be open in 2018, when Mr Ryan will be 48. If he can spend the next six years looking statesmanlike and not making enemies, he should be able to take his pick of those slots. If he wins then, he’ll be a potential president for several cycles to come.

Babak November 7, 2012 at 8:22 am

Nah, I doubt HRC will run and I don’t think Ryan will either. I think it’s too soon to know who the candidates will be but Christie is a strong contender on the Republican side.

Paul November 7, 2012 at 9:07 am

You’re going with the maximum likelihood estimator??!!

Andrew Gelman November 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Oooohhhh–that hurts!

LFC November 7, 2012 at 10:17 am

HRC says she has no interest in running. Why assume that she is lying about this?

Andrew Gelman November 7, 2012 at 11:42 am

Lfc:

“Lying” is a strong word. Let’s just say she might change her mind. Or, to put it another way, I consider her the single most likely possibility, even if that probability is still less than 50%.

David Karol November 7, 2012 at 11:50 am

LFC: Because Obama said he wasn’t going to run for President well after getting to the US Senate and Bill Clinton ran for re-election as governor in 1990 pledging not to run for President? I have no idea what HRC will do. I am sure she really wants some time to relax. She’s had 20 years of non-stop scrutiny. But it would have been awkward if she actually had said she was interested and she’d have been viewed more critically. Part of her popularity is that she isn’t viewed as self-seeking for the moment. She can wait a while before deciding. She may not do it. But lots of precedent shows her denials don’t foreclose any option.

LFC November 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Well, that’s true, and I suppose she may end up running. But I think Biden, despite age and other factors, is a more likely candidate. He has not issued denials, afaik, just non-commital “I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it” sort of statements. Anyway, it’s a long time, politically speaking, betw now and 2015-16.

Acilius November 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm

The Republicans have a strong history of settling on a presidential nominee early, and defeated vice-presidential candidates need time to put space between themselves and the slough of resentment that follows a loss. So I’d say that Mr Ryan is very unlikely to be the Republican nominee in 2016. The Democrats tend to look for fresh faces and to favor youth; someone like Ms Clinton, who has been a household name for decades, would therefore labor under a disadvantage in a 2016 bid, though her odds would surely not be as long as those confronting Mr Ryan. If I had to guess, I would say a likelier pair of finalists would be Mike Huckabee for the Republicans and Martin O’Malley for the Democrats. I hasten to add emphasis to the words “guess” and “likelier”; I’d be surprised if that were the matchup, just not quite as surprised as I would be to see a Clinton vs Ryan contest.

Tony November 7, 2012 at 12:33 pm

HRC–sure. Why not? I’m hard pressed to think of anyone on the left who’s as well-situated for a successful run.
That said, I’m inclined to doubt Paul Ryan. Anecdotally, the recent trend has been for Republicans to run their first runner-up in the primaries, not their VP pick (think McCain in 2000, Romney in 2008). With that, I’m going to bet Santorum.

Mike G November 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm

R – Probably Christie or Marco Rubio
D – I don’t know, but probably not HRC or Biden who will both likely be too old. I think it will be a while till any D’s emerge as front runners

Eric Tassone November 7, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Jeb Bush? (For the GOP, I would assume.)

DavidT November 7, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Mike G: Christie? The Right is going to have a hard time forgiving him for praising Obama after Sandy. You may say that this will be ancient history by 2016, but I am not so sure. Some of those people have very long memories.

As for HRC being too old–well, she will be younger in 2016 than Reagan was in 1980…

zbicyclist November 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Christie doesn’t seem like the type of guy to avoid tough decisions. Every tough decision irritates somebody. This may make him a great governor of NJ, but will likely doom him in the primaries.

Assuming ideological purity continues and we’re not fighting another active war, I’ll take Rand Paul as a long shot.

I think talk about Biden or HRC just shows we don’t have a clue about the next Democratic candidate.

andrew long November 7, 2012 at 3:25 pm

Hillary/Strickland vs. Christie/Rubio.

Dems have no VP-ready Latino. Rubio’s not ready either, but they don’t care.

So choosing a supremely loyal, battle-tested, well-liked, well-vetted, union-certified, former governor white male son of Ohio *should* be the right play. Kind of a Biden surrogate, but with a power base. Although his age, 75 in ’16, will be a vetting factor.

Hil & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

Hillary expanding her share of the women’s vote from Obama’s 55% to 60% or even more, and holding her African-American support at 90%, should mitigate the likely drop in Latino support from Obama’s historic highs.

If she is smart (and she is), her operation will begin to work with the committees and Congressional leaders even before 2014 midterms, to field the largest slate of women candidates in history. Perhaps using 2014 as a test-run, getting some candidates needed experience and exposure.

2014 is yet another tough Senate class for Dems to defend. But the 2016 cycle comes around again to favor Dems heavily. There will be potential takeaways in AZ, AR, IL, IN, IA, LA, NH, OH, PA, and WI.

If Hillary runs, we’ll have a historic opportunity to change our representation for the better, permanently.

David Sanford November 12, 2012 at 10:07 pm

I’m already on record for Elizabeth Warren for President 2016

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: