[Q&A] Political Predictions Repository

Want to make your mark and be GWJ famous?

This is a place to deposit political predictions you'd like to make in public, so that they can be easily found and referenced in the future. Thus, it is not a discussion thread; discussions of predictions should take place in other threads as conversations proceed. Explicit clarification questions and answers are fine, but "Why do you think that?" expositions should occur elsewhere so as not to clutter the repository. Predictions should be narrowly defined; testable with publicly available information at all times; have an explicit date range; and refer to events, people and places explicitly so as to leave no doubt of resolution; and they should be numbered sequentially so that they are easier to find at later dates. Edits must be clearly marked and original text preserved through the use of strike-throughs if the prediction is modified. Please avoid the use of generalities - "The President will change his mind on this topic" is less useful than "The President will change his policy from yes to no on this topic", because the latter prevents a tiny change from being claimed as success. Failed predictions should be marked in bold at the top of the post via an edit, leaving the rest intact.

1. Within 5 years we’ll have concrete proof that over 20 Republican national office holders are implicated as co-conspirators in the Russian influence operation.

Gremlin wrote:

13.1 When Muller's investigation of the administration makes charges public, they will include something out of left field (so something other than just obstruction of justice and collusion) and provide evidence of crimes other than those connected to the Russian interference in the election.

Does your definition of 'out of left field' include financial crimes? We already have significant indications that Mueller is looking into money laundering, tax evasion, etc, but neither of those fall into the 'obstruction' or 'collusion' camps necessarily.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

13.1 When Muller's investigation of the administration makes charges public, they will include something out of left field (so something other than just obstruction of justice and collusion) and provide evidence of crimes other than those connected to the Russian interference in the election.

Does your definition of 'out of left field' include financial crimes? We already have significant indications that Mueller is looking into money laundering, tax evasion, etc, but neither of those fall into the 'obstruction' or 'collusion' camps necessarily.

I'll say yes, because I haven't seen very many pundits talking about it. And, especially, conservative columnists haven't been inventing money laundering excuses yet.

Gremlin wrote:

I'll say yes, because I haven't seen very many pundits talking about it. And, especially, conservative columnists haven't been inventing money laundering excuses yet.

My prediction is that conservatives will say that we need to wait until after the presidency to fully explore/prosecute these claims because "there is too much politics involved" or something to that effect.

Gremlin wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

13.1 When Muller's investigation of the administration makes charges public, they will include something out of left field (so something other than just obstruction of justice and collusion) and provide evidence of crimes other than those connected to the Russian interference in the election.

Does your definition of 'out of left field' include financial crimes? We already have significant indications that Mueller is looking into money laundering, tax evasion, etc, but neither of those fall into the 'obstruction' or 'collusion' camps necessarily.

I'll say yes, because I haven't seen very many pundits talking about it. And, especially, conservative columnists haven't been inventing money laundering excuses yet.

Frankly I would be more surprised if money laundering is not part of it.

Yeah, I mean, I'll give you the prediction either way but I might quibble on the 'out of left field' bit if it's just the money laundering stuff. I've heard a lot of pundits talking about it ever since it was the majority of crimes Manafort and Gates were indicted on.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Yeah, I mean, I'll give you the prediction either way but I might quibble on the 'out of left field' bit if it's just the money laundering stuff. I've heard a lot of pundits talking about it ever since it was the majority of crimes Manafort and Gates were indicted on.

Let me revise it a bit: money laundering being a charge counts as a weak prediction, the President, Vice President, or Speaker of the House being indicted on money laundering is my strong prediction.

My bold prediction since we are going big is that Trump, on a state visit to Russia, will slip his Secret Service team and hand over state secrets in exchange for asylum.

Paleocon wrote:

My bold prediction since we are going big is that Trump, on a state visit to Russia, will slip his Secret Service team and hand over state secrets in exchange for asylum.

And Sean Hannity will still support him.

"He wouldn't have had to defect if not for the Democrat witch hunt!"

My bold prediction is that Nothing of Substance Will Happen. Trump will preside for the reminding 3 years and then leave politics because..family, health, reasons.
Dems and reps will be still nuking it out in the ruins of the american dream.
Russians will be sulking that they have lost such a destructive force and then move on, unsure if they didnt overplay their hand and whether it was all worth it.
The winner will be China that consolidated power, wealth and opportunities during all this farce.

