What Atlas was thinking around this time in 2006, 2010, and 2014

[pikachu]

After seeing the latest 'Who do you think will the Democratic nominee?' poll and because I have too much time on my hands, I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see how accurate Atlas has been in cycles past about this. Surprisingly (or maybe not), we actually haven't been horrible at this. I'm not really here to laugh at anyone's predictions, b/c let's face it, this is hard:

2008

June 2006, Democrats

So, this one is not a good prediction. First, we have Mark Warner get the plurality of the vote (ouch). We also had Al Gore and Russ Feingold getting significant amounts, so that's over 70% going to candidates who didn't even run. Hillary did ok in our poll, but she ended up being the only candidate who won a county to get votes from us. No one predicted an Obama victory and no votes for John Edwards despite his eventual third-place finish.

August 2006, Democrats

Again, two months after the last poll, Atlas continued to be high on Warner and Gore, with some Hillary predictions. At least here, we have some Edwards votes, but Obama's not even in the poll and no one mentions him in the thread.

June 2006, Republicans

On the positive side, a lot of McCain votes here! Also, the eventual second-place finishers, Romney and Huckabee got a handful of votes so not the worst prediction ever. On the negative side, George Allen got a plurality, which is rough. And Bill Frist was third.

August 2006, Republicans

In the post-Macaca world, Atlas started to correctly view McCain as the frontrunner, but there was still a decent number of people who thought that Allen could win. However, there are a few Romney and Huckabee predictions in there, which is respectable and a decent of amount for Rudy, which is kind of wild in hindsight.

August 2006, Who is mostly likely to become President?

Mark Warner.

2012

Atlas did a pretty good job in 2012 with getting Romney right.

June 2010, Republicans

We have a strong plurality for Romney here, which is a solid showing, but after that, it gets dicey. There was no consensus alternative, with Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich all effectively tying for second. Newt managed to win states in the primary, so it's not the worst prediction, but the other two didn't run. Eventual second-place finisher Rick Santorum did not get a single vote.

July 2010, What do you think the eventual result will be?

The forum was split 50-50 on the eventual winner. To our credit, we predicted a close election and a Democratic victory.

October 2010, Will Romney win the nomination?

32% of us said yes.

2016

The two things to take from here were how inevitable Hillary was and how Trump came out of nowhere.

August 2014, Who other than Hillary will run for the nomination

Sanders and O'Malley are No. 1 and 2, so good on us. Also a lot of Schweitzer hype.

August 2014, Democrats

85% for Hillary. Not much to say here. Puts into perspective just how much the field was cleared for her.

August 2014, Republicans

So obviously, no one predicted Trump. But still, look at these top four vote getters: Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Kasich, Pence, and Cruz tied for fifth. I think it's fair to say we blew this one.

I think there are two things to get from all this: First, it's not likely for whoever the hyped candidate is now to hold it all the way until the primaries actually start and second, pretty much any candidate who hasn't discussed running by this point likely won't.

[Cold War Liberal]

Interesting! Can't wait to look back and see what we get right and wrong about 2020

[Orser67]

Great post, would definitely read and appreciate similar ones

[Beet]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

[here2view]

I laughed when I saw someone referred to Hillary as "Killary" even back in 2006.

[Peanut]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

That depends on when you start thinking someone frontrunner. Kerry for example wasn't the frontrunner until the first few primaries. McCain lost a lot of momentum before the primaries.

Great list though. Quite fun to read.

[Beet]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

That depends on when you start thinking someone frontrunner. Kerry for example wasn't the frontrunner until the first few primaries. McCain lost a lot of momentum before the primaries.

Great list though. Quite fun to read.

Kerry was the front runner way back in 2003.

[Peanut]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

That depends on when you start thinking someone frontrunner. Kerry for example wasn't the frontrunner until the first few primaries. McCain lost a lot of momentum before the primaries.

Great list though. Quite fun to read.

Kerry was the front runner way back in 2003.

You could be right. I don't really remember the '04 election, but my impressions were that he wasn't the frontrunner. Then again, you could be right.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't Howard Dean frontrunner for a while?

[Sirius_]

Interesting to see. I will say that I expected Trump to be one of the first to drop out when he declared, so I wasn't very accurate on that one!

[Grassroots]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

That depends on when you start thinking someone frontrunner. Kerry for example wasn't the frontrunner until the first few primaries. McCain lost a lot of momentum before the primaries.

Great list though. Quite fun to read.

Kerry was the front runner way back in 2003.

Nope. Lieberman lead polls until summer 2003, then Howard Dean became the frontrunner and just before the Iowa caucus everyone thought Dean was just inevitable. Then Kerry upset the race when he won Iowa and Dean screamed, and that's history.

[CookieDamage]

Wow Mark Warner was seen as presidential material in 2006. How wrong everyone was.

[Mr. Morden]

Except for Mark Warner and missing Obama, it's actually not such a bad record. The frontrunner usually ends up getting the nod. In 2000, Bush and Gore started out as frontrunners. In 2004, Kerry started as the Dem frontrunner and got it. In 2008, Giuliani and McCain were joint frontrunners and McCain got it. Obama was 2nd and got it. In 2012, Romney started out as the frontrunner and got it. In 2016, Hillary was obviously the frontrunner for the Dems, and Trump was the frontrunner from within a month or two or his entering the race. The biggest surprises (Obama and Trump) were surprises because people had them off the radar; they didn't think this person would run. But once the field was set, starting out as a frontrunner is a good predictor of ultimate victory in the nomination.

