Romney versus Hillary in 2016 - Post your early map predictions

[The Vorlon]

Might be a barn burner election!

[Mister Twister]

The only way this barn starts burning is if Obama makes Romney Secretary of State and he and Biden are both killed.

Otherwise, this scenario is impossible

[Vosem]

The only way this barn starts burning is if Obama makes Romney Secretary of State and he and Biden are both killed.

Boehner would be President

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Clinton-Schweitzer 444
Romney-Ryan 94

[Inmate Trump]

Clinton - 303
Romney - 235

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

This will not happen.

[Inmate Trump]

This will not happen.

True, but that's not the point.  Everything on this entire board is hypothetical.  Now post your map

[Kaine for Senate '18]

398-140

[Cryptic]

398-140

[badgate]

because WHY NOT

[Knives]

[BlueSwan]

I don't care how well Bill Clinton did in the 90's. Hillary is not winning Appalachia. It ain't happening.

I think the result would be quite similar to the one we just had. Maybe Hillary can put Missouri into play, but not Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and not Arkansas either.

[General White]

Clinton-401
Romney-137

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This board is already worse than 2012 one.

[5280]

This board is already worse than 2012 one.

I agree,  I think by the end of 2016, the Democrat party will hit a new low before Obama leaves office.

[politicallefty]

I don't care how well Bill Clinton did in the 90's. Hillary is not winning Appalachia. It ain't happening.

I think the result would be quite similar to the one we just had. Maybe Hillary can put Missouri into play, but not Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and not Arkansas either.

I agree on the Appalachia point. It's gone and Democrats are not getting it back at the presidential level. In fact, we're lucky to have what we have at this point. And while Obama may not be Clinton, we would have at least seen a Democratic swing in Arkansas if you're going to account for the Clinton-effect. But that did not happen in the least bit. The only Southern states that we can truly compete in are Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida (perhaps Georgia in a good year). The common aspect among those states is that they are becoming less Southern as time goes on.

On topic, provided things are going reasonably well in 2016, I have little doubt Hilary would easily defeat Romney. However, I think most of the maps in this topic are simply wrong in thinking that Democrats can get back any of rural America (especially Appalachia) with Hillary at the top. Democrats probably have to get at least 55% nationwide to stand a chance at getting 400+ EV, unless Texas miraculously appears on the radar, which I don't expect to happen all that soon.

[opebo]

No change from 2012, except Hillary holds him to about 52% win in Arkansas.

[BlueSwan]

This is admittedly a pretty random bump, but I just wanted to remind people that this whole idea that Clinton is a deeply flawed, unliked, candidate only surfaced about a year ago or so. A few years back she was the most popular politician in the country and thought by many to be not only the inevtable next president, but also one that would beat even mainstream Pubs like Romney by a landslide. This thread is just one of numerous that widely predicts landslide victories for Clinton.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is admittedly a pretty random bump, but I just wanted to remind people that this whole idea that Clinton is a deeply flawed, unliked, candidate only surfaced about a year ago or so. A few years back she was the most popular politician in the country and thought by many to be not only the inevtable next president, but also one that would beat even mainstream Pubs like Romney by a landslide. This thread is just one of numerous that widely predicts landslide victories for Clinton.

Why was it necessary to bump this?

[Doimper]

This is admittedly a pretty random bump, but I just wanted to remind people that this whole idea that Clinton is a deeply flawed, unliked, candidate only surfaced about a year ago or so. A few years back she was the most popular politician in the country and thought by many to be not only the inevtable next president, but also one that would beat even mainstream Pubs like Romney by a landslide. This thread is just one of numerous that widely predicts landslide victories for Clinton.

Why was it necessary to bump this?

He explained right there in the post you quoted.

[Figueira]

I remember in 2013, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary probably won't run, but if she runs, she'll win in a landslide! (Except maybe against Chris Christie.)

At some point in 2014, everything switched, and people started claiming that Hillary was definitely going to lose, mostly as a reaction to the previous ideas.

[Doimper]

I remember in 2013, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary probably won't run, but if she runs, she'll win in a landslide! (Except maybe against Chris Christie.)

At some point in 2014, everything switched, and people started claiming that Hillary was definitely going to lose, mostly as a reaction to the previous ideas.

The abrupt shift from "Hillary is invincible" to "Hillary is a corrupt sellout Wall Street shill who'll get crushed in the general" gets blamed on Bernie a lot, but it was starting to happen before he even announced his candidacy. I think it's more a result of the Republicans being very successful at smearing the frontrunner.

[BlueSwan]

I remember in 2013, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary probably won't run, but if she runs, she'll win in a landslide! (Except maybe against Chris Christie.)

At some point in 2014, everything switched, and people started claiming that Hillary was definitely going to lose, mostly as a reaction to the previous ideas.

Are you sure it was in 2014? I'm thinking the thinking only really switched in 2015 and the question is exactly why this happened. I think a big part of it was the media wanting a competitive race and hence giving unduly room for criticism against her. I also think that Clinton was wrong in being quite passive during this whole process.

[Figueira]

I remember in 2013, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary probably won't run, but if she runs, she'll win in a landslide! (Except maybe against Chris Christie.)

At some point in 2014, everything switched, and people started claiming that Hillary was definitely going to lose, mostly as a reaction to the previous ideas.

Are you sure it was in 2014? I'm thinking the thinking only really switched in 2015 and the question is exactly why this happened. I think a big part of it was the media wanting a competitive race and hence giving unduly room for criticism against her. I also think that Clinton was wrong in being quite passive during this whole process.

I think it really took off once the 2014 midterms happened which inspired a lot of doomsaying on the left. For about a month after those elections, a lot of people on Atlas were predicting a Republican victory in 2016.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Post-bump map:

377-161: