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

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obama's approval ratings aren't a strength for the Democrats, and won't be in 2016, but they're OBAMA'S approval rating, and not necessarily the approval rating for Hillary Clinton.  It won't be the living end at the level it's at now.  There will also be the approval rating for Congress, which is likely to be in the toilet.  That won't be a strength for the GOP especially if the nominee is a Senator.

The reality of our history is that the country gets locked in, in terms of the Electoral College.  From 1868-1928, the Democrats were at an incredible disadvantage in the Electoral College that was only broken by a scandal-ridden GOP incumbent in 1884, and a third-party challenge to an incumbent President from Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.  From 1932-1964, the country was locked into a strong Democratic majority.  The reality was that Truman was likely to win in 1948 on the strength of the Democratic tilt.  It was only the GOP's nomination of a superstar moderate such as Eisenhower that enabled them to break the deadlock.  From 1968-1988, America was locked into GOP dominance, losing only one election after a horrible scandal which they likely would have won had the campaign gone on for another 2 weeks.  The Democrats really had no chance to elect a President during this period.  In 1992, the states hardened into the stalemate we have today.  This fact was disguised somewhat by the Perot candidacy, but the only states that Clinton carried that have not gone Republican since were states they would not have carried without Perot voters. 

Each of these hardenings had a reason:

1868-1928:  The Civil War
1932-1964:  The Great Depression
1964-1988:  Middle American Backlash against "movements" (blacks, women's lib, counterculture)
1992-2012:  Young voter/Northern voter backlash against cultural conservatism

What HAS happened is several things:

(A)  Demographics continue to improve for the Democrats
(B)  Democrats keep gaining support for their cultural policies
(C)  The GOP is too divided to respond to opportunities to break the deadlock

This is the first time that the Electoral Hardening has been close to a tossup.  But the GOP is not well positioned to break the deadlock in their favor.  Moderate independent voters are not likely to approve of the way the GOP has behaved as an opposition party.  The establishment GOP Presidential candidates are elitist and unpopular (Bush, Romney), and the others are all unsavory in their own way (Cruz, Paul, Christie, Perry, Santorum, Huckabee, Ryan, and any number of others).  Hillary Clinton may be the most likeable of the bunch, and that's saying a LOT.  Mitch Daniels said in 2012 that "It might help if people liked us (pause) just a bit."  None of the GOP contenders are likeable, and if HRC isn't REAL likeable, she's better that Team GOP and Bill Clinton is REAL likeable.
1992-now:

[Free Bird]

Obama's approval ratings aren't a strength for the Democrats, and won't be in 2016, but they're OBAMA'S approval rating, and not necessarily the approval rating for Hillary Clinton.  It won't be the living end at the level it's at now.  There will also be the approval rating for Congress, which is likely to be in the toilet.  That won't be a strength for the GOP especially if the nominee is a Senator.

The reality of our history is that the country gets locked in, in terms of the Electoral College.  From 1868-1928, the Democrats were at an incredible disadvantage in the Electoral College that was only broken by a scandal-ridden GOP incumbent in 1884, and a third-party challenge to an incumbent President from Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.  From 1932-1964, the country was locked into a strong Democratic majority.  The reality was that Truman was likely to win in 1948 on the strength of the Democratic tilt.  It was only the GOP's nomination of a superstar moderate such as Eisenhower that enabled them to break the deadlock.  From 1968-1988, America was locked into GOP dominance, losing only one election after a horrible scandal which they likely would have won had the campaign gone on for another 2 weeks.  The Democrats really had no chance to elect a President during this period.  In 1992, the states hardened into the stalemate we have today.  This fact was disguised somewhat by the Perot candidacy, but the only states that Clinton carried that have not gone Republican since were states they would not have carried without Perot voters. 

Each of these hardenings had a reason:

1868-1928:  The Civil War
1932-1964:  The Great Depression
1964-1988:  Middle American Backlash against "movements" (blacks, women's lib, counterculture)
1992-2012:  Young voter/Northern voter backlash against cultural conservatism

What HAS happened is several things:

(A)  Demographics continue to improve for the Democrats
(B)  Democrats keep gaining support for their cultural policies
(C)  The GOP is too divided to respond to opportunities to break the deadlock

This is the first time that the Electoral Hardening has been close to a tossup.  But the GOP is not well positioned to break the deadlock in their favor.  Moderate independent voters are not likely to approve of the way the GOP has behaved as an opposition party.  The establishment GOP Presidential candidates are elitist and unpopular (Bush, Romney), and the others are all unsavory in their own way (Cruz, Paul, Christie, Perry, Santorum, Huckabee, Ryan, and any number of others).  Hillary Clinton may be the most likeable of the bunch, and that's saying a LOT.  Mitch Daniels said in 2012 that "It might help if people liked us (pause) just a bit."  None of the GOP contenders are likeable, and if HRC isn't REAL likeable, she's better that Team GOP and Bill Clinton is REAL likeable.
1992-now:

