Hillary Clinton believes she can expand the '08 map

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Democrats need to distance themselves from these comments. Someone believing they can win and win big goes against their platform.

I know, we sit there and wait for the Rethuglicans to steal another one from us!!!!

[Mehmentum]

I don't think we can expect 2016 to look like 2012.

Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 wins looked very similar to each other, but didn't look like the 1988 or 2000 maps.  Bush's 2000 and 2004 wins were very similar to each other, but were very different than 1996 and 2008.  Obama's 2008 and 2012 wins were very similar to each other, but didn't really look like 2004, and I'm betting 2016.  

So far, the early polling supports this.  Out of all the Republicans polled, only Bush gives a 2012 repeat.  The others are trailing in at least a few of the states mentioned here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Meh makes a very good point.

I think the 2016 map has a very good chance of surprising in both good and bad ways.

[Devils30]

Hillary will have plenty of time in a fairly uncontested primary for months to campaign in those places. It's worth a trial just to see and if they look bleak then she can always withdraw. The problem for the GOP is that if she cuts their margins from like 10 to 5 in Indiana, Missouri, Arizona then she is probably cutting the GOPs numbers in northern FL, Southern VA. This would give Hillary a clear victory if she even replicates or does better than Obama with working class whites.

[pbrower2a]

We don't have any polling out of Indiana, so I have no clue there, but so far the head to head polling suggest she could win some of the other states, though which ones depends on who her opponent is.

For example, the Bush vs. Clinton map looks like a repeat of 2012.  Huckabee dominates in the South, but is trailing in Arizona.  Christie does horribly in the South, but does better in the northeast and midwest.

Obviously, its two years out and a lot could happen, but these states could definitely be in play.

Indiana was a freak in 2008 due to the triple-whammy of the credit crunch, a spike in fuel prices, and a sudden crash of the overall economy that clobbered the RV industry. Such made St. Joseph (South Bend) and Elkhart Counties make huge swings to the Democratic nominee. It made Indiana vulnerable to a Democratic nominee if he kept his primary campaign active in Indiana. That is unlikely to be repeated unless the Republican nominee goes way off the political deep end.

[henster]

Against Walker Hillary will have to worry about Wisconsin and Ohio along with Iowa and Colorado where she looks weak. It does not seem feasible for her to expand the map if WI/OH/IA/CO are close not to mention FL.

[KCDem]

Against Walker Hillary will have to worry about Wisconsin and Ohio along with Iowa and Colorado where she looks weak. It does not seem feasible for her to expand the map if WI/OH/IA/CO are close not to mention FL.

College-dropout Walker won't play well in Colorado.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

This is her absolute ceiling, IMO.

This, though i would switch Arkansas and Arizona.

[Adam Griffin]

She's not going to win Arkansas. Her ceiling there is probably around what Gore got in 2000. Like others said, I'm not sure why North Carolina is Republican while Georgia is shown as a potential flip, since these two states have essentially the same dynamics (but NC is further along demographically-speaking when combined with white support). LOL @ Indiana. Missouri is one of those states that could possibly flip - she's a decent fit there - but it'd have to be a pretty big national PV victory for her to flip it. I still maintain that AZ is fool's gold for the Democrats for the next 10-15 years.

[Simfan34]

It's plausible.

[TDAS04]

I could see her possibly win with the 2008 map plus Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, and maybe Georgia, but minus Indiana.  None of those states would be guaranteed though, even if she wins the election.  If I had to predict now which states she'd win, I'd guess the 2008 map minus Indiana (same as 2012 map plus North Carolina.  I don't think her map would be that different from Obama's.

[Likely Voter]

This is more electoral trolling than expanding the map. From the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt the Dems will spend much on these states and by October 2016 they may not be spending in any of them. The big question mark is Arkansas, where polling has shown surprising strength for Hillary. If that holds, it may be a genuine battleground state.

[IceSpear]

You mean expand the '12 map? In which case it would be those five states + North Carolina + NE-02. This is basically identical to the "Hillary ceiling" map I put in the Ben Carson thread (sans Arkansas).

How is it hubris to think you could expand the map? Those states are completely realistic targets (except maybe Arkansas). It's not like she's talking about winning Texas and West Virginia.

[IceSpear]

This is her absolute ceiling, IMO.

I don't know why people think Hillary can't win Indiana, especially in a CEILING. Obama won it in '08, so she can certainly win it as well in a very good year for Dems. And it's not like the state is completely dead for Democrats either: Donnelly just won in 2012 and Pence only won by a slim margin in the gubernatorial race.

