It's almost too easy for D's to win in 2016, makes me think R's will win

[Non Swing Voter]

I feel like this has happened in the past (recent past in non-Presidential elections)... majority party becomes complacent, arrogant, and/or turns against each other because it's enemy is weak/pathetic (like the current Republican party)...  I have this sinking feeling today that Republicans could turn this all around even though all evidence points against them. 

[GaussLaw]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[IceSpear]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[GaussLaw]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

What that really indicates is that Clinton is a very strong candidate, at least for now.  If Clinton says no, the rhetoric will change significantly.

But the point is that there is some evidence that 2016 might not be a banner Democratic year based on the fundamentals.  Presidential approval absolutely is an important factor and would constitute evidence, to use the words of the OP.

[Free Bird]

Without Hillary, it's anyone's game.

[illegaloperation]

Hillary Clinton is well know (for better or worse) and has a distinctly separate identity from Barack Obama.

The only thing that will stop Hillary in 2016 is Hillary esp. if she keep making out of touch remarks like her "dead broke" comment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

[moderatevoter]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

[tmthforu94]

Democrats will stop with the inevitability thing soon enough. Wasn't McCain leading Obama by double-digits even in January of '08? Polling now means nothing - with Obama's low approvals this will probably be a pretty tight race regardless of who the nominees are.

[Never]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

[bedstuy]

Republicans have a small chance to win in 2016.  The problem is that they're going to insist on choosing a candidate who is way to the right of the median voter.  That makes winning difficult.  Republicans need to focus on winning persuadable voters, but they have a laser focus on persuading conservatives to vote Republican.  That was a great strategy to beat Democrats in 1980 by stealing the South, it was a mediocre strategy in 2000 and 2004 when it got them a razor thin margin and today it's a terrible strategy.

Most people don't care about Benghazi or what Rush said about xyz.  They want concrete ideas on how to make the country better.  The current Republican Party isn't going to contemplate trying that so they will lose in 2016.  This is a fair game at some level.  If you clearly have bad ideas and your party is mean, dumb and angry, it's more difficult to win.  Listen to any Republican today, they have no positive ideas, it's just scapegoating liberals, or black people, or immigrants, or Muslims, or gay people, or kooky leftists, or women, etc.

Also, Republicans who think you're going to win: Be prepared for your party to nominate Ted Cruz.  That's happening, FYI.

[IceSpear]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

When is the magic arbitrary point they start becoming useful? Hillary has consistently led every Republican candidate in polls for a year and a half now. It's pretty foolish to dismiss that just because "it's early, and things COULD (emphasis) change".

[Never]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

When is the magic arbitrary point they start becoming useful? Hillary has consistently led every Republican candidate in polls for a year and a half now. It's pretty foolish to dismiss that just because "it's early, and things COULD (emphasis) change".

I don't think there is any arbitrary cutoff when we can say "Alright, this batch of polls will tell us what to expect on election night." It's just that looking at Clinton leading all of her potential opponents as of 2014 could be viewed as similar to how McCain led both Obama and Clinton in 2006 and 2007. On the Obama vs. McCain matchup that I hyperlinked, it appears that McCain led Obama by 12 to 19 points in the polls all the way at the bottom of the screen. An LA Times poll from December '06 showed McCain leading Clinton by 14 points. Based on that data and how it compared to 2008's actual result, it seems like Clinton's leads of 9 and 10 points against major GOP candidates in the RealClearPolitics average might not be good indicators for how she will do on November 8, 2016 should she become the Democratic nominee.

I still think that Hillary will win if she runs, but I'm not really basing that on how she is doing in polls right now. I'm just looking at the national environment, Hillary's strengths as a potential candidate, and other things.

[BlueSwan]

I don't think democrats think that 2016 is in the bag at all.

Hillary is a very strong candidate, and if she runs she will be the instant favourite to win. But favourite doesn't mean it's inevitable - not at all.

If she doesn't run, honestly, it is the GOP's for the taking, unless Obamas approvals skyrocket before 2016. Hillary will be much less affected by Obamas approvals than lesser known dem candidates (or Biden, obviously).

