Enough with Invincible Hillary

[IceSpear]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

Thank you...  It's about time someone acknowledges the humanity and frailty of Hillary.  She is not and should never be considered a shoo-in.  There is a better chance that she will NOT be the 45th president of the United States than there is that she will be.

Amazing! A Dem on this site that isn't obnoxious about their views or near-worshipping Hillary

I can tell you're new here because you actually think he's a Democrat.

But as to your question, all empirical evidence currently shows Hillary as unbeatable in the Democratic primary if she runs, and the odds on favorite against any Republican in the general election. So assuming she chooses to run, her chances of becoming the next president are surely greater than 50%, and are leagues better than any other potential candidate.

[IceSpear]

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.

Well at first you seemed to be arguing whether or not Hillary actually IS the frontrunner to be the next president, to which the answer is objectively yes she is (although that can obviously change). As to your second point about whether or not that's deserved, why she's so overwhelmingly the favorite among Democrats, or why she's ahead in the general election matchups, those are an entirely different set of questions.

Despite all the hand wringing from the right/left about how Hillary is a communist/warmonger, in reality she's a fairly generic Democrat with a bit of a hawkish streak. So why would typical Democrats NOT support her? I don't exactly see any of the GOP hopefuls putting forth any broad visions of change for the country either, just the same old failed Bush policies. Why is it only Hillary that has to "earn" support through bold and new ideas? Rarely do candidates from any major political party have those types of ideas in these times. And you forget, that Hillary has more experience than pretty much any GOP or Democratic hopeful does, spending 8 years as a politically active First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State. The fact that people (especially within the Democratic Party) have 90s/Clinton nostalgia and think it's time for a woman president certainly isn't hurting her either.

[IceSpear]

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.

Well at first you seemed to be arguing whether or not Hillary actually IS the frontrunner to be the next president, to which the answer is objectively yes she is (although that can obviously change). As to your second point about whether or not that's deserved, why she's so overwhelmingly the favorite among Democrats, or why she's ahead in the general election matchups, those are an entirely different set of questions.

Despite all the hand wringing from the right/left about how Hillary is a communist/warmonger, in reality she's a fairly generic Democrat with a bit of a hawkish streak. So why would typical Democrats NOT support her? I don't exactly see any of the GOP hopefuls putting forth any broad visions of change for the country either, just the same old failed Bush policies. Why is it only Hillary that has to "earn" support through bold and new ideas? Rarely do candidates from any major political party have those types of ideas in these times. And you forget, that Hillary has more experience than pretty much any GOP or Democratic hopeful does, spending 8 years as a politically active First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State. The fact that people (especially within the Democratic Party) have 90s/Clinton nostalgia and think it's time for a woman president certainly isn't hurting her either.

Every candidate in either party has to earn the nomination and then earn the presidency in the eyes of the voters.  Yes, Hillary has the most experience and probably starts with a leg up on the other candidates in either party, but we should not be going so far as to crowning her president still 29 months before the general election and 19 months before Iowa.  A lot can change between now and then.

I personally think Hillary would be a decent president, and I might even vote for her depending on who she faces on the other side, but I am not going to crown her queen 5 months before the primary campaign officially begins.

Remember right now, at this early stage, as with every presidential cycle, it is mostly name recognition.  People know Hillary Clinton's name more than they know the names of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, etc.  People also know Clinton's name over Brain Schweitzer, Elizabeth Warren, etc.  So, it is natural she would be ahead in the polls at this early stage.  Point is, I would not place any stock in the polls at this juncture whether they show Clinton in the lead or trailing.

Well, just as many people know Biden as know Hillary, and he still trails her by 40-50 points in nearly every poll. And Hillary also usually gets ~60% in a generic "Hillary vs. somebody else" question.

[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.

[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.