Type to search

5 Things You Need To Know About The 2016 Election — Before It’s Too Late

Featured Post Memo Pad Top News

5 Things You Need To Know About The 2016 Election — Before It’s Too Late

red white and blue

If you’re one of the few Americans over 35 not running for president, I hope you’ll be one of the more than 100 million who will vote in next year’s general election.

There will be debates about whether this next election rises to the level of “the most important in our lifetime.” I argue “Hell, yes!” for the reasons that follow. But there’s no doubt that it will be the most expensive. When we go to the polls on November 8, 2016, billions of dollars will have been spent to elect the 45th president.

Things neither candidate nor party can control — primarily economic growth — will likely play a larger role in determining who will be president than campaigns, debates, or the candidates’ personalities. Still, there are a number of unique variables at play in this second post-Citizens United election that make it fascinating and unpredictable.

America hasn’t sent the same party to the White House three times in a row since 1988 — if you ignore the fact that Al Gore won in 2000. Democrats haven’t held the presidency for more than three terms since Franklin D. Roosevelt won four times, followed by Harry Truman’s victory in 1948. And you have to go back to the 19th century to find another three straight wins for Democrats.

Anyone who watched how disciplined and effective Republicans were in exploiting a fortuitous electoral map in 2014, as Democrats scrambled away from their own president and policies, should recognize the GOP is definitely capable of avoiding the clown show that marked its 2012 campaign. But given the 16 or so declared or nearly declared candidates, led by five frontrunners tied at 10 percent in the most recent Quinnipiac University poll, the potential for idiocracy in action looms large.

Even larger are the consequences for the nation. Here are five things you need to know about the 2016 election now — before it’s too late.

1. The next president could easily determine control of the Supreme Court for decades.
By the end of the next president’s first term, four of the Court’s sitting justices — Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — will exceed or butt up against the life expectancy for their genders. They will all have passed the average retirement age for the Court since the early 1970s. Of these four, three — Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer — are the majority of the majority that has upheld the Roe v. Wade decision we rely on to protect reproductive rights for women in all 50 states. So a Republican president would have a 3 out of 4 chance that his or her first appointment will capture the conservative movement’s golden fleece and allow states to begin prosecuting women and doctors for miscarriages.

Sheldon Adelson and David Koch, two billionaires who have personally directed hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Republicans, claim that they’re pro-choice. But they reserve their support for candidates who think only people born male deserve reproductive rights, for one simple reason: The justices who oppose women’s rights are also champions of corporate rights. No two justices have voted on behalf of corporate interests more during the last half century than John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

In the past, GOP presidents have made the mistake of appointing moderate Republicans who became rational while on the Court. That will never happen again. The sort of judge any Republican will appoint now will be in the fiercely partisan mode of Alito. Today Republicans have four votes on the Supreme Court for almost anything they want. Electing their nominee in 2016 could raise that number to as high as seven. That wouldn’t just mean the end of Roe. It could be the end of the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security and most environmental laws as we know them.

2. Republicans need a miracle performance to win.
Former Obama administration senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer said this quote from a recent Washington Post article by Dan Balz is “almost all you need” to know about 2016:

Based on estimates of the composition of the 2016 electorate, if the next GOP nominee wins the same share of the white vote as Mitt Romney won in 2012 (59 percent), he or she would need to win 30 percent of the nonwhite vote. Set against recent history, that is a daunting obstacle. Romney won only 17 percent of nonwhite voters in 2012. John McCain won 19 percent in 2008. George W. Bush won 26 percent in 2004.

Some Republicans suggest that the next GOP nominee could appeal to more white people than Mitt “The Dictionary Definition of White Guy” Romney. But to do that they’d have to replicate Ronald Reagan’s 49-state sweep that had more to do with a booming economy than anything else.

Continue reading



  1. Richard Holmes June 1, 2015

    Where is the article on hilldog? I looked and found stories on other subjects but not the headline on the hillhag.

    1. Steve Batchelor June 1, 2015

      The great intellect of a repugnant Repug…always stooping to calling people names. With your great intellect will you be committing suicide when Hillary is elected as President?

      1. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

        Now that they can’t count on The Rapture. 🙂

        1. Insinnergy June 1, 2015

          Best comment seen today!

          1. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

            Thank you! Snark is about all I have left. 🙂

      2. plc97477 June 1, 2015

        That would be reason enough to vote for Hillary.

      3. mike June 1, 2015

        Don’t hold your Breath!!

    2. Insinnergy June 1, 2015

      Another standard issue GOP misogynist.
      You do realise women form over half the electorate, right?

  2. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

    There are too many warring factions in the hijacked GOP for one candidate to satisfy everyone. The haters won’t go for anyone with a hint of color even by marriage, the religious freaks won’t go for anyone who ever hinted at not being anti abortion or accepting of gay people. Some actually recognize stupidity and down right crazy and won’t support that. Etc.
    Even though they are willing to vote against dems rather than consider the greater good and their own self interests, they have no real candidate to vote for. For that reason, I’m betting a good number won’t even show up to vote. Then there’s the knowledge that none of them can beat Hillary. However they keep trying by adding every republican who can walk and talk at the same time. Apparently that’s the only qualification one has to have at this point.
    Their campaign slogan should be “We got Planter’s Deluxe beat” 😀

    1. mike June 1, 2015

      Keep dreaming!!! We have a long way to go and knowing the Clinton’s, the left can’t guarantee who will show up on their side.
      it will be fun to watch.

