Odds GOP wins 2016 Presidential Election if Clinton doesn't run

[GaussLaw]

I know these are awkward intervals, but I wanted to see with 5 options whether people think the GOP has more than a 50% chance at the White House without Clinton running.

I'd personally give the GOP a 75% chance at winning without Hillary running.  Given these Senate primaries and the tendency of an out-party to moderate(see Silver article on this) after 8 years, I think an establishment candidate like Walker or Jeb will get nominated.  The Dems would probably pick Warren, Biden, or O'Malley, all of whom are weak candidates. 

If Clinton runs, then the GOP has at best a 25% chance of winning at this point IMO.

[Never]

Without Hillary Clinton, I'd say Republicans have about a 60-65% chance at victory. The party has plenty of viable candidates, while the Democrats could end up scrambling without Clinton.

If Clinton doesn't run, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul would probably be favored against their Democratic opponents from the outset.

[Person Man]

I would say that in this environment, if the Republicans win the senate this year and Clinton doesn't run, I would say that the Republicans are probably as favored as Democrats were in 2008 to win. It would be a very similar environment. In 2007, the Republican party was unpopular and lost most of the Federal and State races from the year before. Further, it seemed that their major policy, the Occupation of Iraq, was unpopular though Democrats couldn't do anything about it. To crown it off, the Republicans didn't have good candidates. If an even slight recession begins in 2015/2016, Bush or Walker will probably win with 53ish% of the vote. They probably won't have the same margins in congress that Obama had but somewhere between Bush and Obama at their heights. 

So...60-70% chance of winning if they take the senate, 50/50 if they don't. If she does run, take 20% from those numbers.

[GaussLaw]

I would say that in this environment, if the Republicans win the senate this year and Clinton doesn't run, I would say that the Republicans are probably as favored as Democrats were in 2008 to win. It would be a very similar environment. In 2007, the Republican party was unpopular and lost most of the Federal and State races from the year before. Further, it seemed that their major policy, the Occupation of Iraq, was unpopular though Democrats couldn't do anything about it. To crown it off, the Republicans didn't have good candidates. If an even slight recession begins in 2015/2016, Bush or Walker will probably win with 53ish% of the vote. They probably won't have the same margins in congress that Obama had but somewhere between Bush and Obama at their heights. 

So...60-70% chance of winning if they take the senate, 50/50 if they don't. If she does run, take 20% from those numbers.

While the difference between 30/70 and 50/50 may seem huge, you highlighted an interesting idea. 

What you're saying is that Hillary running would only make a difference 1 in 5 times.  While it may seem huge in terms of probability change, the result would remain the same 80% of the time.

[Person Man]

I would say that in this environment, if the Republicans win the senate this year and Clinton doesn't run, I would say that the Republicans are probably as favored as Democrats were in 2008 to win. It would be a very similar environment. In 2007, the Republican party was unpopular and lost most of the Federal and State races from the year before. Further, it seemed that their major policy, the Occupation of Iraq, was unpopular though Democrats couldn't do anything about it. To crown it off, the Republicans didn't have good candidates. If an even slight recession begins in 2015/2016, Bush or Walker will probably win with 53ish% of the vote. They probably won't have the same margins in congress that Obama had but somewhere between Bush and Obama at their heights. 

So...60-70% chance of winning if they take the senate, 50/50 if they don't. If she does run, take 20% from those numbers.

While the difference between 30/70 and 50/50 may seem huge, you highlighted an interesting idea. 

What you're saying is that Hillary running would only make a difference 1 in 5 times.  While it may seem huge in terms of probability change, the result would remain the same 80% of the time.

Hillary's a big factor, but one of many variables.

[henster]

Democrats would arguably end up with a even stronger candidate than Hillary if she doesn't run say Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Deval Patrick etc. who are basically generic Dems who can raise a ton of money and will have the Obama machine behind them.

