Enough with Invincible Hillary

[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.

[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?

[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."

[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