That depends on when you start thinking someone frontrunner. Kerry for example wasn't the frontrunner until the first few primaries. McCain lost a lot of momentum before the primaries.

Great list though. Quite fun to read.

Kerry was the front runner way back in 2003.

Nope. Lieberman lead polls until summer 2003, then Howard Dean became the frontrunner and just before the Iowa caucus everyone thought Dean was just inevitable. Then Kerry upset the race when he won Iowa and Dean screamed, and that's history.

Lieberman led the polls for a while because of name recognition, but the pundit consensus was that he was too centrist to actually win the nomination, and so Kerry was regarded as the frontrunner by default for the first half of 2003.  Then Dean took the polling lead in about August or so, and was regarded as the frontrunner for the rest of the year, while Kerry's campaign started collapsing.  Then Kerry got crazy momentum in early 2004, and smoked Dean in Iowa, and that was that.

Similarly, McCain was leading betting markets for the 2008 GOP nomination at this point 12 years ago, but his campaign completely collapsed in the summer of 2007, and he had no money and had to fly coach, carry his own suitcase, etc.  Everyone thought he was a joke:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=59219.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=59684.0

As late as December 20th, BRTD started a thread saying that only Huckabee and Romney had a chance at the nomination (though most disagreed with him):

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66629

[Orser67]

Similarly, McCain was leading betting markets for the 2008 GOP nomination at this point 12 years ago, but his campaign completely collapsed in the summer of 2007, and he had no money and had to fly coach, carry his own suitcase, etc.

I wasn't politically aware for 2004, but I vividly remember in '08 how many people had written off McCain's candidacy. It never made much sense to me because he still had decent support in the polls and all of his competitors, except maybe Romney, were deeply flawed. The Kerry/McCain precedent (of a campaign wrongly be left for dead) is definitely worth remembering for the 2020 Democratic primary.

[Mr. Morden]

pretty much any candidate who hasn't discussed running by this point likely won't.

There are always some exceptions to this every cycle.  E.g., Rick Perry wasn't really doing anything to indicate interest in a presidential run until the spring of 2011.  But for the most part, yeah, the potential candidates tend to signal their interest by this point.  And yet, we sometimes have folks here who are in denial about this, and make it sound like we have no idea who's going to run, and it could be anyone.  Well sure, it *could* be anyone.  But history suggests that the bulk of the Democratic primary field will be drawn from one of the 30 or so potential candidates who have actually done something concrete to signal interest.

[pbrower2a]

Few people have had as swift a rise in American politics as Barack Obama. There was one portent: when he was a State Senator in Illinois, the TV journalist Tom Brokaw said "Watch this man". Brokaw is not given to hype, but he could see something in a state legislature that one rarely sees in them at his age. Journalists at his level don't usually pay attention to state legislatures unless they are caught up in scandal, and don't give attention just because the legislator wants it. 

He may have been good, but he should have been ready for 2012 or 2016, and not 2008.  Some of us saw the economic bubble for what it was and expected it to burst, the timing deciding whether Democrats or Republicans would win the Presidency. If the bubble burst in the summer of 2008 or earlier, then the Democrats would win the Presidency. October 2008 or later, the Republican elected to the Presidency would be the New Herbert Hoover. 

Senate -- most of us saw any chance of  Democrats winning a Senate majority that year as an inside straight, statistically a bad gamble. Such was not economic in cause.

House -- The six-year itch usually applies, and enough things other than the economy would allow Democrats to have a chance. 

2010 -- if you were a Democrat you thought that your elected officials were good enough to have avoided getting swept away in a wave that in fact happened. After the election we recognized the hard reality of American politics: he who has the gold makes the rules. Romney was a reasonable choice for Republicans, as he was less of a joke

Once the Tea Party won, many of us thought that Obama would be a one-term President. Again, money rules in political life.

2014 -- Democrats didn't see the other wave coming. Obama wasn't that bad, but there is the six-year itch. Republicans had the only asset that mattered -- campaign funds and organization, and that would seemingly decide everything.

Republicans had an unusually weak field awaiting them for the Presidency, and Donald Trump was a sick joke. He still is, but I would guess that the only people who could predict that he would be elected to the Presidency were casting horoscopes. As the mirror of the wave, 2016 should have been a good year for Democrats in House and Senate elections -- and it was only an abatement of the wave.

2018 -- I see Donald Trump as a singularly awful President who has been lucky that the hurt from policies that a near-majority of Americans on about every issue have fallen on the same near-majority. He will slip up, and one part of his constituency will get hurt -- and that will make him a one-term President. We may have a habit of re-electing our Presidents, with three consecutive two-term Presidents... but that comes to an end. He is not going to win  support from people who voted for Hillary Clinton; he can't lose much support from those who voted for him and still win the votes that he needs to hold onto the combination of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin or the combination of Florida and either Michigan, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania.

If Democrats do not win the Senate majority in 2018 they get it in 2020 because the Republicans have many Senate seats in 'purple' states (Iowa and North Carolina) and at least one 'blue' (Atlas Red) state (Colorado). 

Democrats have a huge quarterback controversy, so to speak -- just as did Republicans in 2016. The dominant factor in the 2020 election will be either Donald Trump (or should something happen to Trump), Mike Pence. Pence will be even more objectionable -- the sort of person who would suggest that anyone who dislikes his policies to simply read the Bible.  I read enough of the Bible (the Sermon on the Mount) and I can in no way excuse Donald Trump.