Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:26:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Mike Huckabee election?
#1
Iowa will flip from Democrat to Republican
 
#2
Missouri will flip from Republican to Democrat
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 37

Author Topic: Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election?  (Read 568 times)
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 27, 2014, 11:40:49 AM »

Vote!
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,435
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2014, 12:02:35 PM »

In general, Republicans are more likely to win a state they lost by six points in a national election that went poorly for the party than Democrats are to win a state they lost by over nine points in a national election that went well for the party.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2014, 12:41:11 PM »

Neither is going to flip.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2014, 02:18:47 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2014, 02:21:07 PM by Whacker77 »

So much of this discussion about 2016 seems off base to me.  In 1988, GHB won Reagan's "third term" essentially because the economy had done and continued to do so well.  If Reagan's approval ratings were in the low 40's and the economy was lackluster, Dukakis would have been elected president.  As James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Third terms are a real rarity.  And, at least since the turn of the last century, they have all been the result of well regarded economic conditions.  That was essentially the case in 1908, in 1928, in 1940, and especially in 1988.  Now to be fair, the first two examples were unique cases because three different presidents filled each term.  And in 1940, FDR became the first man to run for a third term and win, but he wouldn't have been able to do so had the country not believed the worst of the depression was behind them and things were improving.

Given that, I just don't see how anything at this stage points to a clear Clinton victory in 2016.  I'm not saying she can't/won't win, but I think it's going to be very difficult for any Democrat to win if Obama's approval numbers remain mired in the low 40's, his signature legislative achievement remains unpopular, and, most of all, the economy remains stagnant at best.  And to that point, it would be a rarity for Obama to go a full eight years without suffering his own economic recession.

If anything, I think the current conditions suggest an electoral map realignment might be in the offing just as happened in 1968 and 1992.  Just as the 1946 and 1948 elections served as a very good template for the 2010 and 2012 elections, the current economic conditions and general unhappiness of the country may point to 1918 and 1920 serving as a good template for 2014 and 2016.  That might even be truer if Republicans nominate someone in 2016 who can't be easily portrayed as anti-immigrant or anti-minority.

Things can turn on a dime and everything might look far rosier for Democrats in 2016 (economically), but the worst thing we can do is put too much weight in general election polls taken 30 months in advance.  We won't know how the electorate really feels about the candidates and the economy at least until late 2015 and early 2016.  Even then, it might be too soon.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2014, 02:21:38 PM »

Iowa
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2014, 02:52:20 PM »

So much of this discussion about 2016 seems off base to me.  In 1988, GHB won Reagan's "third term" essentially because the economy had done and continued to do so well.  If Reagan's approval ratings were in the low 40's and the economy was lackluster, Dukakis would have been elected president.  As James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Third terms are a real rarity.  And, at least since the turn of the last century, they have all been the result of well regarded economic conditions.  That was essentially the case in 1908, in 1928, in 1940, and especially in 1988.  Now to be fair, the first two examples were unique cases because three different presidents filled each term.  And in 1940, FDR became the first man to run for a third term and win, but he wouldn't have been able to do so had the country not believed the worst of the depression was behind them and things were improving.

Given that, I just don't see how anything at this stage points to a clear Clinton victory in 2016.  I'm not saying she can't/won't win, but I think it's going to be very difficult for any Democrat to win if Obama's approval numbers remain mired in the low 40's, his signature legislative achievement remains unpopular, and, most of all, the economy remains stagnant at best.  And to that point, it would be a rarity for Obama to go a full eight years without suffering his own economic recession.

If anything, I think the current conditions suggest an electoral map realignment might be in the offing just as happened in 1968 and 1992.  Just as the 1946 and 1948 elections served as a very good template for the 2010 and 2012 elections, the current economic conditions and general unhappiness of the country may point to 1918 and 1920 serving as a good template for 2014 and 2016.  That might even be truer if Republicans nominate someone in 2016 who can't be easily portrayed as anti-immigrant or anti-minority.

Things can turn on a dime and everything might look far rosier for Democrats in 2016 (economically), but the worst thing we can do is put too much weight in general election polls taken 30 months in advance.  We won't know how the electorate really feels about the candidates and the economy at least until late 2015 and early 2016.  Even then, it might be too soon.

I understand the logic of saying polls this early are meaningless because two and a half years is plenty of time for things to change, but I don't see how they're evidence of Obama's approval rating tripping her up. Why do polls show her beating every Republican when his approvals are just off their record lows? Why shouldn't we expect the Hillary:Obama dynamic to be closer to Cuomo:Paterson than McCain:Bush?
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2014, 04:19:19 PM »

Well, I guess I would respond this way.  As far as Hillary goes, it's not surprising she performs relatively well right now.  She's very well known.  She was first lady, a Senator from New York, a high profile candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and just completed a term as Secretary of State.  Having said that, Clinton's job at State was, essentially, non-political and that has definitely boosted the image most have of her.

