Social Question

LostInParadise's avatar

How likely is it that Russ Feingold will run for President in 2016?

Asked by LostInParadise (28571points) March 12th, 2011

Here is the scenario. Russ Feingold becomes governor of Wisconsin in a recall election next year. He restores the power of public unions and pushes a progressive agenda that allows Wisconsin to recover economically ahead of the other states. His political momentum then carries him to the presidency, our first Jewish president succeeding our first African American one. A new progressive era undoes the damage done by conservatives, ushering in a new era of prosperity. Israelis love him because he is Jewish and Arabs love him because he demands a politically independent Palestinian state, which he helps bring about in his first year in office.

Well if could happen.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

marinelife's avatar

A nice pipe dream.

12Oaks's avatar

It seems that in your scenario you have Obama winning 2012. Still, I couldn’t really care less about first black or Jewish or redhead. Means nothing. But 2016 is a long way off. The 2011 election season is here and there are important races there. Heck, our city may have the first mayor since our last, a 2 termer. It will take a lot for him to lose. Gotta thank our lucky stars out town doesn’t have term limits.

filmfann's avatar

We are lucky to have Obama as a president at a time when the middle east is going thru such an upheaval, because of the percieved empathy from him. Imagine if we had a Jew as president right now. Not good.

flutherother's avatar

Loved by the Israelis and loved by the Arabs. How is that going to work? I am with Feingold on a lot of his policies but I don’t see him ever being President. Are you a betting man?

12Oaks's avatar

@flutherother I’m a betting man, will bet almost anything, but I don’t think you could create a line to get me to wager for that. Still, we have 2012 to get through before even considering to thing about 2016. I haven’t wagered yet for 2012, though bets are out there. Too early and too generic for me. Once some names are on the lines, then let the wagering begin!! A favorite is how many pumps the handshake will be at the start of a debate. The over/under is 3.5. I also like the “Who will talk out of turn first” wager.

Jaxk's avatar

We’ve got to undo the damage done by the liberals first. Remember they’re still in power.

Jaxk's avatar


Yes, Obama has certainly had a stabilizing impact on the Middle East.

LostInParadise's avatar

I am not a betting man, but I would wager on Obama being re-elected. The field of likely GOP candidates is very weak. I think it is telling that hardly anyone has officially declared yet.

As for Feingold, I am not laying any bets, but I will hold on to the fantasy for as long as I can.

12Oaks's avatar

@LostInParadise Get back to me in about a year and let’s talk lines. When it comes to betting, I am 100% non-partisan. I will bet against my favorite teams, wager with a family member and expect to get paid upon losing, and will bet on almost anything. I will never, ever, welch on a bet though. I can’t believe that Governor Quinn of Illinois actually has the audacity to welch on his bet, no matter the reason. That is just about the lowest form of life one could be, a welcher.

As for lines this year, I’ll bet you, oh, 4 to 1 that the current mayor or my city, a 2 term democrat, will take a third. I’ll also say, let’ see, 12.5 to be the over/under on the percentage won by the current mayor. Will also be sporting here…. will give 2.5 on the over under for councilman seats (7 district and 3 at-large) changing parties.

I’d also bet you even odds that Rahm Emmanuel will be a one-term mayor for Chicago.

filmfann's avatar

@Jaxk That isn’t what I said, but I am amused by your comment. Lurve.

Jaxk's avatar


Sorry, the devil made me do it.

LostInParadise's avatar

@12Oaks , You may be interested in this election handicapping One of its conclusions is that the Republicans do not look good for 2012 but will be poised for 2016, which if true would not be good for Feingold or any other Deomocrat.

12Oaks's avatar

@LostInParadise No offense, but I’m not really a fan of partisan websites. Whether it’s Salon or Heritage, it’s really more just preaching to choirs.

There are lines out. Obama is a -125 as of 03–13-11. This is not unusual, as the incumbant is always the favorite to win at this stage, and -125 is about as low as it’s been for many elections. If you go by Vegas odds handicapping, and I have no idea how they figure these lines, the next favorite to win is Sarah Palin at +1000, which is right low oods to pay. Coming in at +1500 is Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee, and Rob Portman. In this field of 26 candidates, Joe Wurzelbacher brings up the tail at a +10000. Place a buck, you may get lucky.

Once the field gets widdled down, these odds will change, of course. More times than not, the Republican and Democrat are just about even odds, like +800 for one and +1000 for another. Oh, and as an aside, Russ Feingold isn’t even handicapped on this, but Donald Trump is a +5000. Still, in my gambling world, it is way too early to even consider placing a bet. Gotta wager the NH primaries, Iowa caucus, and other primaries first.

Please don’t take any of this as a political statement on my part when it comes to these odds and history of the lines and stuff. Like I say, I’m a 100% non-partisan gambler. Betting your favorite just because he’s your favorite will make you a very poor gambler. Kind of like going all in on pocket aces before the flop. That’s just not always the winning hand, not by a long shot.

LostInParadise's avatar

Granted that Salon is a partisan site, but I thought the article was fairly unbiased. It came out favoring Republicans in 2016. I thought the 3 term rule rather interesting. I did not realize that power shifts back and forth so frequently. I also found interesting the strategy for the lesser known Republican candidates to run but lose the nomination for 2012 as preparation for 2016.

I find it curious that Hilary Clinton comes in ahead of all the Republican candidates other than Sarah Palin. Given Palin’s low polling numbers in Iowa and NH, I am surprised that she is doing so well. You say that Obama’s -125 is fairly low for an incumbent at this stage, but it does not seem to say much for the Repbulicans that their best choice comes in at 1000.

One of the reasons that Feingold is not showing up imayb be that he has said that he will not run in 2012. Of course he is a politician and I am not sure how much stock Vegas puts in the word of a politician, though Feingold does have more integrity than most.

12Oaks's avatar

@LostInParadise Generally, the incumbant at this stage is right about where Obama is now. Bush, a year before the 2004 elections, was a -500. Historically, though, the numbers are where they generally always are. The incumbant a slight favorite with the opposition party around +1000 or +2000. In this stage for the 1992 elections, one Bill Clinton was a +5000 while Bush 1 was a -200.

Honestly, though, I wouldn’t recommend making any wagers for the 2012 elections. Not to say anything but a simple fact, and that is there is no guarantee that any candidate, including Obama, will, for whatever reason, be around come the summer of 2012.

This is just advise. Bet at your own risk. :-)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther