NYT: How Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain

[henster]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/upshot/why-hillary-clinton-is-like-john-mccain.html?rref=upshot

[Maxwell]

That sounds accurate - before 2012, Republicans were comparing a probable Hillary Presidency to Obama's as sort of a "she wouldn't be so radical!", so it makes sense to me.

[IceSpear]

Hillary's numbers have already dropped among independents and Republicans (as expected), but she's still over 50% and has the best ratings of any potential 2016 candidate in either party.

[BaconBacon96]

We all knew this was going to happen.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I will campaign door to door for the GOP nominee if Hillary is pushed out by the radicals again.

[Matty]

I will campaign door to door for the GOP nominee if Hillary is pushed out by the radicals again.

What radicals are trying to push Hillary out? Something like 90% of dems want her, and the 10% are Sanders kooks who don't even vote.

[moderatevoter]

Okay, we all knew her numbers would go down once she became a more partisan figure again. There was no way they were staying in the stratosphere.

[windjammer]

Okay, we all knew her numbers would go down once she became a more partisan figure again. There was no way they were staying in the stratosphere.

This.

This is normal. I mean, Obama was leading Romney by double digits, it was obvious the numbers would have gone down.

[King]

Have her numbers really gone down? Sure the unfavorable opinions have crept up, but she's still blowing out everybody left, right, and sideways.

[IceSpear]

Have her numbers really gone down? Sure the unfavorable opinions have crept up, but she's still blowing out everybody left, right, and sideways.

Her GE polls have fallen a bit, but the real fall has been her favorability. Of course, in the current era of politics, most politicians would kill for this favorability rating.

[King]

I would still say it's significant she runs 10 points ahead of the President and her decline since Jan 2013 has been on par with Obama's.

McCain was more unraveled by Bush giving up on being President. While Obama's executive order usage is drawing controversy, he isn't just sitting there spiraling the drain. Keep the economy growing steadily, keep the health insurance rate growing steadily, give the environmentalists what they want through EPA, and he'll rebound or at least stay at this current level.

If he's at 40% on Election Day 2016, she will win. If he's at 50% on Election Day 2016, she will win convincingly.

[Mister Mets]

It's worth noting that it isn't clear that McCain was a bad candidate.

He lost by seven point when his party was incredibly unpopular shortly after an economic collapse.

In 1920, Warren G Harding beat James Cox by over 25 points. FDR went on to beat Hoover (an incumbent President) by over 17 points. Eisenhower beat Stevenson (the first team) by nearly eleven points.

If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

[BlueSwan]

It's worth noting that it isn't clear that McCain was a bad candidate.

He lost by seven point when his party was incredibly unpopular shortly after an economic collapse.

Ageed. AND he lost to a pretty formidable campaigner, to say the least. John McCain was a good candidate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's worth noting that it isn't clear that McCain was a bad candidate.

He lost by seven point when his party was incredibly unpopular shortly after an economic collapse.

Ageed. AND he lost to a pretty formidable campaigner, to say the least. John McCain was a good candidate.

It's ironic that their most electable candidate of the last 4 elections also did the worst of the last 4 elections.

[Bull Moose Base]

If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

Here's an argument from Jonathan Bernstein (always pretty sharp) that nominees don't affect elections that much and so Cruz could beat Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/ted_cruz_could_beat_hillary/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And of course Klobuchar is nothing like Cruz. I think she'd be one of the Ds strongest potential nominees.

[Paul Kemp]

I will campaign door to door for the GOP nominee if Hillary is pushed out by the radicals again.

When did this happen?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Hillary's numbers have already dropped among independents and Republicans (as expected), but she's still over 50% and has the best ratings of any potential 2016 candidate in either party.

This is exactly right. Moreover, her numbers among Republicans were likely artificially inflated, given that the party line was something like "Why couldn't the tyrant Obama have been more like Hillary?" Now that it appears she's gearing up to run, it'll change to "Hillary will be a tyrant! Not like that nice Obama!"

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

It's worth noting that it isn't clear that McCain was a bad candidate.

He lost by seven point when his party was incredibly unpopular shortly after an economic collapse.

In 1920, Warren G Harding beat James Cox by over 25 points. FDR went on to beat Hoover (an incumbent President) by over 17 points. Eisenhower beat Stevenson (the first team) by nearly eleven points.

If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

This is disanalogous. The electorate is drastically more polarized now compared to 1920, or even the 1980s when Bush I and Reagan got their landslides. A blowout in the current environment would require the candidate to be aggressively bad, e.g. O'Donnell or Akin levels bad.

[IceSpear]

If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

Here's an argument from Jonathan Bernstein (always pretty sharp) that nominees don't affect elections that much and so Cruz could beat Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/ted_cruz_could_beat_hillary/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And of course Klobuchar is nothing like Cruz. I think she'd be one of the Ds strongest potential nominees.

That article was from before Cruz shut down the government and proved he doesn't play well with others. He's much more toxic now.

Hillary's numbers have already dropped among independents and Republicans (as expected), but she's still over 50% and has the best ratings of any potential 2016 candidate in either party.

This is exactly right. Moreover, her numbers among Republicans were likely artificially inflated, given that the party line was something like "Why couldn't the tyrant Obama have been more like Hillary?" Now that it appears she's gearing up to run, it'll change to "Hillary will be a tyrant! Not like that nice Obama!"

Good point. I found it pretty funny how far right wing blogs were talking about how they wished Hillary was president instead. I expect the opposite coming from them now, soon enough anyway.

[King]

Basically with Hillary vs. the GOP field, you're picking between spending the summer living with the shrill aunt who isn't much fun at all or the uncle whose hand always gets a little too close to your privates whenever you're around him.  No matter how much fun he claims you're going to have reforming government together just you and him, the aunt has the edge.

[NHLiberal]

Basically with Hillary vs. the GOP field, you're picking between spending the summer living with the shrill aunt who isn't much fun at all or the uncle whose hand always gets a little too close to your privates whenever you're around him.  No matter how much fun he claims you're going to have reforming government together just you and him, the aunt has the edge.

Yes...

[Oak Hills]

If Hillary loses by five, it's possible that a Martin O'Malley could lose by twelve.

If Hillary ekes out a narrow win, it might be an environment that would crush a Klobuchar.

Here's an argument from Jonathan Bernstein (always pretty sharp) that nominees don't affect elections that much and so Cruz could beat Hillary.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/20/ted_cruz_could_beat_hillary/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All I see in that in that article is Bernstein making the claim several times, without any strong evidence to back it up. I'm not convinced.

Also, I find hard to believe that the Democrats wouldn't have done more the 2-3 points better in 1972 with someone other than McGovern. Besides, three of our last four elections only required a swing of about that size for the outcome to be reversed, and a three-point swing would have come very close to flipping even 2008.