[Bull Moose Base]

I said a year ago that Hillary was the best positioned non-incumbent 3 years out ever. But people are confusing causality. The Democrats aren't heavily favored because Hillary will be a dominating nominee. Hillary will be a dominating nominee because the Democrats are heavily favored and she's basically a lock to be the nominee. Obama's current approvals aren't low enough to be a real factor. He's still like 15 points higher than W was. His approvals are also higher than the GOP. As John McCain says, it doesn't matter who the GOP nominates in 2016. They'll lose. This would be as true against Warren as against Hillary.

Speaking of McCain, Hillary isn't really analagous to his position 8 years ago. To become the nominee he would need to sacrifice what made him appealing. Also, the Iraq War which McCain championed more than anyone was growing increasingly unpopular.

[Mr. Morden]

I still think that Hillary will win if she runs, but I'm not really basing that on how she is doing in polls right now. I'm just looking at the national environment, Hillary's strengths as a potential candidate, and other things.

I agree with you.  Clinton would be the favorite at the moment.  But I don't say that because of polling, as I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that general election polling in presidential elections 2+ years before the election has any predictive value.

Heck, we've seen some crazy polling movement before *within* the election year, never mind 2 years ahead of time.  The most extreme case I can think of being:

[IceSpear]

I still think that Hillary will win if she runs, but I'm not really basing that on how she is doing in polls right now. I'm just looking at the national environment, Hillary's strengths as a potential candidate, and other things.

I agree with you.  Clinton would be the favorite at the moment.  But I don't say that because of polling, as I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that general election polling in presidential elections 2+ years before the election has any predictive value.

Heck, we've seen some crazy polling movement before *within* the election year, never mind 2 years ahead of time.  The most extreme case I can think of being:

You guys bring up good points, but increased polarization has likely increased the predictive value of early polls. I doubt we'd see any crazy swings like this in the modern era, barring a major game changer such as a scandal or economic collapse.

For example, in Romney vs. Obama numbers, there was nothing TOO crazy and wildly different from the end result in there, except during Obama's peak of popularity. Especially if there was enough polls to create an average, which there currently is for Hillary vs. the GOPers.

[eric82oslo]

You guys bring up good points, but increased polarization has likely increased the predictive value of early polls. I doubt we'd see any crazy swings like this in the modern era, barring a major game changer such as a scandal or economic collapse.

For example, in Romney vs. Obama numbers, there was nothing TOO crazy and wildly different from the end result in there, except during Obama's peak of popularity. Especially if there was enough polls to create an average, which there currently is for Hillary vs. the GOPers.

Good point. Here are some average leads Obama had on Romney according to the RealClearPolitics poll averages at different stages/days during the two years prior to the 2012 election (21 last months to be exact, as RCP started tracking the race on February 2, 2011):

February 9, 2011: Obama +4%
April 17, 2011: Obama +4%
April 19, 2011: Obama +3.6%
May 6, 2011: Obama +4%
August 10, 2011: Obama +3.6%
September 24, 2011: Obama +3%
February 6, 2012: Obama +4%
March 14, 2012: Obama +3.9%
April 5, 2012: Obama +4.1%
April 26, 2012: Obama +3.7%
June 6, 2012: Obama +3%
June 29, 2012: Obama +3.8%
August 8, 2012: Obama +3.9%
August 17, 2012: Obama +3.9%
September 11, 2012: Obama +3.6%
September 25, 2012: Obama +4%
October 1, 2012: Obama +4%

In other words, during these 20 months above, one can hardly argue that the Obama-Romney polls changed much. Romney basically needed an earthquake at least of some proportions in order to change the narrative. And his 47% comment coupled with the hurricane Sandy arguably weren't the type of earthquakes that Romney was searching for.

In fact, on the days of Obama's strongest leads, June 2-6, 2011, Obama was still only +7.3% ahead of Romney. In other words, one can not say that polls changed very much over time, at all. During those two years, Romney was just ahead of Obama in the polls during four extremely short periods (basically a week each time), namely during:

*September 6-13, 2011 (8 days)
*October 6-11, 2011 (6 days)
*October 9-17, 2012 (9 days)
*October 22-30, 2012 (9 days)

In other words, over the lapse of the last 642 days of the campaign, Romney was just leading Obama in the aggregate of polls on 32 days, that is just 5% of the time.