The alternations I'd make on this:

Drop MT (Libertarianish state that wouldn't take kindly to Hillary, Obama was a much better fit here)
Drop AR (If even their own Conservadems get blown out by double digits, what chance does Hillary as a national figure have? I'm a bit iffy on this one though)
Add IN (See above)
Add AZ (Latino growth will help, and Hillary could make up the difference with whites)

[solarstorm]

This is her absolute ceiling, IMO.

[IceSpear]

I remember when Republicans and "serious" journalists made fun of Obama for thinking he could win Indiana, North Carolina, and even Virginia!

Of course no one seems to make fun when Republicans try to win states like Michigan that they haven't won since the 1980s.

Yeah, you have to love the Republican scoffing when they literally try to win Michigan every damn cycle. But apparently Indiana, which Obama won in 2008, and Missouri, which Obama came within 0.1% of winning in 2008 are pipe dreams. Yeah, okay.

And I don't know why so many Democrats here are obsessed with ONLY playing defense. Why crouch into a defensive posture when you could go on offense instead? That's the John Kerry loser strategy. Should Obama have automatically conceded NC and FL to Romney just because they looked like tough holds and only focus on the "essentials"?

[Holmes]

I remember when Republicans and "serious" journalists made fun of Obama for thinking he could win Indiana, North Carolina, and even Virginia!

Of course no one seems to make fun when Republicans try to win states like Michigan that they haven't won since the 1980s.

Because Michigan is a battleground state! And Virginia has Republican roots!

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says it would be "ridiculous" for Clinton to make a play for Arkansas, Indiana, and Missouri, and that Arizona and Georgia aren't good targets for 2016. He suggests that Clinton would be better served insuring that she can keep Obama's 2012 map intact.

Didn't the smug bloviating punditocracy laugh at the notion of Obama winning VA, NC , CO and Indiana in 2008 ?

You have to dream big my friend.

[Mehmentum]

And I don't know why so many Democrats here are obsessed with ONLY playing defense. Why crouch into a defensive posture when you could go on offense instead? That's the John Kerry loser strategy. Should Obama have automatically conceded NC and FL to Romney just because they looked like tough holds and only focus on the "essentials"?

Not to mention, all 5 of the states mentioned (MO, IN, GA, AR, and AZ) have Senate races in 2016.  2 of them have governorships (MO and IN) up.  That's not to mention the 44 house seats in these states.  The campaign infrastructure and investment that comes with a presidential campaign could help downballot Democrats.

[Mister Mets]

The major difference between Obama '08 and Clinton '16 is that Obama was running under very favorable circumstances with his unique appeal contributing to high turnout among Democratic constituencies.

Hillary Clinton will not be running as the opposition. She will be running to get a third consecutive term for her political party, trying to follow the guy who placed her in his cabinet. She'll have been a national figure for 25 years, so she won't be able to run as a change agent.

There are some unknowns that could favor her. Perhaps Democrats would have done even better with a white candidate, and Clinton will be better able to appeal to racist Democrats and independents than Obama did. Her unique background (the milestone of being the first female major-party nominee, a strong connection to the most popular living President) might also result in a higher ceiling. Maybe she's a better campaigner than the guy who beat her in 2008. Maybe she'll have the good luck of running against someone who is an inferior candidate to McCain or Romney. I will have to admit she polls well in key states, although that comes with one hell of an asterisk.

I think the comments are a tempest in a teapot, since money hasn't been spent yet and it wouldn't make sense for a potential campaign to quash the hopes of optimistic supporters. It's better to have people talking about whether Clinton can expand the map than to just have the discussion on whether she'll be able to keep enough Obama states.

[Devils30]

Depends who she runs against, despite the whole "Obama 3rd term" talk it will be thought of as Clinton vs Bush if Jeb is the GOP nominee. That's the problem the GOP has if they nominate him.

[publicunofficial]

Democrats need to distance themselves from these comments. Someone believing they can win and win big goes against their platform.

[Miles]

Out of those, I can see GA and IN flipping, but even those are 50/50 at best.

[eric82oslo]

I think she can expand it as well, in fact I'm convinced she can. She's be the first female president for 240 years for God's sake. People like change, people like the idea of change, people actively vote for change. People like empowerment, people like the idea of equality, people like the idea of progress, people like people with vast amounts of professional and personal experience. Hillary has been to more countries alone than most other Americans combined, lol. Every star on the sky point to Hillary winning a rather easy victory.

Besides, Hillary has way more charisma than people give her credit for. She might not have had it in 2008. Nor in 2000 or 1994. Yet she does have built herself a lot more charisma lately than she did back then. I think it's the whole Secretary of State experience that has transformed who she is and how she (now more naturally) relates to people.

[Suburbia]

I see MO and GA flipping, not Arizona, unless the GOP candidates are very toxic. Arpaio and the GOP have a good turnout machine in Arizona.