[SWE]

Depends on who gets the nomination instead. Someone like Cuomo or O'Malley probably wouldn't have much of a chance, while Warner or Warren could be strong candidates

[Devils30]

I think dems would be a slight favorite. Obamas approvals even right now are nowhere near Bush numbers and the GOP likely will hit a demographic wall around 48.5%. The GOP is making a mistake by believing just putting Paul and walker up there that victory is a given. Eventually a democratic candidate will develop the universal name recognition that Hillary has. Without improvement among minorities the GOP needs about 61-62% of whites which is not an easy task. GOP has the bigger names if Hillary doesn't run to id expect them to lead early polls.

[morgieb]

Probably a little more likely, but not significantly more likely like the #ready4hillary tards like to think.

Also comes down to who runs. Someone like Biden or O'Malley probably will be weak, whereas someone like Warner, the three other women or Schweitzer probably won't be much weaker if at all than Hillary.

[DS0816]

Take a look at the Electoral maps when the Democrats' base was in the Old Confederacy states and the Republicans were in the north, very much including the Rust Belt, and then present the odds addressing the "GOP wins 2016 Presidential Election" Hillary Clinton or no Hillary Clinton.

[IceSpear]

Depends on who the nominees are. If it's just generic D vs. generic R, I'd think demographic trends and the Democratic electoral college advantage would be enough to cancel out "Democratic fatigue" and make it close to 50-50.

The main problem Democrats have without Hillary is that the field is pretty weak. Biden has bad ratings nationally and is known as a gaffe machine. O'Malley is as exciting as white bread. Schweitzer is a joke. Sanders and Warren are probably too left wing to win the general. Cuomo is the opposite, he's probably too right wing to bring out the base in full force. If Hillary does sit it out, I'm hoping the nominee will be someone like Warner or Gillibrand.

That said, the Republican field isn't exactly stellar either. You've got Christie who looked formidable until he was tarred as corrupt, Jeb who has his toxic last name, Paul who has shown the propensity to implode on the campaign trail and is very unorthodox and risky, then you've got the clown car of Cruz/Santorum/Trump etc. that stand no chance but will make the others look bad by association. Walker scares me a bit simply because he is way too successful in a state he should not be successful in.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Probably around 60%. But even Hillary running wouldn't really change much, as her electoral potential is waaay overrated.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It would depend on who the nominees were. For two generic candidates, the republican odds are about 55%. In certain situations, the odds do change. Here's a few examples:

If the republicans nominate Cruz or Santorum, drop those odds to 30%. If the republicans nominate Rand Paul or Chris Christie, drop the odds to 45%. If the republicans nominate Bush, raise the odds to 60%. If the democrats nominate O'Malley, Warren, Gillibrand, or Klobuchar, raise the republican odds to 70%. If the democrats nominate Biden, drop them to 45%. If more than one of these is true, use the average of the two %'s.

(Note: Cuomo and Schweitzer would neither help nor hurt democratic odds. Walker and Kasich would neither help nor hurt republican odds.)

[henster]

It would depend on who the nominees were. For two generic candidates, the republican odds are about 55%. In certain situations, the odds do change. Here's a few examples:

If the republicans nominate Cruz or Santorum, drop those odds to 30%. If the republicans nominate Rand Paul or Chris Christie, drop the odds to 45%. If the republicans nominate Bush, raise the odds to 60%. If the democrats nominate O'Malley, Warren, Gillibrand, or Klobuchar, raise the republican odds to 70%. If the democrats nominate Biden, drop them to 45%. If more than one of these is true, use the average of the two %'s.

(Note: Cuomo and Schweitzer would neither help nor hurt democratic odds. Walker and Kasich would neither help nor hurt republican odds.)

So your saying Joe Biden would be a stronger candidate than O'Malley, Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar? A guy who would be 73 on ED and makes frequent gaffes every time he speaks... Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the Dems strongest non Hillary candidates any Republican would struggle against either two.

[Bull Moose Base]

So your saying Joe Biden would be a stronger candidate than O'Malley, Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar? A guy who would be 73 on ED and makes frequent gaffes every time he speaks... Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the Dems strongest non Hillary candidates any Republican would struggle against either two.