At about the same time in the 2008 process though, a well known Senator named John McCain also led the vast majority of presidential polls and by a lot in some of them.  Yet as time wore on, Bush fatigue caught up with McCain and Republicans.  Bush's approval numbers and the war in Iraq became a huge drag.  Both of those issues were hot early in 2006, yet he looked in good shape then just as Clinton does today.

As we saw in 2008 though, Democrats tarred and feathered Republicans all over the country with Bush's problems.  Even though Bush and McCain rarely saw eye to eye, Democrats made the case McCain was running for Bush's third term and it worked.  McCain just couldn't shake the unpopular president and all that came with him.

Given that, why would Clinton or any Democrat be immune from Obama's problems?  Why wouldn't Republicans be able to tar and feather her with all of Obama's problems like a stagnant economy and an unpopular healthcare plan?  After all, Clinton has to be considered closely associated with Obama's tenure since she served as his Secretary of State.  They may not see eye to eye on some issues, but neither did Bush and McCain.

If the situation in 2016 is as toxic for Obama as it is today, I just don't see how the country decides to go with his heir apparent when they never have in the past.  Now, of course, that could all change if Republicans nominate an unelectable candidate like Cruz or Paul or the economy improves, but history suggests no national candidate of the same party can overcome the low numbers of the current occupant.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2014, 05:07:45 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2014, 07:12:14 PM by pbrower2a »

Well, I guess I would respond this way.  As far as Hillary goes, it's not surprising she performs relatively well right now.  She's very well known.  She was first lady, a Senator from New York, a high profile candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and just completed a term as Secretary of State.  Having said that, Clinton's job at State was, essentially, non-political and that has definitely boosted the image most have of her.

A well-known analogy. I remember seeing a projection of an Obama-McCain contest that showed Obama winning 27 electoral votes -- those of Illinois, Hawaii, and DC. But know well -- Barack Obama was still little known.

Also know well -- most projections show Hillary Clinton basically winning states that Barack Obama won, so she is far behind John McCain at this stage.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

George W. Bush would be widely seen as a disaster as a President by the early autumn of 2008 -- but through the middle of 2006 he wasn't. Not until the  November election was it clear that Dubya was a disaster on foreign policy, his "mission accomplished" proving increasingly less than accomplished. The economy was still chugging along... but wise people saw how sordid its realities were.  Those people did not shape the election.

Dubya was still getting away with a bungled war and an economy based on a rip-off (a speculative boom financed on predatory loans). In 2006 the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were beginning to go bad, and by November the Democrats offered a solution. Many of the inexpensive ads looked like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbAaJf34OJo

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Dubya created those problems with his reckless foreign policy and the worst economic stewardship of any President in decades. Dubya would have created fewer problems had he promoted the usual Republican policy of promoting thrift and industrial investment with low taxes and limited spending. Instead Dubya was a reckless spender in ways that Republicans usually attribute to Democrats, and his reckless spending exploded on America. So did the speculative boom.

Had I been a conservative Republican I would have promoted thrift and industrial investment with the expectation that people getting jobs would be able to qualify for cars, houses, etc.  But that's not the sort of policy that the GOP stood for around 2001.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Barack Obama hasn't started any budget-busting wars. He has not supported a speculative boom likely to go bust. He is very cautious. He does not create problems as Dubya did.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is more 'toxic' is that we are no longer so tolerant of Presidential misconduct, reckless spending, and rash foreign policy. We are too fussy to tolerate another George Worthless Bush, and in the toxic environment that Dubya created for trust in politicians, our fussiness could be a good thing.  

President Obama seems to be taking the rap for Democratic 'failure'... and it is still possible that Obamacare will work well for Democrats.

Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2014, 05:30:46 PM »
« Edited: March 27, 2014, 05:58:01 PM by A dog on every car, a car in every elevator »

Well, I guess I would respond this way.  As far as Hillary goes, it's not surprising she performs relatively well right now.  She's very well known.  She was first lady, a Senator from New York, a high profile candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and just completed a term as Secretary of State.  Having said that, Clinton's job at State was, essentially, non-political and that has definitely boosted the image most have of her.

At about the same time in the 2008 process though, a well known Senator named John McCain also led the vast majority of presidential polls and by a lot in some of them.  Yet as time wore on, Bush fatigue caught up with McCain and Republicans.  Bush's approval numbers and the war in Iraq became a huge drag.  Both of those issues were hot early in 2006, yet he looked in good shape then just as Clinton does today.

As we saw in 2008 though, Democrats tarred and feathered Republicans all over the country with Bush's problems.  Even though Bush and McCain rarely saw eye to eye, Democrats made the case McCain was running for Bush's third term and it worked.  McCain just couldn't shake the unpopular president and all that came with him.

Given that, why would Clinton or any Democrat be immune from Obama's problems?  Why wouldn't Republicans be able to tar and feather her with all of Obama's problems like a stagnant economy and an unpopular healthcare plan?  After all, Clinton has to be considered closely associated with Obama's tenure since she served as his Secretary of State.  They may not see eye to eye on some issues, but neither did Bush and McCain.