[Non Swing Voter]

Two points:

1) I wish Never would never post in my threads like he has repeatedly said he would not.

2) Didn't the GOP also bash all the polls showing Obama up months before the election?

I don't see why everyone thinks that Democrats are only in a good position because of Hillary.  Does anyone really think their electoral advantage is dependent upon Hillary specifically?

[Never]

Two points:

1) I wish Never would never post in my threads like he has repeatedly said he would not.

2) Didn't the GOP also bash all the polls showing Obama up months before the election?

I don't see why everyone thinks that Democrats are only in a good position because of Hillary.  Does anyone really think their electoral advantage is dependent upon Hillary specifically?

Well, I was interacting with other people here, but I'll respect your wishes. Please don't respond to any thread that I make.  Farewell, all the best.

[GaussLaw]

Two points:

1) I wish Never would never post in my threads like he has repeatedly said he would not.

2) Didn't the GOP also bash all the polls showing Obama up months before the election?

I don't see why everyone thinks that Democrats are only in a good position because of Hillary.  Does anyone really think their electoral advantage is dependent upon Hillary specifically?

Well, she is clearly, clearly stronger than Biden.  And if we say that polls this far out matter, then if Hillary does not run, the GOP is in a good position as GOP candidates tend to lead non Hillary dems.  Also, the primary would be quite nasty without Hillary.

I do not see what evidence there would be for a Dem advantage if Hillary is not running.

Obama has a 41 percent approval rating.  Somehow, it seems like the hacks on there think that somehow this fact is irrelevant. 

[The Mikado]

GaussLaw: the thing is, the GOP isn't running in a vacuum either, and the reality of Rand Paul or whomever is at the top of the ticket isn't as appealing as "not Obama, the Generic R." 

[King]

I have a strong feeling this is the cycle the far right gets their crap nominee through finally, especially if the establishment's only idea right now is to run Mitt Romney again. That should seal the deal.

I don't think Rand or Rubio are going to give up their Senate seats to run, as they'd have to do.

Prepare yourself for watching Ted Cruz's smug face get blown out.

[The Mikado]

Prepare yourself for watching Ted Cruz's smug face get blown out.

I can't wait for the "Ted Cruz isn't eligible to run" crowd to get started.

(Of course Ted Cruz is eligible to run)

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Kentucky just changed the law so that Rand can run for President and Senate at the same time.

[pbrower2a]

Two points:

1) I wish Never would never post in my threads like he has repeatedly said he would not.

2) Didn't the GOP also bash all the polls showing Obama up months before the election?

I don't see why everyone thinks that Democrats are only in a good position because of Hillary.  Does anyone really think their electoral advantage is dependent upon Hillary specifically?

Many are disappointed because Barack Obama has failed to deliver even more change to their liking. In 2016 someone can pick up much of the vote of people who did not get all that they wanted because the Republicans made such impossible. The Republican nominee, unless running to the left of someone like Hillary Clinton on that (extremely unlikely) will not win voters who think that Obama hasn't achieved enough.

So far Hillary Clinton is the only one who seems able to win those voters. I have no idea who would outdo her at that. But this can be said: both the Corporate wing of the GOP and the Tea Party wing offend the sensibilities and economic interests of so much of America that they have a distinct disadvantage built in that they will have  to pick up nearly every persuadable vote to win.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Biden has had plenty of chances to win the Democratic nomination, and he did not get it. He had immeasurable weaknesses as a potential nominee in his 50s and those weaknesses have surly not disappeared.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

About 240 electoral votes belong to States and DC that have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since at least 1988.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are alternative explanations. He disappoints some people who are to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic Party who will still vote for just about any Democrat for President. FoX News is hammering everything the President does. If it had a 'Style' or 'Fashion' segment the analysts would attack the President for his sartorial choices. In November 2016 that will no longer matter.