Can Intrade Predict the 2016 Election Winners?

September 28th, 2011 at 5:56 pm | 13 Comments |

| Print

I completely agree with Eli Lehrer that the Republican Party’s 2012 nominee will be Romney. I also agree with his analysis of the reasons Republican nominations are decided on the question “Whose turn is it?” But what is completely lost in all the excitement over watching Mitt Romney vanquish one opponent after another is the intriguing question of who the next runner up will be.

Since President Obama is still more likely to be reelected than not and 2016 is likely to be a better year for Republicans, the real prize in 2012 Republican primaries may be not winning but rather coming in second. If the Republicans stay true to form, the current presidential field contains not one but maybe even two future Republican nominees! Is it too wonkish to start speculating over the identity of the 2012 runner up and 2016 presidential nominee? Is it too early to start asking bookies for odds on Jon Huntsman’s inauguration on January 20, 2017?

Recent Posts by Andrew Pavelyev



13 Comments so far ↓

  • armstp

    Huntsman will be long forgotten by 2016.

    • Graychin

      But not by Mr. Frum.

      Huntsman has no chance – ever. He’s tragically charisma-challenged.

  • Watusie

    Pretty certain that Mike Huckabee is sitting this one out because he fancies his chances in 2016.

    • balconesfault

      I think a bunch of GOPers are sitting this one out for the same reason … Daniels, even Jeb.

  • jnail

    No it will be Hillary after she runs with Obama for re-election this year and helps solidify the base and upper midwest…

  • anniemargret

    Republicans are not excited about *Any* of their candidates. Romney is someone they will reluctantly, but willingly support should he win the primary.

    They were enthusiastic about Perry until they realized his oratory skills are lacking and in a tete a tete with Obama, he would lose…and big.

    Are they excited about Huntsman? No. He is not clownish enough for the TP who basically run the party. Not radical enough, not fringe-y enough.

    Who’s left? Christie doesn’t want the job. He can’t say he doesn’t want it and then say he wants it. He’s done.

    Palin? She’s a walking soap opera. Any other candidate can mop up after her.

    Unless the GOP suddenly finds a shooting star somewhere, that doesn’t offend the delicate sensibilities of their radicals, they’re done.

    Unless and until the TP and other fringe-y types are eliminated and given short shrift, the GOP is doomed as the party of fruits and nuts (Harvard degree or not).

    • MSheridan

      “Unless and until the TP and other fringe-y types are eliminated and given short shrift, the GOP is doomed as the party of fruits and nuts (Harvard degree or not).”

      The GOP no longer has the power to eliminate its extremists. So long as they were marginalized, they were almost as irrelevant as the far left is today in US politics. They were the GOP’s “useful idiots” back when the party used to serve the interests of Big Business. Now, though, it largely serves the interests of a relative few really rich people and owners of Big Business. This isn’t much of a shift, perhaps, but regardless of the several reasons for it (a fairly long explanation), this has cost the party influence with the relatively sane people (moderates by today’s standards) who used to run it. So it perforce had to bring the extremists closer and closer to its center. They’re lodged there now, a tumor in the gut of its body politic, and I don’t believe there are enough moderates still devoted to the GOP to be able to wrestle it onto the operating table.

      A party run by a few amoral individuals to further their own interests and comprised largely of deluded and/or fanatical followers of exploded theories isn’t going to return of itself to moderation. The only path I can see to that end is that IF the Democrats have a long run of electoral success, they will inevitably stumble and overreach, thereby generating an opposition that is reality-based. Given that we have a two-party system, that opposition would probably find its home in the diminished ranks of a future GOP. But that cannot happen soon, as today’s GOP lives in a fantasy world far removed from reality.

  • Graychin

    Assuming that Obama wins another term in 2012, the 2016 Republican nominee probably will be whoever the 2012 vice-presidential nominee happens to be. It will automatically be that person’s “turn.”

    The losing VP nominee would actually be more “true to form” in Republican custom. Besides Romney, can anyone even remember who in ran 2008 against McCain? Giuliani? It was an undistinguished lot for sure.

    Sarah Palin would likely have been the 2012 nominee if she had shown some strand of credibility since her arrival in the Republican spotlight. Or if she didn’t have a track record as a quitter, having an aversion to jobs that come with “actual responsibility.”

  • balconesfault

    Besides Romney, can anyone even remember who in ran 2008 against McCain? Giuliani? It was an undistinguished lot for sure.

    Sure. Huckaby grabbed a handful of primaries, a lot were pushing Thompson early on, and Alan Keyes stayed in it for surprisingly long. Oh yeah, and of course that Ron Paul dude ;)

  • Bunker555

    Andrew,

    Intrade’s time horizon seems to be Year-end 2012. You can post some odds/contract and I’m sure there will be a lot of takers.

    Intrade:
    Chris Christie to announce he will run for President before midnight ET 31 Dec 2011
    23.4% CHANCE

    Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012
    47.5% CHANCE

    Rick Perry to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012
    23.0% CHANCE