Realistically, could anyone beat Hillary in a primary?

[IceSpear]

Perhaps, but it will be harder than 2008. 2008 required all of the following 3 for her to lose
Iraq war vote and hawkishness on Iran
Mark Penn running a terrible campaign, ignoring caucuses, race baiting.
Obama being a good candidate

But the good news is that she managed to blow an almost sure thing in 2008, so could do it again.

And even in that perfect storm against her (along with starting out in a weaker position), she still got the support of nearly half the party. 2008 was never a lock for her. She was the frontrunner, but a frontrunner polling at 35-40% isn't completely safe. Now, the 60-70% she's currently at is the level of support an incumbent president usually receives.

[IceSpear]

Yes and I continue to predict someone will, Clinton will not be the nominee of the Dems in 2016

Hillary's chances of losing a primary are about as high as Bellows' chances of beating Collins.

[IceSpear]

August 2006: "No one could beat Hillary in a primary."

Polling at 35% and polling at 65% are quite different.

[IceSpear]

I reckon Schweitzer makes it a race in Iowa, a state which is not a fan of the Clinton's. Maybe O'Malley makes it a race in New Hampshire, but Clinton wins by a large margin. South Carolina is in the bag for Clinton, as is Florida. Maybe a couple more western States fall to Schweitzer, but Clinton will win the primary.

O'Malley can't even make it a race in Maryland, much less New Hampshire.

[IceSpear]

Let's be real for a second here: if it was Joe Biden leading in the primary polls by 50+ points (both nationwide and in the early states) with his most likely opponents being Brian Schweitzer and Bernie Sanders, literally nobody would be talking about how he could possibly be upended in the primary. The only reason this is even a topic of discussion is because of the vendetta many on Atlas and in the pundit class have against Hillary. That and "muh 2008", which has already been thoroughly debunked by anyone who took 5 minutes to Wikipedia Hillary's position in 2006 relative to what it is now.

[IceSpear]

Let's be real for a second here: if it was Joe Biden leading in the primary polls by 50+ points (both nationwide and in the early states) with his most likely opponents being Brian Schweitzer and Bernie Sanders, literally nobody would be talking about how he could possibly be upended in the primary. The only reason this is even a topic of discussion is because of the vendetta many on Atlas and in the pundit class have against Hillary. That and "muh 2008", which has already been thoroughly debunked by anyone who took 5 minutes to Wikipedia Hillary's position in 2006 relative to what it is now.

Nobody would be talking about it because it clearly would be able to happen. Biden is a goofball, he's screwed things up before, he can do it again.

My point is that I think Atlas (and especially the pundits) aren't taking the numbers in context. Hillary's lead in every poll is so enormous that people don't actually process it in their brain, and instead think "Hillary has a big lead, not surprising, she did in 2008 too!". We tend not to distinguish between 20 point or 50 point landslides in our head, but that's a damn lot of difference (and in the real world, means millions upon millions of people).

Think about it for a second. The RCP average currently has Hillary leading by 54 points nationwide, 54 points in Iowa, AND 54 points in New Hampshire. She's at around 65% in all of these. This is a bigger lead than literally every single Senate or Gubernatorial candidate has this election cycle, even in states like Massachusetts and Wyoming. She's winning by 10 points more than Mike Enzi, and she leads by more than double the amount Ed Markey does. Yet if we saw people talking about how Enzi or Markey could lose, they would be (justifiably) mocked. Obviously this race is much later than those will be, but even if people suggested Enzi could be beaten back in 2012 they would've been laughed at.

Anti-Hillary hackery combined with 2008 nostalgia/misinformation is blinding people to just how heavy of a favorite she is to win the nomination. Assuming she runs, her chances are no less than 99%.

[IceSpear]

Let's be real for a second here: if it was Joe Biden leading in the primary polls by 50+ points (both nationwide and in the early states) with his most likely opponents being Brian Schweitzer and Bernie Sanders, literally nobody would be talking about how he could possibly be upended in the primary. The only reason this is even a topic of discussion is because of the vendetta many on Atlas and in the pundit class have against Hillary. That and "muh 2008", which has already been thoroughly debunked by anyone who took 5 minutes to Wikipedia Hillary's position in 2006 relative to what it is now.

Nobody would be talking about it because it clearly would be able to happen. Biden is a goofball, he's screwed things up before, he can do it again.

My point is that I think Atlas (and especially the pundits) aren't taking the numbers in context. Hillary's lead in every poll is so enormous that people don't actually process it in their brain, and instead think "Hillary has a big lead, not surprising, she did in 2008 too!". We tend not to distinguish between 20 point or 50 point landslides in our head, but that's a damn lot of difference (and in the real world, means millions upon millions of people).

Think about it for a second. The RCP average currently has Hillary leading by 54 points nationwide, 54 points in Iowa, AND 54 points in New Hampshire. She's at around 65% in all of these. This is a bigger lead than literally every single Senate or Gubernatorial candidate has this election cycle, even in states like Massachusetts and Wyoming. She's winning by 10 points more than Mike Enzi, and she leads by more than double the amount Ed Markey does. Yet if we saw people talking about how Enzi or Markey could lose, they would be (justifiably) mocked. Obviously this race is much later than those will be, but even if people suggested Enzi could be beaten back in 2012 they would've been laughed at.

Anti-Hillary hackery combined with 2008 nostalgia/misinformation is blinding people to just how heavy of a favorite she is to win the nomination. Assuming she runs, her chances are no less than 99%.

There is a problem in comparing Hillary's current primary polling to general election polls.

There are bigger differences between candidates in General Elections.

Republicans in Massachusetts aren't inclined to vote for Markey. Democrats in Wyoming will have major policy differences with Enzi.

Most current Hillary supporters would vote for O'Malley over Jeb Bush or Rand Paul.

But by that same measure, it's not like Hillary supporters are going to abandon her en masse just because O'Malley positions himself vaguely to the left of her.