Impact of Hillary Clinton

[barfbag]

What states could Hillary Clinton put back into play if she were to run?

West Virginia- probably too far gone

Kentucky- probably too far gone

Georgia- only if she were to win by her husband's margin which I don't perceive

Arizona- only if she were to win by her husband's margin which I don't perceive

Indiana- 2008 anomaly

Montana- possibly

Tennessee- will be very interesting to see

Missouri- wouldn't be surprised for her to make a run at it

Of course we'll have the traditional PA, OH, FL, VA, NC, CO, NM, NV, NH, IA, WI, MN, MI, and even OR and ME could be compromised as she does better in Appalachian states. I don't think they'll go anywhere, but like MO could be close. Then we have Chris Christie who could put light blue states such as Washington into play. We could be looking at half of the states being within five points. However, let's stay on topic and discuss which states Hillary Clinton puts in play and states she loses that are normally closer.

[roadkill]

I can't imagine that the 2016 map will look different than the 2012 map did, except for maybe North Carolina, if Hillary is the Dem's nominee.  I'm not even sure if Christie could win his own state.  There's always going to be a certain group of states that are called "toss-ups" or "battlegrounds", but usually there are only about 2 or 3 that's just as likely to go one way as the other.  I would say that Virginia is now a true toss-up, where as Pennsylvania is not.

[Mister Mets]

The main goal of the 2016 Democratic nominee will be to keep as many of the Obama states as possible, knowing that they can still win the election if they lose Ohio, Florida and Virginia (and you can swap VA with the combination of Colorado and Iowa).

North Carolina was the only state Romney won by less than seven points (his margin of victory was just over two points.)

Georgia, Arizona and Missouri were the only other states where Romney's margin of victory was in the single digits. And that was when the Democrats had an incumbent President who is widely considered a better campaigner than Hillary Clinton.

So unless the Republicans pick a weak candidate who makes serious gaffes, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to put any states back into play.

[roadkill]

So unless the Republicans pick a weak candidate who makes serious gaffes, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to put any states back into play.

The one unknown that could change that is how much of the women's vote is Hillary likely to get.  Obama got 55%.  Is Hillary looking at the same level, a little more, or a lot more?  If she winds up getting 60% - 65% or more, she could turn a lot of states.  I know a lot of women who didn't vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012 that have said they would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat, my wife being one of them.  I think that's what Republican strategist fear the most.

[TarHeelDem]

If the Republicans run Christie and he has a solid campaign, Colorado and Ohio are in play. Either way NC is a toss-up and MO is finally in play again. VA still leans Dem.

[barfbag]

If the Republicans run Christie and he has a solid campaign, Colorado and Ohio are in play. Either way NC is a toss-up and MO is finally in play again. VA still leans Dem.

How do you know three years in advance?

[Skill and Chance]

So unless the Republicans pick a weak candidate who makes serious gaffes, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to put any states back into play.

The one unknown that could change that is how much of the women's vote is Hillary likely to get.  Obama got 55%.  Is Hillary looking at the same level, a little more, or a lot more?  If she winds up getting 60% - 65% or more, she could turn a lot of states.  I know a lot of women who didn't vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012 that have said they would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat, my wife being one of them.  I think that's what Republican strategist fear the most.

This is a great point, and I think it is something that those who emphasize Obama's appeal to African-American voters curiously ignore.  Let's say that the electorate jumps from 53%W/47%M in 2012 to 55%W/45%M in 2016 with Clinton winning women 62%/37% vs. 55%/44% in 2012, which would exactly match Obama's improvements over Kerry in turnout and margin among black voters.  This would make the election a very uphill climb for any Republican.  There is no obvious counter-trend that would lead the R nominee to 67%+ of the male vote in a Clinton election, which is what they would need to win under these circumstances.   

This also seems to show up in what little 2016 polling we have.  Colorado, where Clinton polls poorly, is one of them most male states in the country, while the Southern states where she is shown massively improving over Obama are among the most female.

[Skill and Chance]

Looking at the broader picture, I expect that the natural state of the 2016 open seat election is a tie, however, Hillary has amassed an Ike-like cross-party following.  She is currently functioning as a defacto 3rd party because people envision her as governing much more differently from Obama than she actually would.  So I see 3 possibilities for 2016:

1. The Obama administration and/or the economy collapses between now and 2016.  This creates a reverse 2008 environment where a Republican win is a forgone conclusion.  Hillary wouldn't bother to run in this world, which leaves two scenarios for elections that involve Clinton.

2. Clinton runs and her non-partisan veneer holds.  She wins by an Ike level margin with 54-56% of the PV and has one of the best performances among women of any nominee in history.  Appalachia in particular swings hard toward her.