Most wrote:

My bold prediction is that Nothing of Substance Will Happen. Trump will preside for the reminding 3 years and then leave politics because..family, health, reasons.
Dems and reps will be still nuking it out in the ruins of the american dream.
Russians will be sulking that they have lost such a destructive force and then move on, unsure if they didnt overplay their hand and whether it was all worth it.
The winner will be China that consolidated power, wealth and opportunities during all this farce.

Likely.

Sometimes I have unrealistic faith in Americans.

Two predictions:

1.) Whatever Mueller finds or recommends, Trump will finish his term and run for re-election in 2020.

2.) Whether or not Trump wins in 2020, the party continues to radicalize (but especially if he loses). I have seen articles arguing that "Trumpism" cannot survive without Trump, and I feel this is wrong. Trumpism is now, in the main, conservatism. He is the Republican party.

To resurrect this thread in these times of change and chaos:

1) Stormy Daniels wins her lawsuit (but it won't matter since the details are pretty much already known and the mystery thug who threatened her will never be found).

2) Cohen, Don Jr., and Ivanka are all charged with crimes relating to the Trump Organization's activities (or make plea deals to avoid such charges).

3) This may be considered a gimme but I feel like it's still in question: President Trump will extend at least 1 pardon in relation to crimes either charged by the Mueller investigation or revealed in the course of the Mueller investigation (like the SDNY case).

I hope he does number 3, because the person pardoned will potentially lose the Fifth Amendment protection, since at that point there'd be no risk for them to speak.

Prederick wrote:

2.) Whether or not Trump wins in 2020, the party continues to radicalize (but especially if he loses). I have seen articles arguing that "Trumpism" cannot survive without Trump, and I feel this is wrong. Trumpism is now, in the main, conservatism. He is the Republican party.

I feel like I'm being proven more and more right on this with every passing week.

A longer-term one though:

At some point within the next 2-4 election cycles, a candidate will run for an office of national importance (Governor, House Rep., Senate, etc.) explicitly on the 14 (and probably implicitly on the 88) and have a solid chance of winning.

Let's do some short-term predictions for once:

14.1 Children will continue to be taken from their families for at least a couple more days
14.2 We won't get any photos from the sites where the girls are being held.
14.3 By the end of summer, there will still be thousands of children who have not been reunited with their families.
14.4 There will be many hot takes that praise Trump for solving the crisis, ignoring that it was an unnecessary crisis that he manufactured himself.
14.5 In 20 days, the Flores Settlement will kick in. The administration will respond by separating families again, and blame the courts.

Looks like my #3 may be getting more scrutiny.

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments.

The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated little-used anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution known as the emoluments clauses.

This ruling appeared to mark the first time a federal judge had interpreted those Constitutional provisions and applied their restrictions to a sitting president.

If the ruling stands, it could bring unprecedented scrutiny onto Trump’s businesses — which have sought to keep their transactions with foreign states private, even as their owner sits in the Oval Office.

little-used anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution known as the emoluments clauses.

"little used" maybe because all the presidents since the 70s have done it

I don't think that's true, Karma, but maybe a thread?

With QAnon having gone (effectively) mainstream this week, I'm going to make my first Stone Cold Lock of the Century of the Week prediction:

Whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2020 will be smeared as a pedophile by the far-right. The only question is how successful the campaign will be and if Trump will reference it (if it finds any traction at all, there is a 100% chance he'll bring it up).

That is a safe prediction if I ever saw one

Robear wrote:

I don't think that's true, Karma, but maybe a thread?

I meant they have followed the rules so I did not understand why it is said "little used" in the article.

Prederick wrote:

A longer-term one though:

At some point within the next 2-4 election cycles, a candidate will run for an office of national importance (Governor, House Rep., Senate, etc.) explicitly on the 14 (and probably implicitly on the 88) and have a solid chance of winning.

After seeing Laura Ingraham's immigration talk last night, I'd like to amend this prediction to "in the next two, at most 3 cycles".