That's faulty logic if I ever saw it. So you're saying that John McCain's approval ratings were the only factor in his landslide loss, NOT the fact that the country had severe Republican fatigue. You CANNOT say that the same will not happen with Democrats even the SLIGHTEST BIT in 16.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obama's approval ratings aren't a strength for the Democrats, and won't be in 2016, but they're OBAMA'S approval rating, and not necessarily the approval rating for Hillary Clinton.  It won't be the living end at the level it's at now.  There will also be the approval rating for Congress, which is likely to be in the toilet.  That won't be a strength for the GOP especially if the nominee is a Senator.

The reality of our history is that the country gets locked in, in terms of the Electoral College.  From 1868-1928, the Democrats were at an incredible disadvantage in the Electoral College that was only broken by a scandal-ridden GOP incumbent in 1884, and a third-party challenge to an incumbent President from Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.  From 1932-1964, the country was locked into a strong Democratic majority.  The reality was that Truman was likely to win in 1948 on the strength of the Democratic tilt.  It was only the GOP's nomination of a superstar moderate such as Eisenhower that enabled them to break the deadlock.  From 1968-1988, America was locked into GOP dominance, losing only one election after a horrible scandal which they likely would have won had the campaign gone on for another 2 weeks.  The Democrats really had no chance to elect a President during this period.  In 1992, the states hardened into the stalemate we have today.  This fact was disguised somewhat by the Perot candidacy, but the only states that Clinton carried that have not gone Republican since were states they would not have carried without Perot voters. 

Each of these hardenings had a reason:

1868-1928:  The Civil War
1932-1964:  The Great Depression
1964-1988:  Middle American Backlash against "movements" (blacks, women's lib, counterculture)
1992-2012:  Young voter/Northern voter backlash against cultural conservatism

What HAS happened is several things:

(A)  Demographics continue to improve for the Democrats
(B)  Democrats keep gaining support for their cultural policies
(C)  The GOP is too divided to respond to opportunities to break the deadlock

This is the first time that the Electoral Hardening has been close to a tossup.  But the GOP is not well positioned to break the deadlock in their favor.  Moderate independent voters are not likely to approve of the way the GOP has behaved as an opposition party.  The establishment GOP Presidential candidates are elitist and unpopular (Bush, Romney), and the others are all unsavory in their own way (Cruz, Paul, Christie, Perry, Santorum, Huckabee, Ryan, and any number of others).  Hillary Clinton may be the most likeable of the bunch, and that's saying a LOT.  Mitch Daniels said in 2012 that "It might help if people liked us (pause) just a bit."  None of the GOP contenders are likeable, and if HRC isn't REAL likeable, she's better that Team GOP and Bill Clinton is REAL likeable.
1992-now:

That's faulty logic if I ever saw it. So you're saying that John McCain's approval ratings were the only factor in his landslide loss, NOT the fact that the country had severe Republican fatigue. You CANNOT say that the same will not happen with Democrats even the SLIGHTEST BIT in 16.

Approval ratings are more critical for the incumbent than the challenger.  McCain's approval ratings in 2008 were never that bad, but his campaign made some strategic errors, most notably McCain suspending his campaign to work on the Financial Crisis, then ending up with nothing coherent to contribute to the solution.  Had McCain just gone on campaigning he would have been in better shape.

By the way:  The GOP did not lose in 2008 because of Republican fatigue.  They lost because of the economic downturn and the unpopular Iraq War, both of which they spawned.  The Economic Downturn was more than just a normal recession; it was an event that structurally damaged our economy and folks knew this. 

[DS0816]

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 [Clinton] specifically?

If the Democratic Party can only win with Hillary Clinton as the nominee for president of the United States, it will not win in Election 2016. A major party's shot at the White House does not tend to rely on only one candidate being able to pull it off.

This Hillary Clinton-must-be-the-nominee stuff comes from people who are wanting liberals in the Democratic Party to [STFU] and kowtow to who the establishment wants.

That's why the b.s. stuff about Elizabeth Warren, and any other actual liberal, supposedly not being electable for the presidency of the United States.

If it's a year where the Republicans will win the presidency, and the Democrats nominate an actual liberal, the party will say, "See! You nominate a liberal and you're going to lose." If it's a year where the Democrats win the presidency, and the winning Democrat is an actual liberal who actually leads like a liberal, that kills the theory by the craven and sycophantic Democrats who, in reality, do not want a real liberal president of the United States.

