Hillary Clinton doing 33 points better than this point in 2006

[IceSpear]

CNN poll, December 2014:

Clinton 66
Warren 9
Biden 8
Sanders 3
Webb 1
Cuomo 1
O'Malley 1

CNN poll, November 2006:

Clinton 33
Obama 15
Edwards 14
Gore 14
Kerry 7

Wow, clearly she was just as inevitable in 2008 as she is now. 33% to 66%? Meh, not a huge difference.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Funny how the two candidates whose support is even remotely significant aren't even running and wont run unless she doesn't.

[Xing]

She's certainly in good shape right now, but anything can happen in politics. However, if she's still leading by this much late in 2015, after some Democrats have entered the race, it's hard to see anyone else winning the nomination without a huge game changer.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

I think that the candidate who best could have posed a serious challenge was Schweitzer if he hadn't proven that he has no filter.

[Oregreen]

We all get it, Hillary is inevitable. There is, however, no need to repeat that every single day.
My bet is that she will lose much ground next year and in 2016. I also don't think that she will defeat any Republican just because of demographics, her popularity and the fact that she is a woman and Bill's wife. She probably would have won in 2008, I'm not so sure about 2016 though.

[Brewer]

We all get it, Hillary is inevitable. There is, however, no need to repeat that every single day.
My bet is that she will lose much ground next year and in 2016. I also don't think that she will defeat any Republican just because of demographics, her popularity and the fact that she is a woman and Bill's wife. She probably would have won in 2008, I'm not so sure about 2016 though.

Funny how in an attempt to list several of her vices and obstacles, you end up listing several of her virtues and advantages...

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

We all get it, Hillary is inevitable. There is, however, no need to repeat that every single day.
My bet is that she will lose much ground next year and in 2016. I also don't think that she will defeat any Republican just because of demographics, her popularity and the fact that she is a woman and Bill's wife. She probably would have won in 2008, I'm not so sure about 2016 though.

Funny how in an attempt to list several of her vices, you end up listing several of her virtues...

Speaking only for myself, even if those are virtues they don't inherently mean that her victory is inevitable. November, 2016 is a lifetime away politically speaking.

[Oregreen]

We all get it, Hillary is inevitable. There is, however, no need to repeat that every single day.
My bet is that she will lose much ground next year and in 2016. I also don't think that she will defeat any Republican just because of demographics, her popularity and the fact that she is a woman and Bill's wife. She probably would have won in 2008, I'm not so sure about 2016 though.

Funny how in an attempt to list several of her vices, you end up listing several of her virtues...

Speaking only for myself, even if those are virtues they don't inherently mean that her victory is inevitable. November, 2016 is a lifetime away politically speaking.

Agreed. Also keep in mind that the election of Michael Dukakis and the reelection of George H. W. Bush were also inevitable at some point. Bottom line: It makes no sense to speculate on what will happen in 2015/16 at this point.

[IceSpear]

We all get it, Hillary is inevitable. There is, however, no need to repeat that every single day.
My bet is that she will lose much ground next year and in 2016. I also don't think that she will defeat any Republican just because of demographics, her popularity and the fact that she is a woman and Bill's wife. She probably would have won in 2008, I'm not so sure about 2016 though.

My signature is actually about the Democratic primary, not the general election. I've never denied that Hillary could lose the general in certain circumstances, though she obviously begins as the favorite.

[Stockdale for Veep]

Beware the ides of Hart.

[Blair]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

[Oregreen]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

[Brewer]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

Your blatant obsession with constantly reminding about Hillary's supposed vulnerability and the chance that she may in fact lose is almost as, if not as, annoying as the trolling done by HillaryLandslide.

[Oregreen]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

Your blatant obsession with constantly reminding about Hillary's supposed vulnerability and the chance that she may in fact lose is almost as, if not as, annoying as the trolling done by HillaryLandslide.

Hey, I just wanted to point out that polls this far from Election Day are useless and don't tell us anything about the final outcome of the election. Yes, Hillary will run! Yes, she will win the nomination! That's probably right! But, as I mentioned before, there is no need to repeat that every single day. To be honest: All of you Hillslide-, Hillaryslide-, Hilldog-, 50 states-, Republicans-are-toast-no-matter-who-they-nominate-, Inevitable--, Ready For Hillary- guys are also quite annoying.

[Brewer]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

Your blatant obsession with constantly reminding about Hillary's supposed vulnerability and the chance that she may in fact lose is almost as, if not as, annoying as the trolling done by HillaryLandslide.

