How likely is is that the Democratic nominee will outperform Obama?

[Mister Mets]

In several of the discussions, I've noticed that the numbers some of you suggest are better than what President Obama got when seeking reelection in 2012?

I wonder if any of you expect the 2016 Democratic nominee to do better.
If so, why?

If it's a possibility although not a probability, how likely is that it would happen this way? Under what circumstances would this happen?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Very likely, because Hillary is Hillary. She's competitive in the Midwest and the South, but a bit less so in the Pacific West (Colorado, Nevada).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, I also think it's quite likely. Hillary will probably be the Democrats' nominee, and there's no reason why she wouldn't able to easily hold all of Obama's 2012 states. She'll have more appeal in Appalachia too, and just by virtue of her impressive resume and gravitas, she could very likely be competitive in places like Arizona and Georgia.

Plus, I'm not convinced the 2016 Republican field is that great. Rubio will flounder, and who else is there that could do better than Romney? Jeb Bush is a Bush, Santorum is widely regarded as a gigantic nutjob, Rand Paul is a fringe figure, Cruz is weak... the only real candidate who outperforms Romney is Christie. And against Clinton, the advantage is moot.

I wish I could be optimistic, because I really think Christie would be a good president (and moreover, he's the kind of Republic the party needs), but it's difficult to see how we win. Unless the dollar falls out from under itself, I'd bank on a second President Clinton.

[PolitiJunkie]

Not only is the national mood against Republicans right now and likely to stay that way into 2016 (Tea Party fading out and favorable maps for 2014 gubernatorial elections and 2016 senate elections, a lack of approval decrease for Obama despite Benghazo/IRS/AP leaks/PRISM due to the perception that Republican opposition is overreaching, disgust with the obstructionism in Bohener's House and McConnell's wing of the senate), but the 2016 GOP field is simply weaker than the Democratic one. Even if Hillary doesn't run, there are still some candidates that could defeat Cuomo that could rock the general, candidates like Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Schweitzer. Worst bet is we end up with Cuomo (I'm counting Biden as a non-factor), who would still be highly competitive against any non-Christie Republican. And on the Republican side, Christie probably couldn't make it out of a primary and if he did he'd be brutalized, Rubio looks nice on paper but would flounder at the national level (and would make very few inroads if any with Hispanics- identity politics is not big with Hispanics and even if it was, the Cuban population in Florida is highly different than the Mexican and otherwise-Latino one in NV/NM/CO), Martinez could only swing the Southwest if she was at the top of the ticket rather than the Veep (and how likely is that), Paul and Cruz are bizarre fringe candidates, Santorum is a whack job, Ayotte probably won't run, Ryan is damaged goods, Walker could be interesting but I'm not optimistic, etc. And finally, there is the fact that the electoral college seems to simply be in the Democrats' favor and the 2004 map does not look like it will be recovered. Florida, Iowa, and Ohio are still legitimate swing states that provide possibilities for the GOP, but Colorado and Virginia seem to be slipping out of the GOP's grasp, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, states that even Kerry won, seem like fools' gold, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire are gone with the exceptions of landslide elections or regional candidates, Michigan and Minnesota were never realistic hopes, and states like NC and AZ (and on a more long-term scale) GA, TX, MO, and MT seem to be evvvvvver so slowly trending left and possible parts of the Democratic base in due time.

So Mister Mets, even though you and others like to talk about the "Republican lean" of 2016 and how a "generic R" will "win by 3 points half the time" and even though you place states like Pennsylvania in your "Lean R" category, I frankly see all the evidence point the other way an believe your claims to be, to quote our beloved Veep, a bunch of malarkey. I try to avoid letting records factor into my political predictions because of how easily they can be destroyed and rendered meaningless. For example, McCain placed fourth in Iowa and got the nomination despite that never having happened in a Republican primary before, Gingrich won South Carolina but lost the nomination despite "the winner of South Carolina has won the Republican primary in every contest since primaries have been utilized), and the list of seemingly binding but quickly broken records go on. So I don't care about how few times a party has kept the White House for more than two terms in modern America, because all of those prognosticators are meaningless- you instead have to consider the specific circumstances of the year you are in- national mood, candidate strength, demographics, state leanings, and other current factors mean a lot more than historical precedent.

