If Hillary is the Democrats' nominee....

[Nichlemn]

Early 2008 polls

I don't think Clinton's early leads are terribly significant (and at this stage, they're hardly dominant anyway). Still, she had some genuine advantages, so I'd say Tilt D.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Look at this point in the 08 cycle... Hillary is way stronger and much more dominant now, than she was then.

...now I'm waiting for FreedomHawk to call me a Hillary-stan or whatever.

[King]

Lean Democrat against Romney or Paul
Likely Democrat against anyone else

[IceSpear]

Early 2008 polls

I don't think Clinton's early leads are terribly significant (and at this stage, they're hardly dominant anyway). Still, she had some genuine advantages, so I'd say Tilt D.

Yeah, leading by double digits in Florida is hardly dominant.

In the current RCP averages, her lowest winning margin is a 2008-esque win. Her highest winning margin is a 1984-esque landslide. Hardly dominant!

[Mister Mets]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

[President Johnson]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

Despite Obama's current unpopularity, I'm sure it's going to be more like 1988. Hillary will probably win, but she'll be defeated in 2020 by a moderate republican.

[politicus]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

Or perhaps more importantly how many women that don't normally vote, who will do it this time.

[Mister Mets]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

Despite Obama's current unpopularity, I'm sure it's going to be more like 1988. Hillary will probably win, but she'll be defeated in 2020 by a moderate republican.

Depends on what you mean by 1988.

George HW Bush lost about ten percent of the vote Reagan got in 1984.

A ten percent loss from Obama's 2012 numbers will probably result in a Republican President.

[bedstuy]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

Despite Obama's current unpopularity, I'm sure it's going to be more like 1988. Hillary will probably win, but she'll be defeated in 2020 by a moderate republican.

Depends on what you mean by 1988.

George HW Bush lost about ten percent of the vote Reagan got in 1984.

A ten percent loss from Obama's 2012 numbers will probably result in a Republican President.

This is such horrible logic.

[King]

Obama's at 43% right now on RCP average and fairly stable (he's been around 43-45 since last May). George W Bush was at 37% at this time in 2006 and tanking downward after starting 2006 in decent position. Completely different scenarios. Also, Americans still had faith in the opposition party. Neither party is well liked now.

The "Bush Sr lost 10% off Reagan" is not only poor logic but inaccurate. He lost 6 (59 to 53). Also, Bush was trailing Dukakis big in late 1987 and early 1988 as Reagan was around Obama's current 43%.  Bush was always 3-4 points behind Reagan's approvals. Hillary is running 7-8 points ahead of Obama's approvals.

[IceSpear]

Obama's at 43% right now on RCP average and fairly stable (he's been around 43-45 since last May). George W Bush was at 37% at this time in 2006 and tanking downward after starting 2006 in decent position. Completely different scenarios. Also, Americans still had faith in the opposition party. Neither party is well liked now.

The "Bush Sr lost 10% off Reagan" is not only poor logic but inaccurate. He lost 6 (59 to 53). Also, Bush was trailing Dukakis big in late 1987 and early 1988 as Reagan was around Obama's current 43%.  Bush was always 3-4 points behind Reagan's approvals. Hillary is running 7-8 points ahead of Obama's approvals.

In addition, people tend to forget that McCain got 46% of the vote. If McCain got 46% even when Bush was at 25% approval, then Hillary can easily still win with Obama in the 40s or even 30s.

[Mister Mets]

Obama's at 43% right now on RCP average and fairly stable (he's been around 43-45 since last May). George W Bush was at 37% at this time in 2006 and tanking downward after starting 2006 in decent position. Completely different scenarios. Also, Americans still had faith in the opposition party. Neither party is well liked now.

The "Bush Sr lost 10% off Reagan" is not only poor logic but inaccurate. He lost 6 (59 to 53). Also, Bush was trailing Dukakis big in late 1987 and early 1988 as Reagan was around Obama's current 43%.  Bush was always 3-4 points behind Reagan's approvals. Hillary is running 7-8 points ahead of Obama's approvals.

I said Bush Senior lost ten percent of the vote Reagan got.

Reagan got 54,455,472 votes in 1984.
Bush got 48,886,097 votes in 1988.

Bush got just under 90 percent of Reagan's 1984 vote. And that was in a fantastic year electorally.

[New_Conservative]

Obama's at 43% right now on RCP average and fairly stable (he's been around 43-45 since last May). George W Bush was at 37% at this time in 2006 and tanking downward after starting 2006 in decent position. Completely different scenarios. Also, Americans still had faith in the opposition party. Neither party is well liked now.

The "Bush Sr lost 10% off Reagan" is not only poor logic but inaccurate. He lost 6 (59 to 53). Also, Bush was trailing Dukakis big in late 1987 and early 1988 as Reagan was around Obama's current 43%.  Bush was always 3-4 points behind Reagan's approvals. Hillary is running 7-8 points ahead of Obama's approvals.

In addition, people tend to forget that McCain got 46% of the vote. If McCain got 46% even when Bush was at 25% approval, then Hillary can easily still win with Obama in the 40s or even 30s.

I agree with that, though I wouldn't throw the word easily around so lightly. In modern politics, I don't think anyone is going to easily win the White House unless MAJOR circumstances occur.

[King]

I said Bush Senior lost ten percent of the vote Reagan got.

Reagan got 54,455,472 votes in 1984.
Bush got 48,886,097 votes in 1988.

Bush got just under 90 percent of Reagan's 1984 vote. And that was in a fantastic year electorally.

Ah, so your logic is even poorer than originally thought.

[Mister Mets]

I said Bush Senior lost ten percent of the vote Reagan got.

Reagan got 54,455,472 votes in 1984.
Bush got 48,886,097 votes in 1988.

Bush got just under 90 percent of Reagan's 1984 vote. And that was in a fantastic year electorally.

Ah, so your logic is even poorer than originally thought.

I don't believe I've said anything logically unsound in my follow-up posts.

Here's what happened.

President Johnson expressed his opinion that 2016 would be like 1988.

I suggested an alternate method someone could look at the results of 1988 in a way that would be a poor precedent for Hillary.

You misinterpreted what I said, and claimed my statement was inaccurate.

I showed how my statement was accurate.

I think you're assuming that I said something I haven't.

[King]

It's not based in any sort of facts or trends surrounding the 1988 race compared today. It's just an arbitrarily chosen number. So, HW got "90% of Reagan"... McCain got 95% of W, Gore got 101% of Clinton. There's no pattern.

Alternatively, you could say Bush Sr got 111% of Reagan's initial 1980 election total and therefore Clinton will get 110% of Obama's 2008 total or 77,000,000.

Bush was weaker than Reagan, which is why he lost some off Reagan's historic landslide. Clinton is stronger than Obama.  Maybe your 90% rule would work if it were Biden as the nominee, but it's not comparable in that sense.

[President Johnson]

With the 1988 comparison I wasn't thinking about the specific percentage points; I thought more about the fact, that Reagan, in this case, was succeded by a man from his own party. Usually the partisanship of presidents alternates with each new officeholder, unless a vice president assumes the presidency without an election.

In 1988, Republicans won the third straight presidential election, but Bush then lost his bid for reelection four years later. This might happen again: Hillary wins in 2016, but loses in 2020 to a Republican, because Americans are tired of twelve years with Democrats in the White House.