Hey, I just wanted to point out that polls this far from Election Day are useless and don't tell us anything about the final outcome of the election. Yes, Hillary will run! Yes, she will win the nomination! That's probably right! But there is no need to repeat that every single day. To be honest: All of you Hillslide-, Hillaryslide-, Hilldog-, 50 states-, Republicans-are-toast-no-matter-who-they-nominate-, Inevtiable-, Ready For Hillary- guys are also quite annoying.

Of course those people are quite annoying -- hence the reference to HillaryLandslide. I apologize if I offended you enough to group me into that category.

[IceSpear]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

Your blatant obsession with constantly reminding about Hillary's supposed vulnerability and the chance that she may in fact lose is almost as, if not as, annoying as the trolling done by HillaryLandslide.

Hey, I just wanted to point out that polls this far from Election Day are useless and don't tell us anything about the final outcome of the election. Yes, Hillary will run! Yes, she will win the nomination! That's probably right! But, as I mentioned before, there is no need to repeat that every single day. To be honest: All of you Hillslide-, Hillaryslide-, Hilldog-, 50 states-, Republicans-are-toast-no-matter-who-they-nominate-, Inevitable--, Ready For Hillary- guys are also quite annoying.

People keep repeating it because the beltway pundits and some wishful thinkers still think it will be 2008 redux.

[muon2]

There have been a number of academic studies over the last half century that basically conclude that the general election is primarily a referendum on the current party occupying the WH. In 2008, it was hard to see any Dem losing, given the public frustration with the Iraq War and the crumbling economy. That was then, this is now.

In 2016 HRC or whoever is the Dem nominee will be largely judged by the public reaction to the Obama second term, both in foreign and domestic affairs. Just ask Al Gore how well he could shake the Clinton presidency in 2000. The 2014 election does not augur well for the Dems, since the ennui of their base voters must be countered before the battle can go to the swing voters. Check with McCain if you doubt that. But as others have noted, 2016 is still far enough off that dynamics can change.

In all likelihood, those dynamics need to be set for the Dems by a year from now or their road to a third consecutive term will be steep. And HRC can do little if anything to affect those dynamics. HRC has to hope that Obama looks better on foreign policy than the tepid responses to ISIS and Putin in 2014. And most importantly, HRC must hope that the current business cycle expansion which began in June 2009 (66 months ago) continues and beats the expansion under GWB which was 73 months, since it has already surpassed the post WWII average of 58 months.

[IceSpear]

There have been a number of academic studies over the last half century that basically conclude that the general election is primarily a referendum on the current party occupying the WH. In 2008, it was hard to see any Dem losing, given the public frustration with the Iraq War and the crumbling economy. That was then, this is now.

In 2016 HRC or whoever is the Dem nominee will be largely judged by the public reaction to the Obama second term, both in foreign and domestic affairs. Just ask Al Gore how well he could shake the Clinton presidency in 2000. The 2014 election does not augur well for the Dems, since the ennui of their base voters must be countered before the battle can go to the swing voters. Check with McCain if you doubt that. But as others have noted, 2016 is still far enough off that dynamics can change.

In all likelihood, those dynamics need to be set for the Dems by a year from now or their road to a third consecutive term will be steep. And HRC can do little if anything to affect those dynamics. HRC has to hope that Obama looks better on foreign policy than the tepid responses to ISIS and Putin in 2014. And most importantly, HRC must hope that the current business cycle expansion which began in June 2009 (66 months ago) continues and beats the expansion under GWB which was 73 months, since it has already surpassed the post WWII average of 58 months.

Those academic studies are true, until they aren't. How many academic studies stated that based off their "models" it would be impossible for Obama to win a second term? I remember the right wing blogosphere citing them quite a bit in 2012. Considering McCain got 46% of the vote even when Bush was at 25% approval, clearly it's not directly tied to incumbent approval. And Obama/any Democrat winning wasn't a fait accompli until the economic crisis. People tend to forget that McCain led as late as mid September 2008.

[HillaryLandslide2016]

There have been a number of academic studies over the last half century that basically conclude that the general election is primarily a referendum on the current party occupying the WH. In 2008, it was hard to see any Dem losing, given the public frustration with the Iraq War and the crumbling economy. That was then, this is now.

In 2016 HRC or whoever is the Dem nominee will be largely judged by the public reaction to the Obama second term, both in foreign and domestic affairs. Just ask Al Gore how well he could shake the Clinton presidency in 2000. The 2014 election does not augur well for the Dems, since the ennui of their base voters must be countered before the battle can go to the swing voters. Check with McCain if you doubt that. But as others have noted, 2016 is still far enough off that dynamics can change.

