Enough with Invincible Hillary

[NewYorkExpress]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Vice-Presidential Candidates almost never do that, no matter how strong they are, besides which, I'm pretty sure I said that I didn't think he would run.

[Mister Mets]

That's my biggest concern with her. Quit being delusional and partisan, Obama hasn't been that good. I don't care what party is in charge. If she wins, Republicans still aren't going anywhere (but if they win Democrats will just be "the underdogs." God I hate this double standard whenever a party loses). I am concerned more if we will get 4, possibly 8 more years of the same garbage policies.

Er, did you just tell me to stop being delusional in my support for Obama? I assure you that's not the case with me.

In these discussions we have to be able to separate our own opinions about what would be best for the country with our understanding of what motivates others.

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Yeah, that's the thing... this "under 50% chance of winning"  thing doesn't make sense. If she runs, there's basically a 95% chance she's the Democratic nominee. If you give her a 65% chance of beating the Republican, she's the odds-on favourite.

This is the heart of it. It's not that Hillary is a "perfect candidate" (and certainly not my personal perfect candidate) but the Republican brand and bench for 2016 looks terrible. When the one party is going to find it virtually impossible to find a nominee who doesn't present as a bigoted, anti-science, corporate stooge without their party splintering, then the alternative does indeed look like a shoe-in.

Generic Republican could beat Hillary. I just don't see the scenarios where Actual Republican does, even though, on paper, this should be a great year for the Republicans.

[Free Bird]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

People don't vote for Vice-President

[dmmidmi]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Between her very public push for policy and pieces of legislation as First Lady, some time in the US Senate (where she took actual policy positions and cast votes), and a run for President (where again, she took actual policy positions via numerous debates), Hillary Clinton has become the very definition of a known quantity.

I would be very surprised if there is anybody who doesn't know what they'd be getting with a Clinton Presidency.

[Mister Mets]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Between her very public push for policy and pieces of legislation as First Lady, some time in the US Senate (where she took actual policy positions and cast votes), and a run for President (where again, she took actual policy positions via numerous debates), Hillary Clinton has become the very definition of a known quantity.

I would be very surprised if there is anybody who doesn't know what they'd be getting with a Clinton Presidency.

I don't think anyone knows what we'd be getting with a HRC presidency.

She got to pick and choose her battles as First Lady. As Secretary of State, she avoided domestic disputes.

Her time as Senator is worthless as a way to determine what she really believes because the entirety of it was spent as one of the country's likeliest candidates for national office. Impressing potential swing voters in Florida and Ohio is a priority for her in a way that it isn't for most Senators.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

People don't vote for Vice-President

The base of the Republican Party that called John McCain a RINO/establishment/moderate etc. would disagree with you per 2008, you betcha.

[dmmidmi]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Between her very public push for policy and pieces of legislation as First Lady, some time in the US Senate (where she took actual policy positions and cast votes), and a run for President (where again, she took actual policy positions via numerous debates), Hillary Clinton has become the very definition of a known quantity.

I would be very surprised if there is anybody who doesn't know what they'd be getting with a Clinton Presidency.

I don't think anyone knows what we'd be getting with a HRC presidency.

She got to pick and choose her battles as First Lady. As Secretary of State, she avoided domestic disputes.

Her time as Senator is worthless as a way to determine what she really believes because the entirety of it was spent as one of the country's likeliest candidates for national office. Impressing potential swing voters in Florida and Ohio is a priority for her in a way that it isn't for most Senators.

Maybe I'm better putting it this way: after all of the time that she has spent in politics, that there is any confusion about where she stands on most major domestic and foreign policy issues?

[Never]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Between her very public push for policy and pieces of legislation as First Lady, some time in the US Senate (where she took actual policy positions and cast votes), and a run for President (where again, she took actual policy positions via numerous debates), Hillary Clinton has become the very definition of a known quantity.

I would be very surprised if there is anybody who doesn't know what they'd be getting with a Clinton Presidency.

I don't think anyone knows what we'd be getting with a HRC presidency.

She got to pick and choose her battles as First Lady. As Secretary of State, she avoided domestic disputes.

Her time as Senator is worthless as a way to determine what she really believes because the entirety of it was spent as one of the country's likeliest candidates for national office. Impressing potential swing voters in Florida and Ohio is a priority for her in a way that it isn't for most Senators.

Maybe I'm better putting it this way: after all of the time that she has spent in politics, that there is any confusion about where she stands on most major domestic and foreign policy issues?

Well, Hillary is very pragmatic on most issues, so I wouldn't say that we don't know where she stands, but it seems like she does base her opinions on what would be acceptable to the public instead of forming deeply held views.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

She is the strongest in the Dem and GOP field as of right now. Obviously, I think that'll change come 2016 with the grind of the general election.

The GOP base is actually made up of regular conservatives who will nominate "the next in line". They never nominate "the most conservative", because that person appeals to literally 10% of the base. Regular conservatives are ~40% of the GOP primary electorate, with ~30% identifying as moderate, only 10% is "radically conservative", and ~20% is evangelical.

Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012). This candidate will obviously start with a disadvantage against Hillary, but depending on how the cards fall and are played, they could beat her.

With today's climate, I could see her beating a GOPer with 49%-50% of the vote against 47-48% (possibly closer), but this is all subject to change over the next 2 years and 5 months. She has the advantage, but you're correct in that she is not a cakewalk.

[IceSpear]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

Obama's Michigan margin was also cut from 16 points to 9 points, about the same swing as Wisconsin despite the fact that Romney aggressively targetted WI more than he targetted MI. It would seem Ryan had little to no impact on the Wisconsin margin, which was actually a surprise on election night considering it was supposed to be close.

Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all got home state bumps in 2008. Only Romney and Ryan got nothing.

[Mister Mets]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

Obama's Michigan margin was also cut from 16 points to 9 points, about the same swing as Wisconsin despite the fact that Romney aggressively targetted WI more than he targetted MI. It would seem Ryan had little to no impact on the Wisconsin margin, which was actually a surprise on election night considering it was supposed to be close.

Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all got home state bumps in 2008. Only Romney and Ryan got nothing.

Romney was born in Michigan, and his father served as Governor there, so that may have also been a factor in his improvement in that particular state. It's also possible that having a guy from neighboring Wisconsin on the ticket helped a little bit in that state.

Massachusetts is tough to figure out. Romney did better than Bush in that state (in either 2000 or 2004), even without taking into account where the state was relative to the national vote. The deviation from the popular vote was slightly lower with McCain, but that may speak more to McCain's strengths than Romney's weakness. It's also largely irrelevant whether a candidate loses a state by 25 points or 23 points.

[Bull Moose Base]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 

Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?

NewYorkExpress

[Oak Hills]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 

Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.

Other stuff such as…?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?

hi

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 

Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.

I mean "mainstream" as in "establishment". I was referring to my post analyzing the GOP primary/general election electorate with all the percentages. The GOP will not nominate a TEA Partier or Evangelical warrior (though GWB did kind of have some of that). They will continue to nominate establishment candidates who are conservative but not radical, as they have been.

[dmmidmi]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

Obama's Michigan margin was also cut from 16 points to 9 points, about the same swing as Wisconsin despite the fact that Romney aggressively targetted WI more than he targetted MI. It would seem Ryan had little to no impact on the Wisconsin margin, which was actually a surprise on election night considering it was supposed to be close.

Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all got home state bumps in 2008. Only Romney and Ryan got nothing.

Romney was born in Michigan, and his father served as Governor there, so that may have also been a factor in his improvement in that particular state. It's also possible that having a guy from neighboring Wisconsin on the ticket helped a little bit in that state.

No Maybe but probably not, and no.

This time around, the GOP Presidential Candidate didn't openly declare that they were pulling all of their resources out of Michigan.

Obama did 4 points better in Michigan than nationally in 2008, and 3 points better in 2012. His vote share in the state--relative to the national average--essentially went unchanged.

Edit--changed the first "No."

[Mister Mets]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

Obama's Michigan margin was also cut from 16 points to 9 points, about the same swing as Wisconsin despite the fact that Romney aggressively targetted WI more than he targetted MI. It would seem Ryan had little to no impact on the Wisconsin margin, which was actually a surprise on election night considering it was supposed to be close.

Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all got home state bumps in 2008. Only Romney and Ryan got nothing.

Romney was born in Michigan, and his father served as Governor there, so that may have also been a factor in his improvement in that particular state. It's also possible that having a guy from neighboring Wisconsin on the ticket helped a little bit in that state.

No Maybe but probably not, and no.

This time around, the GOP Presidential Candidate didn't openly declare that they were pulling all of their resources out of Michigan.

