Let's talk about 2020

[MATTROSE94]

I don't know what the 2020 Election will look like. Come back to me in 2017/2018 and then I will make an early prediction map.

[Likely Voter]

With the advantage of incumbency and the Dem-advantaged demographic trend, the default position would have to be Hillary reelection (likely by bigger margin). But she could lose if there were some major scandal or if the economy went back into recession or if there were some failed international initiative (ala how the Iraq War was seen in 2008).

If she doesn't run for medical reasons, then the party would very likely run her VP, and that person would have almost all the same advantages (but again the same risks apply).

[Mr. Morden]

Does "incumbency advantage" actually exist once a party's been in office for more than one term?

[Hamster]

Does "incumbency advantage" actually exist once a party's been in office for more than one term?

Good question. Let's pull out the relevant cases. I've set a limit at the beginning of the fourth party system (1896), when campaign methods underwent significant modernization. Green items mean the "incumbent" party held the White House, while orange items indicate the incumbent candidate lost.


1904: T. Roosevelt running for first full term after McKinley's assassination
1908: Taft running after T. Roosevelt's extraordinary popularity
1912

1920

1928: Hoover running at a moment of unprecedented prosperity
1932

1940: FDR
1944: FDR
1948: Truman with the upset
1952

1960

1968

1976

1988: Bush benefited from Reagan's massive popularity
1992

2000

2008

According to this rough picture, it seems to me like the party "incumbents" seeking a third term for their party are actually at a disadvantage, unless the precedent they are exceeded was extraordinarily popular.

[m4567]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

[Skill and Chance]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

[TarHeelDem]

With the advantage of incumbency and the Dem-advantaged demographic trend, the default position would have to be Hillary reelection (likely by bigger margin). But she could lose if there were some major scandal or if the economy went back into recession or if there were some failed international initiative (ala how the Iraq War was seen in 2008).

If she doesn't run for medical reasons, then the party would very likely run her VP, and that person would have almost all the same advantages (but again the same risks apply).

This. She loses a few states such as NC, maybe OH and/or FL, but is reelected handily with her VP (Castro? Gillibrand?) ready to take over in 2024.

[m4567]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

[Lincoln Republican]

2020 Election

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton/Maine Senator Susan Collins                                    274
Incumbent President Hillary Clinton/Incumbent Vice President John Hickenlooper     264

Collins is credited with bringing in Maine and New Hampshire for the Republican ticket, and thus the election.

President Elect Cotton owes Vice President Elect Collins big time.

[Skill and Chance]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

He certainly overperformed a no financial crisis scenario, but based on history, the incumbent party should be near 40% of the PV with the economy that bad.  Instead, McCain got over 45%.  So the operative question is more why Obama didn't win 40 states in 2008.

[IceSpear]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

He certainly overperformed a no financial crisis scenario, but based on history, the incumbent party should be near 40% of the PV with the economy that bad.  Instead, McCain got over 45%.  So the operative question is more why Obama didn't win 40 states in 2008.

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

[Simfan34]

Hillary Clinton has had a relatively successful presidency, but I see her stepping down after one term. However, her Vice-President, John Hickenlooper, chooses not to run, being 68. Since Hillary, in an attempt to not be rendered a lame-duck for half her term, chose to declare she would not run in August 2019, this renders things rather chaotic for the Democrats. Eventually the tickets are as follows:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)/Fmr. Sec. Kathleen McGinty (D-PA)
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV)/Sen. T.W. Shannon (R-OK)

368 Cuomo - 170 Sandoval

[Mister Mets]

Maps are fun!

If in 2016 Hillary defeats a moderate Republican (Jeb Bush or Chris Christie), and the base decides it's time for a true conservative for 2020, Hillary Clinton could do very well, especially in a favorable political environment.

President Hillary Clinton/ Vice President Anthony G Brown: 401 Electoral Votes (55%)
Indiana Governor Mike Pence/ Idaho Governor Raul Labrador: 137 Electoral Votes (42%)

On the other hand, she might have an unsuccessful presidency, due to a combination of policy mistakes and an unfavorable environment. That would leave her vulnerable, especially to an establishment Republican.

Former Governor Chris Christie/ Iowa Senator Jodi Ernst- 367 Electoral Votes (54%)
President Hillary Clinton/ Vice President Michael Bennet- 171 Electoral Votes (44%)

And things could be more ambiguous. Let's say the Republicans nominate a generic candidate who makes a few mistakes, while the Clinton administration deals with small scandals, and the country continues to stuggle.

Wednesday after Election Day we might have no idea who the hell the President is.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker/ Nevada Senator Brian Sandoval (48 or so%)- 263 confirmed electoral votes
President Hillary Clinton/ Vice President Gavin Newsom (48 or so %)- 255 confirmed electoral votes

[WillTheMormon]

Hillary Clinton is shot by a lunatic right-winger in 2018. Vice-President Mark Warner becomes president and defeats Ted Cruz, the Republican nominee in a landslide in 2020.

Warner wins every state except for Idaho and Wyoming. Since Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee and the country is still mourning Hillary's death (think Johnson vs. Goldwater 2.0), the economy is in fairly decent shape and the country is in no wars, the election is basically a walk in the park for Warner. Utah is the only real swing state his election, which Warner manages to carry with Jim Matheson as his VP. The only states Cruz wins are Idaho, Wyoming and NE-3. Bernie Sanders runs a splinter Socialist ticket claiming that Warner has alienated social progressives. They don't really do that much damage except in Vermont (which Sanders carries), the Bay Area and the "People's Republic" of Madison.