In all likelihood, those dynamics need to be set for the Dems by a year from now or their road to a third consecutive term will be steep. And HRC can do little if anything to affect those dynamics. HRC has to hope that Obama looks better on foreign policy than the tepid responses to ISIS and Putin in 2014. And most importantly, HRC must hope that the current business cycle expansion which began in June 2009 (66 months ago) continues and beats the expansion under GWB which was 73 months, since it has already surpassed the post WWII average of 58 months.

Okay, even if 2016 is a referendum on Obama, no one can tell how popular Obama will be on Election day. His base (Blacks, Hispanics, young people, single women, educated people,...) still loves him and will turn out for Hillary in 2016.

[Ljube]

Likewise everyone remember President Ed Muskie in 1972

No, no! Forget that! That was an exception. How dare you deny that Hillary is inevitable and will win? Apologize to Madam President!

Your blatant obsession with constantly reminding about Hillary's supposed vulnerability and the chance that she may in fact lose is almost as, if not as, annoying as the trolling done by HillaryLandslide.

Hey, I just wanted to point out that polls this far from Election Day are useless and don't tell us anything about the final outcome of the election. Yes, Hillary will run! Yes, she will win the nomination! That's probably right! But, as I mentioned before, there is no need to repeat that every single day. To be honest: All of you Hillslide-, Hillaryslide-, Hilldog-, 50 states-, Republicans-are-toast-no-matter-who-they-nominate-, Inevitable--, Ready For Hillary- guys are also quite annoying.

People keep repeating it because the beltway pundits and some wishful thinkers still think it will be 2008 redux.

I can't say that I think, but I certainly hope it will be 2008 redux.

[NewYorkExpress]

Frankly I can't see Biden not running, but that might make Hillary more inevitable in a primary. As for November 2016, her chances range from heavy favorite to modest underdog, depending on who the GOP nominates.

[SWE]

IceSpear, I don't think you've made yourself clear, what do you think Hillary's chances are in the 2016 primary and how do they compare to 2008?

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, I don't think you've made yourself clear, what do you think Hillary's chances are in the 2016 primary and how do they compare to 2008?

99%. Much higher. Does that help?

Anyway, how she compares to 2008 isn't actually my opinion, it's just objective fact. Some people just ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[muon2]

There have been a number of academic studies over the last half century that basically conclude that the general election is primarily a referendum on the current party occupying the WH. In 2008, it was hard to see any Dem losing, given the public frustration with the Iraq War and the crumbling economy. That was then, this is now.

In 2016 HRC or whoever is the Dem nominee will be largely judged by the public reaction to the Obama second term, both in foreign and domestic affairs. Just ask Al Gore how well he could shake the Clinton presidency in 2000. The 2014 election does not augur well for the Dems, since the ennui of their base voters must be countered before the battle can go to the swing voters. Check with McCain if you doubt that. But as others have noted, 2016 is still far enough off that dynamics can change.

In all likelihood, those dynamics need to be set for the Dems by a year from now or their road to a third consecutive term will be steep. And HRC can do little if anything to affect those dynamics. HRC has to hope that Obama looks better on foreign policy than the tepid responses to ISIS and Putin in 2014. And most importantly, HRC must hope that the current business cycle expansion which began in June 2009 (66 months ago) continues and beats the expansion under GWB which was 73 months, since it has already surpassed the post WWII average of 58 months.

Those academic studies are true, until they aren't. How many academic studies stated that based off their "models" it would be impossible for Obama to win a second term? I remember the right wing blogosphere citing them quite a bit in 2012. Considering McCain got 46% of the vote even when Bush was at 25% approval, clearly it's not directly tied to incumbent approval. And Obama/any Democrat winning wasn't a fait accompli until the economic crisis. People tend to forget that McCain led as late as mid September 2008.

The academic models that favored Romney were primarily poll-based. Poll-based models have an inherent weakness since they don't do so well at predicting turnout which can skew their results. I prefer event-based models for looking at the overall outcome, and I predicted Obama's reelection, just as I consistently predicted his election here from Feb through Nov 2008. Such models are not as good at predicting individual states, since there are local effects that can influence the outcome.

As I noted in my post on 2016, domestic and foreign events, along with political accomplishments can paint a picture of success or weakness to the voter. The 2010 midterm was in many ways a referendum on Obamacare, but that was in the background by 2012. In foreign policy Obama had pulled troops from Iraq and killed bin Laden by 2011, which were huge accomplishments for the public. Domestically the economy was clearly in recovery by 2012 even if the growth was slower than the public might have liked. These were the policy directions that the public wanted when Obama was elected in 2008. The details of execution can energize or enrage the respective bases, but the bigger picture tends to drive the general election.