[pbrower2a]

The Hard Right peaked in 2010, and although it did things to consolidate an advantage for itself in subsequent elections (thus the Republicans could keep a House majority despite losing a majority of votes for House candidates in 2012), it has done nothing to erode the Obama coalition. Obama voters got a hard lesson in 2010 and are still getting one (Congress matters, too!). Obama voters on the whole remain wet behind the ears on the Machiavellian politics in play in America.  But they are learning, and they are going to lean how to beat Hard Right incumbents in R+3 to R+5 Congressional districts. (One way is to have candidates who well fit D+2 districts against incumbents well suited to R+20 districts. Extremists are always vulnerable).

If the Obama coalition holds, then Democrats are likely to make gains in the House, reverse many of the gubernatorial and state legislature gains of Republicans of 2010, and hold onto the US Senate (gains are unlikely because the Democrats have more Senate seats up for grabs in 2014). But note well -- 2014 will be a midterm election, and conservative parties tend to do well with a shrunken electorate in an election without a President unless mass discontent against that Party builds as in 2006. The Republicans offer no solutions to economic distress except even more distress for anyone not already rich, which is a losing proposition to all but economic elites.   By 2016 things could get extremely bleak for the Republicans because they have so many vulnerable Senators in moderate-to-liberal states.

The Republicans are able to harness increasing support among their key constituencies, but those constituencies are not growing. America is not becoming more Fundamentalist in religion. It is not getting whiter, either. Add to that, Americans have experience with a President who is definitely not white, and that he has not been a catastrophe. Barack Obama has shattered the glass ceiling for the Presidency that suggests that one almost must be a white Protestant male of English origin.  (JFK won because Nixon was physically ugly).

Republicans need to cut into the Obama coalition to win the Presidency in 2016. They will need to assuage some of the fears that many have that the Republican Party stands for nothing but wealth and privilege. It has played contempt for the intellect as far as it can go, and democrats have solutions that make use of learning of all kinds. They need to rebuild a coalition other than what they now have because with that they can win against only a very weak opponent for any office except in very safe seats.   


   

[© tweed]

1 in 5

[PolitiJunkie]

I agree with pretty much everything PolitiJunkie said.  However I differ in that I believe that we have some less-than-ideal candidates than I can realistically see clinching the nomination: Biden, Cuomo are the two big ones, but also Klobuchar and O'Malley.  Funnily enough, I consider all of those four to still be fully capable of winning the general, but it would be quite the battle and someone who doesn't look like a strong general contender like Rubio is definitely a strong match against someone like Klobuchar.

I realllllllly don't see Biden or O'Malley winning. Cuomo would very likely beat both of them, and, barring some sort of death/scandal/etc, the only way Cuomo's out is if Hillary's in, and obiously neither Biden nor O'Malley could beat Hillary.

Klobuchar is a bit more tricky but I don't see her being the nominee. If Hillary is in, Gillibrand is out, but if Hillary is out, Gillibrand is easily the leading female candidate. Now, some think Gillibrand would defer to Cuomo, which is possible, but not a sure thing. Gillibrand has been huge on women's issues and I can't imagine she'd be content with a woman-less field, not to mention how ambitious she has proven herself to be and the fact that she's a substantial amount more progressive than Cuomo. The other possibility is that Cuomo enters and Gillibrand does decide to stay out, making Klobuchar the leading female candidate and she enters. But once again, I think Cuomo would beat her. This entire analysis was done without any consideration of Elizabeth Warren, who I highly highly doubt will run. Has shown no interest, old, only a few years in senate, etc etc.

So of those four weak Dems you mentioned, the only one I think has any real shot at being the nominee is Cuomo. You never know though.

I think the strongest Dem candidates in the GENERAL without Hillary would be Schweitzer and
Gillibrand.