      1. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

        Keep your delusional enthusiasm going. I’m glad you’ll find some enjoyment in the carnage that will ensue. I don’t wish pain on anyone, even lower life forms.

        1. mike June 1, 2015

          The delusion is all yours. The press is turning against her for refusing to answer questions. More will continue to come out about Hillary and Bill and as it does more independents will walk away. It won’t be you progressives, living in La La Land with only one very mediocre candidate, that will elect her but the independents and they are already forming their opinion against her. Latest poll showing 63% find her untrustworthy and dishonest. Only polls that give her decent numbers are those from democrats, which just shows how far your heads are buried in the sand.
          Can the republicans screw this up?? Absolutely!!!

          1. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

            “More will continue to come out about Hillary and Bill and as it does more independents will walk away.”

            Of course it will because that’s the M.O . of the right. They can’t win on their own merits so they have to invent sh%$.
            It’s all they have! A new “scandal” weekly. Not that any have gained any traction ever but they are nothing if not persistent in pursuing what doesn’t work.
            News flash. Most of the current independents are those who fled the right because they were too smart to stay. They aren’t suddenly going to be attracted to what the right is parading out now as viable candidates. Even you know that but you can dream.
            Now get out whatever BS you want as a response. I’m not participating in another circular conversation with you .
            But I will look for you the day after election day. 😀

          2. mike June 2, 2015

            As usual you are off the mark again.
            All her problems are not being exposed by the right, WP, NYT, and other leading media are reporting on their investigations of the actions of the Clinton’s.
            As to independents, numerous polls show her support from Independents has dropped. Her favorables with Independent Women has dropped from 60% to 44% and her unfavorables have gone up from 33% last year to 48% today. CNN latest have her unfavorables at 50%. Between 57% to 63% of Independents say she is not trustworthy or honest.
            Her campaign is going the wrong way at this moment with Independents, we all know(those with a brain) that Independents will determine the 2016 election.

            The numbers are so bad that we hear she is relaunching her campaign for President on June 13th.

            The only BS I see is in your brain.
            2016 is a long way off and lots can happen. Stay tuned!!

          3. Carolyn1520 June 2, 2015

            I’ll address you again the day after election day. 😀

          4. mike June 2, 2015

            I look forward to the exchange. The coronation isn’t going to happen.

  3. Hugh Manatee June 1, 2015

    I’m surprised that those who identify as “very liberal” are more in support of Hillary than Bernie. Hillary is a war hawk and a Wall Street shill. Sure, her message on the campaign trail has changed, so she talks about the importance of protecting the middle class, but I’ve never seen her actually do anything to back up her words.

    1. Carolyn1520 June 1, 2015

      It’s a matter of practicality. I love Bernie and also Elizabeth. Neither can win and we can’t afford to lose. Too many long term issues hang in the balance. She can ensure a victory.
      Hillary has never been in a position to put this current message into action. She’s playing to a much tougher battle weary crowd these days and she knows that. I have faith in her abilities.

      1. Hugh Manatee June 1, 2015

        I wouldn’t count Bernie out. I’ll give him all the support I can while I can.

  4. hicusdicus June 1, 2015

    Hilary Clinton is going to follow her own personal agenda. Only she knows what that is going to be. We will have to wait until she is elected to find that out. Like Pelosi and Obama care.

  5. 13observer June 1, 2015

    Apparently Hillaryous Clinton is the ONLY wealthy person whom can relate to the middle class.

    1. foxxx333 June 1, 2015

      Is George Soros the only billionaire supporting Progressivism? Or Staver? I guess the Repulicrats will just have to give up, since Wall Street Big Bankers send their money to Hillary (Goldman Sachs, etc.)

    2. paulyz June 1, 2015

      Latest Rasmussen poll shows even more average Americans & Legal Immigrants Opposed to Amnesty as well as a pathway to Citizenship. Hillary had come on strong supporting Obama’s new Amnesty for the Hispanic vote, but watch her back off now…

  6. paulyz June 1, 2015

    Didn’t see the name of the author of this completely biased article. First of all, I didn’t rea,ize Al Gore was President of the U.S. On (Illegal) “immigration” Liberals should be as opposed as much as Conservatives. Illegals are supported by your hated wealthy that make huge profits off them by us subsidizing their health care, education, welfare, etc. But I suppose getting more Democrat voters trump that to Liberals. The Democrats already have half control of the Supreme Court, but look at the Supreme Court as a means to get their Socialist agenda through by “Legislating from the Bench.” Guess now that Federal judges shot down Obama’s unlawful Executive Amnesty, the Libs are having a hard time bypassing the Legislative Branch, that is the only Branch required by the Constitution to make Laws. Then the article mentions Gov. Romney as the Webster Dictionary’s definition of a White guy.

    1. MikeyArmstrong June 2, 2015

      If anyone has been legislating from the bench it’s Justice Roberts.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.