I'm not even convinced Hillary would be stronger than Klobuchar in a general election; more strengths but also more weaknesses. People are also exaggerating Warren's weakness in a general election, as many did with Obama ahead of 2008 when he won 365 EVs. What about her exactly is going to scare voters more than the GOP does? You think people in swing states love income inequality or something?

I'd personally give the GOP a 75% chance at winning without Hillary running.  Given these Senate primaries and the tendency of an out-party to moderate(see Silver article on this) after 8 years, I think an establishment candidate like Walker or Jeb will get nominated. 

The out party has moderated when less moderate nominees lost preceding elections. But out Republicans nominated Reagan and out Democrats nominated Obama. The GOP is coming off 2 moderates losing in a row. Also, they'd be emboldened without Hillary running and today's GOP has a stronger base than parties usually do. Don't buy the spin on the senate primaries. These GOP nominees are still very conservative albeit better packaged, the equivalent of Pence, Walker, Ryan. The GOP race is too unpredictable to say one way or another which way they'll go (or would go without Hillary running).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

40-49% percent chance due to the Kerry-Gore fire wall States. Add NV, CO, NH, OH, Va and FL that gets us across the 270 mark. We will have more of a challenge, because the House won't be in play without Hillary. But we can and shall get to 270 even with Biden or Schweizer not OMalley.

[Kevin]

Probably around 60%. But even Hillary running wouldn't really change much, as her electoral potential is waaay overrated.

Agreed,

Even then the Democrats still have the problem of turning out the base with Obama off the ballot. Combined with the fact that they would be going against historical trends with a 3rd Democratic term. Ex. 1988 was largely a fluke since Bush Sr. prob would have lost against a stronger opponent.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The odds of recapturing the House will be prominent should there be no Clinton or Obama on the ticket.  The only base voters that appeal to the GOP voters are conservative Mexicans. 2000 and 2004 would of made a 3rd term Clinton and Gore received a plurality of the vote. Blks will never vote in that high number for a GOP candidate that Dubya got. The GOP have a 51% chance of winning the WH without the Kerry/gore fire wall excluding WI with Walker.

[Flake]

The odds of recapturing the House will be prominent should there be no Clinton or Obama on the ticket.  The only base voters that appeal to the GOP voters are conservative Mexicans. 2000 and 2004 would of made a 3rd term Clinton and Gore received a plurality of the vote. Blks will never vote in that high number for a GOP candidate that Dubya got. The GOP have a 51% chance of winning the WH without the Kerry/gore fire wall excluding WI with Walker.

What?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems have a core group of voters that are single women, minority. voters that by no means will sit out any election even with Obama or Clinton off the ticket. The Dems will ensure that they win at the very least Kerry or Gore States which is 48.5% of the vote.

[Kevin]

The Dems have a core group of voters that are single women, minority. voters that by no means will sit out any election even with Obama or Clinton off the ticket. The Dems will ensure that they win at the very least Kerry or Gore States which is 48.5% of the vote.

That's far from a guarantee.

Again do you have anything else to contribute besides typical Dem talking points?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Brian Schwiezer would be my second choice to a Hillary Clinton ticket.

[Mister Mets]

I went with between 50-65 percent. The Democrats have an okay bench, and some electoral strengths. It's also worth noting that there are a few candidates whose general election odds would be close to HRC. The process of winning the Democratic primary should demonstrate the political talents of someone who hasn't yet been tested. A former Governor of Montana is a horrible presidential candidate. A former Governor of Montana who won a competitive presidential primary can be a powerhouse.

Republicans still have a few strengths. After peaking, parties consistently lose votes with successive presidential elections. Republicans did okay against Obama, especially compared to out parties who went on to take back the White House. The bench is decent.

There is a question of whether the winner of primaries will have to appeal to the base's lowest common denominator which could weaken them for general elections.

[Devils30]

What exactly makes people think the GOP is in great shape with jeb? The democrats can rather easily remind people of the way his brother wrecked the country. Don't think there's much nostalgia for W.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The media likes the thought of political dynasties. Bushes, Clinton's and Cuomos but once they find something in their closet, they have something to critique. Jeb is likeable as opposed to Cuomo who seems mean.