[PolitiJunkie]

I agree with pretty much everything PolitiJunkie said.  However I differ in that I believe that we have some less-than-ideal candidates than I can realistically see clinching the nomination: Biden, Cuomo are the two big ones, but also Klobuchar and O'Malley.  Funnily enough, I consider all of those four to still be fully capable of winning the general, but it would be quite the battle and someone who doesn't look like a strong general contender like Rubio is definitely a strong match against someone like Klobuchar.

I realllllllly don't see Biden or O'Malley winning. Cuomo would very likely beat both of them, and, barring some sort of death/scandal/etc, the only way Cuomo's out is if Hillary's in, and obiously neither Biden nor O'Malley could beat Hillary.

Klobuchar is a bit more tricky but I don't see her being the nominee. If Hillary is in, Gillibrand is out, but if Hillary is out, Gillibrand is easily the leading female candidate. Now, some think Gillibrand would defer to Cuomo, which is possible, but not a sure thing. Gillibrand has been huge on women's issues and I can't imagine she'd be content with a woman-less field, not to mention how ambitious she has proven herself to be and the fact that she's a substantial amount more progressive than Cuomo. The other possibility is that Cuomo enters and Gillibrand does decide to stay out, making Klobuchar the leading female candidate and she enters. But once again, I think Cuomo would beat her. This entire analysis was done without any consideration of Elizabeth Warren, who I highly highly doubt will run. Has shown no interest, old, only a few years in senate, etc etc.

So of those four weak Dems you mentioned, the only one I think has any real shot at being the nominee is Cuomo. You never know though.

I think the strongest Dem candidates in the GENERAL without Hillary would be Schweitzer and
Gillibrand.

And Warner.

[anvi]

It's impossible to say, since we don't know what will happen over the next three years.  But I was looking through some old election '12 stuff online today, and Steve Schmidt said something in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 election that was rather striking.  He noted that the last time a GOP presidential candidate got the same share of the white male vote as Mitt Romney did, in 1988, that candidate, Bush '41, was able to win over 400 EVs.  Romney only netted 206 EVs with that share.  Right at this particular moment, changing national demographics don't look great for the Pubs, so I would say that, with the right candidate and favorable political circumstances, it's likely.  But we know nothing of what the political landscape will look like in three years.

[morgieb]

Depends on the candidates. Hillary probably could in decent circumstances for the Democrats and against the non-Christie candidates. The others? Not very likely against someone that isn't Santorum or Cruz.

But as everyone says (and knows), it's still a long time to go.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's impossible to say, since we don't know what will happen over the next three years.  But I was looking through some old election '12 stuff online today, and Steve Schmidt said something in the immediate aftermath of the 2012 election that was rather striking.  He noted that the last time a GOP presidential candidate got the same share of the white male vote as Mitt Romney did, in 1988, that candidate, Bush '41, was able to win over 400 EVs.  Romney only netted 206 EVs with that share.  Right at this particular moment, changing national demographics don't look great for the Pubs, so I would say that, with the right candidate and favorable political circumstances, it's likely.  But we know nothing of what the political landscape will look like in three years.

Yes but also you bring up the bigger reason: Hillary or whoever will get a much higher % of the white vote.

[Mister Mets]

I think it's unlikely that the 2016 Democratic nominee will outperform Obama.

First, it would be a rare occurrence. Voters have a tendency to kick a party out of the White House after two terms, but even when a party keeps the White House for longer, it's by smaller margins. FDR had a smaller margin in 1940 than he did in 1936, and a smaller margin in 1944 than in 1940. Truman had a smaller margin in 1948 than FDR did in 1940. Bush won 1988 big, but it was by a smaller margin than Reagan's reelection. You have to go back to 1928 to find an exception, although that's due to unusual circumstances (a conservative Democratic nominee in 1924 meant that a third party nominee got fifteen percent of the vote.)

Obama is a gifted politician, able to get crowds that don't normally vote. Hillary Clinton doesn't have that. She's inspirational to the people who were going to vote for the nominee anyway.

We don't know whether Hillary will run. And the other potential nominees (Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gilibrand, Martin O'Malley) don't seem particularly strong.

While demographics are favoring Democrats, the effects of that won't be as significant in 2016.

The Republican candidates aren't all bad. Chris Christie is an electoral powerhouse. Marco Rubio is a gifted politician. Paul Ryan has youth and intelligence.

