Has any non-incum 3 years out ever been better set-up than Hillary?

[Bull Moose Base]

She's not invincible but I can't think of anyone who was in as strong a position.

[eric82oslo]

She's not invincible but I can't think of anyone who was in as strong a position.

I can't imagine who would have been. I say no.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Nixon, before the '68 election. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

She left as Secretary of State with very positive approval numbers.
No one but staunch Republicans care about Bengazi, and you guys weren't voting for her anyway
No matter how hard the Republicans try her age won't be an issue, she's the same age as Reagan was when he ran for POTUS.

[Bull Moose Base]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Nope. She's in an exponentially stronger position to win the nomination for 2016 (basically a shoo-in) compared to 2008.

Nixon, before the '68 election.  

In the summer of 65, 3 years after Nixon lost a California gubernatorial race and 6 months after LBJ won a huge landslide, Nixon was in as strong a position as Hillary is right now? Come on.

[bore]

Eisenhower?

[illegaloperation]

Nate Silver:

"From the standpoint of the party primary, it's almost as though she's an incumbent president, right, where she even trumps, kind of, the VP, who very often wins nomination after a president is term-limited," said Silver, who was interviewed by Katie Couric in an evening session. "If you look at polls, you know, 60 to 70 percent of Democrats say they prefer Hillary to be the nominee. There's no kind of non-incumbent in history with those types of numbers."

[BluegrassBlueVote]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I can think of only one: Hillary Clinton in 2005.

[Mister Mets]

Incumbent Vice Presidents are usually pretty strong. See Richard Nixon in 1957, George HW Bush in 1985 and Al Gore in 1997.

Hubert Humphrey's in a different category, since in 1965, it was expected LBJ would run for reelection. Although he still won.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Maybe James Madison, Andrew Jackson (1825), Martin Van Buren (1833), Grant, Taft, and Hoover.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

People do care about Benghazi. The story made national headlines, and innocent Americans died.

And it's not just Benghazi; that's just one part of it.

You have to look everywhere -- Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, etc. Did the situations improve or get worse during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State? What mistakes did she make? Those are questions people are going to ask, and rightfully so.

Her secretary of state tenure provides ammunition for her competitors, both on the Republican and Democratic side.

Silly Redban. Republicans aren't people. They're grown in test tubes in the Christian labs in Kansas.

[Asian Nazi]

No Democrats, for better or worse, care about Benghazi.  There is literally nobody in the weak Democratic field that could challenge Clinton for the nomination successfully if she wants it.

[Bull Moose Base]

Incumbent Vice Presidents are usually pretty strong. See Richard Nixon in 1957, George HW Bush in 1985 and Al Gore in 1997.

For the nomination, but no incumbent VP had been elected president in over 100 years before HW. In 85, the GOP had won 4 of the last 5, and 3 of the last 4 decisively so HW isn't a bad comparison. But I think the Dems' brand then wasn't in as bad shape as the GOP's is today so Hillary's probably in an even stronger position than he was.

[Mister Mets]

Incumbent Vice Presidents are usually pretty strong. See Richard Nixon in 1957, George HW Bush in 1985 and Al Gore in 1997.

For the nomination, but no incumbent VP had been elected president in over 100 years before HW. In 85, the GOP had won 4 of the last 5, and 3 of the last 4 decisively so HW isn't a bad comparison. But I think the Dems' brand then wasn't in as bad shape as the GOP's is today so Hillary's probably in an even stronger position than he was.

I thought your comment was limited to primaries.

There have probably been stronger General Election candidates 3 1/2 years before the election. Ike's the obvious one.

Frankly, we don't know what the environment is going to be like in 2016. It could very well be that Hillary is the next McCain, the immensely popular national figure who wins the nomination in a great cycle for the other party.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

People do care about Benghazi. The story made national headlines, and innocent Americans died.

And it's not just Benghazi; that's just one part of it.

You have to look everywhere -- Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, etc. Did the situations improve or get worse during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State? What mistakes did she make? Those are questions people are going to ask, and rightfully so.