The Republicans have seen 18 states, plus there is District of Columbia, not carry once for their party since after the 1980s. Those add up to 242 electoral votes. These are states which historically have a better performance record in carrying in prevailing presidential elections than a great amount of the now-recognized Republican base states. Yet, somehow, everyone who prefers voting for Democrats for president are supposed to believe that a liberal (with this thread's example of Elizabeth Warren) cannot possibly win election to the presidency of the United States.

Does the Democratic voters (and sycophants) seriously think that an actual liberal nominee from their party is going to make the party lose California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont and, for the hell of it, District of Columbia? And if the Democratic Party were to nominate a real liberal, and in an election year that will be won by the party, do they seriously believe that New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. may not get carried?

There are too many people whose minds are stuck in the past. (And they embrace that.)

[IceSpear]

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 [Clinton] specifically?

If the Democratic Party can only win with Hillary Clinton as the nominee for president of the United States, it will not win in Election 2016. A major party's shot at the White House does not tend to rely on only one candidate being able to pull it off.

This Hillary Clinton-must-be-the-nominee stuff comes from people who are wanting liberals in the Democratic Party to [STFU] and kowtow to who the establishment wants.

That's why the b.s. stuff about Elizabeth Warren, and any other actual liberal, supposedly not being electable for the presidency of the United States.

If it's a year where the Republicans will win the presidency, and the Democrats nominate an actual liberal, the party will say, "See! You nominate a liberal and you're going to lose." If it's a year where the Democrats win the presidency, and the winning Democrat is an actual liberal who actually leads like a liberal, that kills the theory by the craven and sycophantic Democrats who, in reality, do not want a real liberal president of the United States.

The Republicans have seen 18 states, plus there is District of Columbia, not carry once for their party since after the 1980s. Those add up to 242 electoral votes. These are states which historically have a better performance record in carrying in prevailing presidential elections than a great amount of the now-recognized Republican base states. Yet, somehow, everyone who prefers voting for Democrats for president are supposed to believe that a liberal (with this thread's example of Elizabeth Warren) cannot possibly win election to the presidency of the United States.

Does the Democratic voters (and sycophants) seriously think that an actual liberal nominee from their party is going to make the party lose California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont and, for the hell of it, District of Columbia? And if the Democratic Party were to nominate a real liberal, and in an election year that will be won by the party, do they seriously believe that New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. may not get carried?

There are too many people whose minds are stuck in the past. (And they embrace that.)

To act as if Hillary is not stronger than a typical Democrat is to ignore all empirical data. You're entitled to your opinion, but all evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

Even if another Democrat COULD win (they very well could, especially if the GOP nominee is lackluster), Hillary is the only one that could potentially win big enough in order to drag in a Democratic House with her as well. If that doesn't happen, well good luck getting President Warren's or President Sanders' agenda through a Republican House.

[Free Bird]

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 [Clinton] specifically?

If the Democratic Party can only win with Hillary Clinton as the nominee for president of the United States, it will not win in Election 2016. A major party's shot at the White House does not tend to rely on only one candidate being able to pull it off.

This Hillary Clinton-must-be-the-nominee stuff comes from people who are wanting liberals in the Democratic Party to [STFU] and kowtow to who the establishment wants.

That's why the b.s. stuff about Elizabeth Warren, and any other actual liberal, supposedly not being electable for the presidency of the United States.

If it's a year where the Republicans will win the presidency, and the Democrats nominate an actual liberal, the party will say, "See! You nominate a liberal and you're going to lose." If it's a year where the Democrats win the presidency, and the winning Democrat is an actual liberal who actually leads like a liberal, that kills the theory by the craven and sycophantic Democrats who, in reality, do not want a real liberal president of the United States.

The Republicans have seen 18 states, plus there is District of Columbia, not carry once for their party since after the 1980s. Those add up to 242 electoral votes. These are states which historically have a better performance record in carrying in prevailing presidential elections than a great amount of the now-recognized Republican base states. Yet, somehow, everyone who prefers voting for Democrats for president are supposed to believe that a liberal (with this thread's example of Elizabeth Warren) cannot possibly win election to the presidency of the United States.

Does the Democratic voters (and sycophants) seriously think that an actual liberal nominee from their party is going to make the party lose California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont and, for the hell of it, District of Columbia? And if the Democratic Party were to nominate a real liberal, and in an election year that will be won by the party, do they seriously believe that New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. may not get carried?

There are too many people whose minds are stuck in the past. (And they embrace that.)

You must remember that some of those states have come close a few times. I think with the right R they are very winnable, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, ME-2, and MAYBE Michigan in a wave.