In order to overcome Republican skepticism and win a primary against these guys, Jeb would need to demonstrate significant political skill. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul can come across as extremists, although neither is favored to win the nomination.

[opebo]

I'd say just about 1/4, and only if it is Clinton.  The problem is youth and minority turnout. 

[Ogre Mage]

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee I'd say there is about a 40% chance she would outperform assuming a fairly neutral political environment.  Granted her youth and minority turnout levels might not be as good as Obama's, but do we really need to guess if women would turn out in record numbers to vote for Hillary as the first female president?  They might not for just any woman candidate but for her I believe they would.

If the Democratic nominee is someone else I don't think they would outperform Obama.

[milhouse24]

I think many voters will care about the Scandals currently engulfing the Obama administration in the 2nd term including the online spying scandals, but it seems that many Democratic voters don't care about those scandals, online spying, and are just blinded by Obama's personality and smile. 

Hillary could be hurt by Obama scandals in a rational world, as well as the Democratic party.  It won't be a fatal blow akin to the GWB and Iraq War mismanagement.  Of course, Democrats will argue that the Republicans will always be worse than whatever a Democrat does in office. 

White turnout was low in 2012 because the evangelicals stayed home.  It will be an interesting election because turnout will be unpredictable because I think the young people will stay home.  It will come down to turnout, which will be lower than 2012 and 2008, so in theory it should give a slight edge to the Republicans before the candidates are chosen. 

[Sec. of State Superique]

Warner/Gilibrand or Warner/Schweitzer could hold Obama's Coalition and maybe get some news states but I'm not so sure. Hillary would have higher landslide chances though!

[pbrower2a]

Average result: 3% better than Barack Obama. Race.

[Mister Mets]

I think it's unlikely that the 2016 Democratic nominee will outperform Obama.

First, it would be a rare occurrence. Voters have a tendency to kick a party out of the White House after two terms, but even when a party keeps the White House for longer, it's by smaller margins. FDR had a smaller margin in 1940 than he did in 1936, and a smaller margin in 1944 than in 1940. Truman had a smaller margin in 1948 than FDR did in 1940. Bush won 1988 big, but it was by a smaller margin than Reagan's reelection. You have to go back to 1928 to find an exception, although that's due to unusual circumstances (a conservative Democratic nominee in 1924 meant that a third party nominee got fifteen percent of the vote.)

I've considered this.

I would say it's about 50/50 because the 2012 elections results were not the norm. What historically tends to happen for incumbents re-elected to a second full term is gains with both electoral-vote score and popular-vote margin. Obama had declines because the country felt the economy and jobs weren't coming back enough ... but went ahead and re-elected him. Part of that, of course, was that Romney didn't persuade the country to vote him to unseat the 44th president. And the polls showed Bush still got the blame. So, the enthusiasm was reduced.

2012 rewrote some of the rules.

In 2016, I want to know President Obama's job-approval percentage; the party nominees; and then look at state pollings for trajectories.

That can get complicated.

Obama also benefited from the 2008 financial meltdown. So it could be that he did better than he should have in '08 and 2012 was a correction.

Or maybe he would have won Georgia and Missouri if the economy was in better shape. Who knows.

I will note that I'm not asking the odds of a Democratic nominee will win in 2016. It could happen that the nominee does about 3-5 points worse than Obama, but still wins the White House with 272 electoral votes (285 if a Virginian is on the ticket.)

[perdedor]

I'd say its inevitable if the Tea Party finally gets their Presidential candidate. You're looking at 1964 numbers if its Hillary vs Paul or Cruz.

[Mr. Morden]

Who the heck knows?  It's still just June 2013.  Way too early to make any kind of intelligent guess about how the 2016 general election will play out.  I'm more interested in speculating on, and following, the 2016 primary races, which have already effectively begun.  But for the general election, three years out is too long a timeframe to know anything.  Remember when GHW Bush was a lock for reelection, only to see his popularity crumble in 1991?  Or when Bill Clinton was a lock for defeat in his own reelection bid, before his comeback in 1996?  Too far out at this point to know anything.