President Mark Warner (Virginia-Dem.) / Vice-President James Matheson (Utah-Dem.): 527 EV (53%)
Senator Ted Cruz (Texas-Rep.) / Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming-Rep.): 8 EV (25%)
Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont-Socialist) / Former Senator Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin-Socialist): 3 EV (20%)

[SWE]

President Mark Warner (Virginia-Dem.) / Vice-President James Matheson (Utah-Dem.): 527 EV (53%)

And here I was thinking Clinton/Warner was the worst ticket the Democrats could nominate

[WillTheMormon]

President Mark Warner (Virginia-Dem.) / Vice-President James Matheson (Utah-Dem.): 527 EV (53%)

And here I was thinking Clinton/Warner was the worst ticket the Democrats could nominate

Are you kidding me? I as an independent voter living in a swing state and also being a very guilty ticket-splitter who hates Clinton (more for personal rather than political reasons) would vote for her if her running mate is Warner. Except if the Republican nominee is Huckabee or Brian Sandoval. I like Warner as he's a moderate who is one of the very few prospective Democratic candidates who can work fairly decently with a Republican congress which is looking more and more like a reality with the midterms coming up. Having two moderates (to an extent Hillary is a moderate compared to other members of her party) would also attract a lot of other people with similar views to me.

[Mister Mets]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

He certainly overperformed a no financial crisis scenario, but based on history, the incumbent party should be near 40% of the PV with the economy that bad.  Instead, McCain got over 45%.  So the operative question is more why Obama didn't win 40 states in 2008.

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

There are at least two schools of thought on this.

I think McCain was a particularly strong candidate. He had a better reputation than most politicians. He would therefore outperform generic Republicans.

An alternative is that there are a lot of racist Democrats and Independents. Racist Republicans wouldn't matter because they were going to vote for the party anyway.

[Mr. Illini]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

[IceSpear]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

Logic is not a requirement for anti-Hillary circlejerks.

[TarHeelDem]

Clinton wins reelection with even more EV than she did in 2016. If she can't run due to health issues the party runs her VP, who most likely wins, using her legacy to secure the White House through 2028.

[pbrower2a]

Clinton/Castro: 272
Christie/Mead: 266
Sanders/Gephardt: 0
270 to win

Or Clinton/Kitzhaber; hard to know who Bernie Sanders would take as his running mate. If Al Gore endorsed Clinton and for other reasons Dick Gephardt might run for Vice President.

That makes the most sense. That also assumes that there won't be an economic meltdown such as the one that turned Herbert Hoover from the great hope of a conservative reformer to a clueless bumbler -- and that there won't be partisan fatigue that creates an opening for a charismatic Republican nominee who proves to be just what the American people want at the time.

On the other side, Republicans could be just as clueless about America in 2020 as they were in 2006 and 2008. 

One possible analogue is that Barack Obama is basically the first two terms of FDR, and Hillary Clinton is the third and (assuming good health) completed fourth term of FDR.  The difference? The economic meltdown of 1929-1932 utterly destroyed the Corporate Right so that it lacked the funds for lobbying, smear campaigns, and fostering anything like the Tea Party. The 2007-2009 meltdown ended with Corporate right-wingers still flush with cash for right-wing politics. To rescue the American economy, President Obama had to rescue people who hated his economic agenda. By doing so he prevented an Obama landslide in 2012.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

Logic is not a requirement for anti-Hillary circlejerks.

I'm surprised you even recognize logic, judging by your own equally egregious (and less entertaining/flamboyant) posts about Hillary. I mean, for God sakes, your whole existence on this forum is defending Hillary to the death. If you’re that confident of victory in 2016, why do you even bother with the idiots like me?

[Mordecai]

Clinton/Castro? Christie/Mead? Sanders/Gephardt? No freaking way.

[IceSpear]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

Logic is not a requirement for anti-Hillary circlejerks.

I'm surprised you even recognize logic, judging by your own equally egregious (and less entertaining/flamboyant) posts about Hillary. I mean, for God sakes, your whole existence on this forum is defending Hillary to the death. If you’re that confident of victory in 2016, why do you even bother with the idiots like me?

Please give some examples of these supposed egregious posts I make about Hillary. I eagerly await your silence.

Sounds like you're just upset I interrupt the right-wing/True Leftist circlejerk about how Hillary is Satan incarnate. Cry me a river.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Jeb will be too old in 2024.

Jeb will be out of office for eighteen years in 2024, unless he is elected to the Senate in 2018, but will be 71. Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016. I don’t see how you think Hillary isn’t too old, but it didn’t seem to be a problem for you. This was your response to the questions of Hillary being too old.

I'm more worried about Christie's obesity.

Then of course there is this lovely exchange from this very thread in which you completely ignore Mecha’s point and continue to attack him for making “broad comparisons”, when in reality he was simply telling a political fable about why it’s dangerous to make assumptions about candidates.

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

   
I could come up with plenty of posts where you make unsubstantiated claims about how the Clinton Presidency is inevitable, much like it was in 2005. But I rather not continue this he said/she said debate. It’s pointless, and your hardly the worst of the bunch (Adam, AngryGreatness, Invisible Obama, etc really take the Hillary hackishness to extremes).

And don’t get me wrong, the True Leftist circle jerk is annoying, and I love your arguments about guns, marijuana legalization, and gay rights being more important than the “class revolution”, but you’re ignoring your own groups Hillary 2016/GOP is doomed forever/MSNBC circle jerk that is equally tedious.