Obama did 4 points better in Michigan than nationally in 2008, and 3 points better in 2012. His vote share in the state--relative to the national average--essentially went unchanged.

Edit--changed the first "No."

The difference in the margin of victory is more significant.

Obama won Michigan by 16.47 points in 2008. He had 57.43% while McCain had 40.9%.

His margin of victory over Romney was 9.5 points in 2012, a seven (or 6.97) point shift. The change in the margin of victory for the national vote from 2008 to 2012 was 3.41 points.

[dmmidmi]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.

Not really.

Running mates are worth a few points in their state at best.

That said, Romney was able to cut Obama'a 13.9 point margin in the state in 2008 to 6.94 points in 2012.

Obama's Michigan margin was also cut from 16 points to 9 points, about the same swing as Wisconsin despite the fact that Romney aggressively targetted WI more than he targetted MI. It would seem Ryan had little to no impact on the Wisconsin margin, which was actually a surprise on election night considering it was supposed to be close.

Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all got home state bumps in 2008. Only Romney and Ryan got nothing.

Romney was born in Michigan, and his father served as Governor there, so that may have also been a factor in his improvement in that particular state. It's also possible that having a guy from neighboring Wisconsin on the ticket helped a little bit in that state.

No Maybe but probably not, and no.

This time around, the GOP Presidential Candidate didn't openly declare that they were pulling all of their resources out of Michigan.

Obama did 4 points better in Michigan than nationally in 2008, and 3 points better in 2012. His vote share in the state--relative to the national average--essentially went unchanged.

Edit--changed the first "No."

The difference in the margin of victory is more significant.

Obama won Michigan by 16.47 points in 2008. He had 57.43% while McCain had 40.9%.

His margin of victory over Romney was 9.5 points in 2012, a seven (or 6.97) point shift. The change in the margin of victory for the national vote from 2008 to 2012 was 3.41 points.

After looking at the map, this is probably attributed to lower turnout across the state. Mitt Romney improved upon John McCain's raw vote total by just under 67,000 votes. Meanwhile, Barack Obama had 308,000 fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.

This is particularly staggering:

Wayne County
2008: 891,731 votes cast
2012: 818,136 votes cast

[Bull Moose Base]

The evidence that Ryan is a gigantic underdog against Hillary isn't the 2012 result in Wisconsin, it's that Ryan looks unlikely to run. Is there anyone who isn't a Republican who doubts she'd destroy him?
 

Despite all the TEA talk, the mainstream conservatives are the most powerful and will nominate people like Christie, Portman, Walker, etc. and when the candidates of the moderates and radical cons fall, those groups will fall in line with the Mainstream's candidate, with the Evangelicals putting up a losing fight. We saw this perfectly in 2012, which is why Romney won.

The GOP will nominate a mainstream conservative. Cruz won't go anywhere, other than damage the eventual nominee and the GOP brand (ala 2012).

I'm not sure what mainstream means here but Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum losing was not about them being too conservative. It was about other stuff that doesn't really seem to apply to Cruz.

Other stuff such as…?

Too liberal on immigration, sex scandal, too corrupt, too underfunded.

I mean "mainstream" as in "establishment". I was referring to my post analyzing the GOP primary/general election electorate with all the percentages. The GOP will not nominate a TEA Partier or Evangelical warrior (though GWB did kind of have some of that). They will continue to nominate establishment candidates who are conservative but not radical, as they have been.

Sure but the primary isn't Goldilocks and the bears in that GOP primary voters don't reject candidates for being too conservative. Not saying it's not easier to win with establishment support at your back. It is. Most of that is money, though it only goes so far as Giuliani and Romney 2008 show. What GOP presidential candidates with conventional qualifications were hurt in primaries by being too conservative? I can't think of any. It's true some GOP party leaders loathe Cruz but I'm not sure that'll matter much. His fundraising abilities and Santorum's are night and day.

[Simfan34]

Not even Jon Huntsman could beat Hillary. Republicans should look for a candidate who would restore dignity and propriety to the party, but we won't win until 2024 at the least.

[ShadowRocket]

While she has the advantage in demographics and the Electoral College, I do agree that she isn't as invincible as some make her out to be. Democrats shouldn't take her possible victory for granted.

Plus, I think if she does win, it'll be by a much closer margin than what the current polls suggest.