Forget about 2016. Here’s an early look at Campaign 2024 and beyond.
By Howard Gutman August 7
The writer was U.S. ambassador to Belgium from 2009 to 2013.
Already tired of the 2016 race?
So many candidates, so much noise, but ultimately so little true drama. Prognosticators try to create a tough-to-call race like circus performers who fail twice at some daring stunt in order to build the tension for the third and final attempt.
So let’s turn to a more grown-up question: Who will be president of the United States in 2031?
It’s down to four.
First, the easy part. Hillary Clinton will likely win by about 3 percent — both in 2016 and 2020.
There is some legendary historical wisdom explaining the limits of an incumbent party’s ability to hold the White House for successive terms. But legends often fall to modern reality.
And here is the modern reality. A Texan named George Mitchell taught the United States how to frack its way to abundant energy. Europe decided not to and Japan can’t find anywhere to do it. So the United States developed an energy advantage to go along with a labor advantage and, within a few years, was transformed from an energy-crippled, economically withering country to a vibrant manufacturer and energy exporter. Unemployment is down to 5.3 percent and, with two trade agreements expected in the next two years to further lower export hurdles, our economy will remain robust until the rest of the world can figure out how to get off coal and oil at a reasonable price (thus, for the next decade).
And we have almost no combat boots on the ground anywhere in the world.
With a strong economy supporting the status quo and no wars to challenge it, demographics will decide presidential elections.
As a matter of modern demographics, the Democratic coalition (urbanites, women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, the young and the like) beats the Republican nice-rich-white-guy coalition 51 percent to 47 percent. (See Obama vs. Romney.) And with Jeb Bush seemingly stepping in for Mitt Romney in 2016, another legendary adage comes to mind: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Running essentially the same demographic race as in 2012 under stable economic and combat conditions yields essentially the same result. Correcting slightly for Bush’s sincere run at the Hispanic part of the coalition, it’s probably Clinton by 3 percent for the next eight years.
The growing demographic gap, supported by the status quo of an energy-advantaged economy and the change in the nature of warfare (with Sunni countries fighting the extremists of the day instead of U.S. Marines) should last long enough to carry the 2016 and 2020 Clinton veep to the White House from 2025 into 2032.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8dcd4-3c81-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Interesting analysis. A little short on facts and long on supposition, but not baseless. I only posted the first part, because it's quite long. The rest of it should be a good read for those interested.
I see several flaws:
1. Clinton is more likely to self-destruct since any Democratic candidate since. . . the last Clinton.
2. The Republicans are not all fools, and if they get pounded in 2016, they'll change their ways.
3. The American public just gets tired of the same party in office for too long. That's what cost the Democrats Congress, despite high-quality gerrymandering. The public's patience is shorter with the White House.
4. The analysis ignores emerging candidates and "dark horses," probably not a good idea, given that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were all emergent, effectively unknown or ignored just a couple of years before they were elected.
5. Oh, and one for the wingnuts - the author underestimates the power of the good, right, white, Christian, straight Real Murkans to rise up and take back their country, gol-dang it! Guns, Confederate flags, and all!
By Howard Gutman August 7
The writer was U.S. ambassador to Belgium from 2009 to 2013.
Already tired of the 2016 race?
So many candidates, so much noise, but ultimately so little true drama. Prognosticators try to create a tough-to-call race like circus performers who fail twice at some daring stunt in order to build the tension for the third and final attempt.
So let’s turn to a more grown-up question: Who will be president of the United States in 2031?
It’s down to four.
First, the easy part. Hillary Clinton will likely win by about 3 percent — both in 2016 and 2020.
There is some legendary historical wisdom explaining the limits of an incumbent party’s ability to hold the White House for successive terms. But legends often fall to modern reality.
And here is the modern reality. A Texan named George Mitchell taught the United States how to frack its way to abundant energy. Europe decided not to and Japan can’t find anywhere to do it. So the United States developed an energy advantage to go along with a labor advantage and, within a few years, was transformed from an energy-crippled, economically withering country to a vibrant manufacturer and energy exporter. Unemployment is down to 5.3 percent and, with two trade agreements expected in the next two years to further lower export hurdles, our economy will remain robust until the rest of the world can figure out how to get off coal and oil at a reasonable price (thus, for the next decade).
And we have almost no combat boots on the ground anywhere in the world.
With a strong economy supporting the status quo and no wars to challenge it, demographics will decide presidential elections.
As a matter of modern demographics, the Democratic coalition (urbanites, women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, the young and the like) beats the Republican nice-rich-white-guy coalition 51 percent to 47 percent. (See Obama vs. Romney.) And with Jeb Bush seemingly stepping in for Mitt Romney in 2016, another legendary adage comes to mind: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Running essentially the same demographic race as in 2012 under stable economic and combat conditions yields essentially the same result. Correcting slightly for Bush’s sincere run at the Hispanic part of the coalition, it’s probably Clinton by 3 percent for the next eight years.
The growing demographic gap, supported by the status quo of an energy-advantaged economy and the change in the nature of warfare (with Sunni countries fighting the extremists of the day instead of U.S. Marines) should last long enough to carry the 2016 and 2020 Clinton veep to the White House from 2025 into 2032.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8dcd4-3c81-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html
Interesting analysis. A little short on facts and long on supposition, but not baseless. I only posted the first part, because it's quite long. The rest of it should be a good read for those interested.
I see several flaws:
1. Clinton is more likely to self-destruct since any Democratic candidate since. . . the last Clinton.
2. The Republicans are not all fools, and if they get pounded in 2016, they'll change their ways.
3. The American public just gets tired of the same party in office for too long. That's what cost the Democrats Congress, despite high-quality gerrymandering. The public's patience is shorter with the White House.
4. The analysis ignores emerging candidates and "dark horses," probably not a good idea, given that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama were all emergent, effectively unknown or ignored just a couple of years before they were elected.
5. Oh, and one for the wingnuts - the author underestimates the power of the good, right, white, Christian, straight Real Murkans to rise up and take back their country, gol-dang it! Guns, Confederate flags, and all!
