Enough with Invincible Hillary

[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

It's an interesting rarely considered question.

Her qualifications are impressive at this point. Let's ignore the significance of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She was essentially a senior adviser to a President who went on to become a prominent Senator, and then served in a prominent cabinet post in a later presidential administration.

And after the election of the first African-American President, the first female President seems to be the milestone the country's waiting for. There just isn't anything else on that level. Women represent half the country, and it's about time to have one in the White House.

The primary opposition also isn't that impressive. The Veep, the former Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the most prominent Governor are in their 70s. Edwards had a career-ending scandal. There's no democratic member of Congress who gets as much attention as McCain did eight years ago. There's no executive who dealt with a national crisis with the coverage Giuliani had during the response to 9/11. Some prominent progressives were recently elected to significant office, but the one best able to run for President was elected to statewide office in her 60s (It's very rare for a presidential candidate to rise to prominence that late in their career.)

She polls very well in the General Election, so anyone inclined to support her has little strategic reason to do so.

But that's not the main reason. After a divisive primary, Hillary Clinton did the right thing (as far as the party is concerned) and served in the administration of the guy who beat her. Her previous supporters love her even more (She's now even more qualified), but this has also won over a lot of Obama fans, who see her as someone who helped a transformational figure.

Serving as Secretary of State was convenient. It kept her out of domestic controversies, allowing her a lot of latitude when it comes to deciding how much she should embrace Obama's policies. She's currently a blank slate. Supporters of Obama see her as someone who could continue his work. His critics (among the left and the center-left) see her as someone who can do a better job.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.