3.  Clinton runs and Republicans run a strong candidate against her who successfully defines her as generic D.  Partisan gravity kicks in and the election is a toss up- probably decided by a closer margin than 2004 or 2012.  Clinton would likely be mildly favored in the electoral college.

As of now, I think that #2 is the most likely outcome, interestingly followed by #1.  If Obama doesn't fumble the ball, I can't see her failing to catch the pass. 


   

[barfbag]

She's made up of the following.

Hispanics
Blacks
Young voters
Possibly even more female voters

Now think of what would happen if she brought back some seniors and middle class whites from her husband's base. NO!!!!!!!!

[Mister Mets]

So unless the Republicans pick a weak candidate who makes serious gaffes, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to put any states back into play.

The one unknown that could change that is how much of the women's vote is Hillary likely to get.  Obama got 55%.  Is Hillary looking at the same level, a little more, or a lot more?  If she winds up getting 60% - 65% or more, she could turn a lot of states.  I know a lot of women who didn't vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012 that have said they would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat, my wife being one of them.  I think that's what Republican strategist fear the most.

This is a great point, and I think it is something that those who emphasize Obama's appeal to African-American voters curiously ignore.  Let's say that the electorate jumps from 53%W/47%M in 2012 to 55%W/45%M in 2016 with Clinton winning women 62%/37% vs. 55%/44% in 2012, which would exactly match Obama's improvements over Kerry in turnout and margin among black voters.  This would make the election a very uphill climb for any Republican.  There is no obvious counter-trend that would lead the R nominee to 67%+ of the male vote in a Clinton election, which is what they would need to win under these circumstances.   

This also seems to show up in what little 2016 polling we have.  Colorado, where Clinton polls poorly, is one of them most male states in the country, while the Southern states where she is shown massively improving over Obama are among the most female.

The impact of the first female presidential nominee is an unknowable.

It's also worth noting that Hillary doesn't have to expand the map, or margins among women in order to become President. In 2012, Obama won women 55-43. If a typical Democrat in 2016 would win women 50-48 (just because the environment is such that the Democratic candidate is doing slightly worse among all groups), it might result in a different electoral outcome if Hillary can limit the decline to 53-46.

There are some differences between Hillary and Obama that can change how they're perceived as inspirational figures.

Voters were aware that there might not be another opportunity to vote for an African-American candidate, since there were so few to hold significant electoral office in 2008. If Hillary loses in 2016, you could have Kirsten Gilibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Susanna Martinez, Kelly Ayotte and anyone under sixty who can win statewide election in the next few years.

African-American voters also liked other things about Obama. There's a reason Ben's Chili Bowl in Washington promises that the Obama family can eat there free. It wasn't just that he was a role model, but that the entire family was.

[roadkill]

It's also worth noting that Hillary doesn't have to expand the map, or margins among women in order to become President. In 2012, Obama won women 55-43. If a typical Democrat in 2016 would win women 50-48 (just because the environment is such that the Democratic candidate is doing slightly worse among all groups), it might result in a different electoral outcome if Hillary can limit the decline to 53-46.

I think this easily underestimates the level that women are likely to vote Democrat, especially if Hillary is the candidate.

First, there's no way that the expected default level for the female vote should be 50-48 (for Dems.).  That's actually a little better of a ratio than what Bush got in '04, which was the first time a Republican got above 45% since his dad in '88.  The default should probably be 52-46 or maybe even 53-46.

Second, right now in early polling Hillary is getting around 50-54% of the women's vote, with around 10-15% undecided.  Compare that to early polling for the 2012 election that had Obama getting around 44-48% of the female vote, with around 10-15% undecided.  Obama finished 2012 with 55%.  It's not really a stretch to think that Clinton could get close to 60%.

[barfbag]

It's also worth noting that Hillary doesn't have to expand the map, or margins among women in order to become President. In 2012, Obama won women 55-43. If a typical Democrat in 2016 would win women 50-48 (just because the environment is such that the Democratic candidate is doing slightly worse among all groups), it might result in a different electoral outcome if Hillary can limit the decline to 53-46.

I think this easily underestimates the level that women are likely to vote Democrat, especially if Hillary is the candidate.

First, there's no way that the expected default level for the female vote should be 50-48 (for Dems.).  That's actually a little better of a ratio than what Bush got in '04, which was the first time a Republican got above 45% since his dad in '88.  The default should probably be 52-46 or maybe even 53-46.

Second, right now in early polling Hillary is getting around 50-54% of the women's vote, with around 10-15% undecided.  Compare that to early polling for the 2012 election that had Obama getting around 44-48% of the female vote, with around 10-15% undecided.  Obama finished 2012 with 55%.  It's not really a stretch to think that Clinton could get close to 60%.

Yes she could put together a lethal campaign. Remember middle class whites who have voted Republican since her husband was in office.