Her secretary of state tenure provides ammunition for her competitors, both on the Republican and Democratic side.

Silly Redban. Republicans aren't people. They're grown in test tubes in the Christian labs in Kansas.

This is where the double standard on the Atlas really starts to shine through. If anyone with a blue avatar said "Democrats aren't people," I can't even imagine the amount of sh*t that would hit the fan.

Sorry, but it's true. Gotta call it out.

[Liberalrocks]

The only past candidate, scenario would be Dwight Eisenhower 1952.

[Blue3]

Eisenhower, though 2 people already beat me to it!

[morgieb]

Veeps.

Other than that...not recently. Eisenhower sort of counts but no-one knew where he was politically aligned.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

People do care about Benghazi. The story made national headlines, and innocent Americans died.

And it's not just Benghazi; that's just one part of it.

You have to look everywhere -- Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, etc. Did the situations improve or get worse during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State? What mistakes did she make? Those are questions people are going to ask, and rightfully so.

Her secretary of state tenure provides ammunition for her competitors, both on the Republican and Democratic side.

People who were either going to vote for Hillary or are currently undecided on her?

No, not really. Not even a little.

[Knives]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

People do care about Benghazi. The story made national headlines, and innocent Americans died.

And it's not just Benghazi; that's just one part of it.

You have to look everywhere -- Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, etc. Did the situations improve or get worse during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State? What mistakes did she make? Those are questions people are going to ask, and rightfully so.

Her secretary of state tenure provides ammunition for her competitors, both on the Republican and Democratic side.

This is just so wrong...

[Asian Nazi]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

You can't be serious. Hillary is much stronger with the Democratic base now than in 2008 due to Iraq not being a salient issue anymore... and no one cares about Benghazi.

People do care about Benghazi. The story made national headlines, and innocent Americans died.

And it's not just Benghazi; that's just one part of it.

You have to look everywhere -- Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, etc. Did the situations improve or get worse during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State? What mistakes did she make? Those are questions people are going to ask, and rightfully so.

Her secretary of state tenure provides ammunition for her competitors, both on the Republican and Democratic side.

Silly Redban. Republicans aren't people. They're grown in test tubes in the Christian labs in Kansas.

This is where the double standard on the Atlas really starts to shine through. If anyone with a blue avatar said "Democrats aren't people," I can't even imagine the amount of sh*t that would hit the fan.

Sorry, but it's true. Gotta call it out.

So oppressed.  Lemme get my crown of thorns for you after I finish playing the world's smallest violin.

[bballrox4717]

Hoover and Eisenhower are first and second in my mind. Both were immensely popular leaders who had the rare gift as being seen as ready for the office yet never ran for any other office. they weren't politicians in the public's eyes. Hoover had the added benefit of not having any serious contention for the nomination, while Eisenhower had to get rid of Taft first.

Hillary, though, isn't set up like a VP in the second term of a president. She's not seen the same way as Gore, HW Bush, Humphrey or even Nixon in 1960,. Her popularity isn't tied to Obama the way a VP is, while still owning the main benefit the VP has in party unity. Because of the competitiveness of the 2008 primary, there's contrast between her and Obama.  She won't do this to Obama directly, but others campaigning for her can say that she govern better than Obama yet essentially hold the same ideology. Lastly, of course, she brings the same excitement that Obama had in 2008 and which she would have enjoyed had she won her party's nomination because she will be the first female nominee for president. It's really saying something that only Hoover and Eisenhower have been in better position to win 3 years out that she is right now.

[Mr. Morden]

She's clearly got the best setup to win the nomination of any non-incumbent in the post-McGovern/Fraser reform era.  It doesn't really make sense to compare odds of winning the nomination for races before that, because the nomination system was completely different.

On the general election, I don't think she's as strong as most people here seem to think.  It's just way too early to assess how she'd do in a GE.  But there again, it doesn't make sense to compare her to candidates in the pre-polling era.  If we didn't have polling today, would we have enough information to assess how strong of a candidate she is?

[barfbag]

Bush and Gore