If the situation in 2016 is as toxic for Obama as it is today, I just don't see how the country decides to go with his heir apparent when they never have in the past.  Now, of course, that could all change if Republicans nominate an unelectable candidate like Cruz or Paul or the economy improves, but history suggests no national candidate of the same party can overcome the low numbers of the current occupant.

But it's a sample size of one, no? Bush was the first unpopular president term-limited out. Even if you include unpopular presidents who opted out, Truman and LBJ, all 3 had approvals far lower than Obama's today. (20s or 30s vs low 40s). And Democrats faced a war hero in 1952 and their own bad divisions plus a split vote in 1968 (when they lost to Nixon by <1%). So those situations don't really match a Hillary 2016 run as far as I can see. 2008 doesn't really line up either. For one thing, Obamacare and the slow recovery with a divided congress are poor comparisons for the Iraq War and the recession-turned-Great Recession.

I also don't see Hillary comparing with McCain ahead of 2008. She didn't just complete a term as Secretary of State. She left over a year ago and has been attacked relentlessly by Republicans since. I'd guess her support now is way more polarized than that of McCain in 2006 when he wasn't even the frontrunner. The fact that McCain led polls in 2006 doesn't seem here nor there.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2014, 06:17:20 PM »

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2014, 11:17:01 PM »

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.

If McCain can get 46% while Bush's approval was ~25%, why can't Hillary get 50% when Obama's approval is ~43%?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2014, 11:42:09 PM »

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.

If McCain can get 46% while Bush's approval was ~25%, why can't Hillary get 50% when Obama's approval is ~43%?

Hmm.. That's an interesting point, but what about Al Gore getting just 48% in 2000 when Bill Clinton's approval was in the 60s? Whatever percentage Hillary wins will ultimately have to do with the national mood and how she is viewed compared to the GOP candidate.

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Incumbent president approval is overrated as a factor in an open seat election. It only matters heavily when that president is running for re-election.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2014, 11:56:09 AM »

McCain got 46% of the vote because the country has become politically polarized.  Even Michael Dukakis got 45% and his campaign was a train wreck.  There's a floor under each national party these days so the age of 60-40 blowouts is probably gone for some time to come.

I'm not suggesting, that because Obama's approval might be in the low 40's, Clinton will only get in the low 40's.  I'm just saying Obama's approval, the likely stagnant economy, and the ACA will have an effect on Hillary and the Democrat's numbers that simply aren't being factored into the current polling.

And let's be honest, the polls we're seeing today mostly measure name ID.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2014, 12:17:41 PM »

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.

If McCain can get 46% while Bush's approval was ~25%, why can't Hillary get 50% when Obama's approval is ~43%?

Hmm.. That's an interesting point, but what about Al Gore getting just 48% in 2000 when Bill Clinton's approval was in the 60s? Whatever percentage Hillary wins will ultimately have to do with the national mood and how she is viewed compared to the GOP candidate.

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Incumbent president approval is overrated as a factor in an open seat election. It only matters heavily when that president is running for re-election.

With a failed incumbent President running for re-election (which applies to Hoover in 1932 for economic bungling and Carter in 1980 for everything going wrong in foreign policy) one can reasonably expect the next election to be a blow-out. For an open-seat election they might want the next President to either (1) be a complete repudiation of the current President, (2) be very different in style as they tire of the style of the current President, (3) want more of the same, or (4) want the next President to achieve the promises of the current President that others (Congress?) stopped. 

(1) Americans wanted a complete repudiation of George W. Bush in 2008 and they got it. Barack Obama promised to give America a jump start on an economic recover and make major changes in American life. He also promised to be cautious in foreign and military policy. John McCain was too closely connected to Dubya on issues, if not practices.

(2) Americans wanted someone young, energetic, and ebullient after eight years of Eisenhower, who was not a bad President. JFK was precisely that.  (OK, Richard Nixon was physically ugly, which may have made the difference).

(3) George H W Bush, 1988.

(4) Your guess is as good as mine if this applies to Hillary Clinton. She will not have to repudiate Barack Obama to be elected.  I don't see President Obama prone to scandal; he has not promoted a speculative boom sure to go bust; he is about as cautious in foreign policy as Dubya was reckless. 
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,435
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2014, 01:21:30 PM »

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.

If McCain can get 46% while Bush's approval was ~25%, why can't Hillary get 50% when Obama's approval is ~43%?

Hmm.. That's an interesting point, but what about Al Gore getting just 48% in 2000 when Bill Clinton's approval was in the 60s? Whatever percentage Hillary wins will ultimately have to do with the national mood and how she is viewed compared to the GOP candidate.
Gore did come pretty close. He won the popular vote, and would have won the Electoral vote with a thousand more votes in Florida, or a third of Nader's vote in New Hampshire.

Presidential approval seems to be like running mates. It doesn't help as much as it can hurt.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 15 queries.