Hillary Clinton vs Mitt Romney

[Liberalrocks]

How does the scenario play out? Maps % of pop vote?

I see it as roughly this:

Hillary Clinton 53% (357 EV) Clinton adds to the 2012 map North Carolina and Missouri.
Mitt Romney   46% (181 EV) He gets less then the 47% he got back in 2012 no pun intended.

Very similiar to 2008 popular vote margin. I think Clinton makes some of Romneys southern margins tighter then 2012 due to an increase in white voters but does not flip any of them other then NC and possibly Missouri. Arkansas is substantially closer then 2012 but to my disappointment stays with Romney.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Romney is a washed-up has-been at this point. And if he's going to try to re-invent himself for like the 100th time now for a new campaign, he would do even worse than this:

388-150

[henster]

Romney is a washed-up has-been at this point. And if he's going to try to re-invent himself for like the 100th time now for a new campaign, he would do even worse than this:

388-150

Hillary is not winning any states Obama lost in 2012 beyond NC, especially against Romney because he'll lose fewer of his voters than any other GOPer would.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Romney is a washed-up has-been at this point. And if he's going to try to re-invent himself for like the 100th time now for a new campaign, he would do even worse than this:

388-150

Hillary is not winning any states Obama lost in 2012 beyond NC, especially against Romney because he'll lose fewer of his voters than any other GOPer would.

Um Hillary will do much better than Obama among white voters and also perform better among Hispanics. Black voters will remain a solid 90+% Dem voting bloc.

Meanwhile I can't think of any group that would swing to vote for Mitt Romney over Hillary in 2016 after having voted for Obama over Romney in 2012. After 2 failed campaigns, Americans are pretty much tired of Mitt Romney.

[Liberalrocks]

Romney is a washed-up has-been at this point. And if he's going to try to re-invent himself for like the 100th time now for a new campaign, he would do even worse than this:

388-150

Hillary is not winning any states Obama lost in 2012 beyond NC, especially against Romney because he'll lose fewer of his voters than any other GOPer would.

Um Hillary will do much better than Obama among white voters and also perform better among Hispanics. Black voters will remain a solid 90+% Dem voting bloc.

Meanwhile I can't think of any group that would swing to vote for Mitt Romney over Hillary in 2016 after having voted for Obama over Romney in 2012. After 2 failed campaigns, Americans are pretty much tired of Mitt Romney.

I agree with the statement here, however some of the states on the previous map are a bit polarized and the swings would need to be large for Romney to lose them but I could see Clinton adding a few states to the 2012 map and I just dont see Romney doing better against her then he did against Obama.

[Mister Mets]

I'd expect Romney to do better than in '12. Hillary's not as effective a campiagner as Obama. It's easier to run in an open election, especially when the other party held the White House for two terms. And he has practice.

Obviously there are numerous ways it could turn out. My guess is that a slight majority of the time Romney flips at least Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Ohio and Florida were the closest in '12, and Pennsylvania's been getting closer to the national average. It's also a state Romney didn't invest in much during the last election, but it ended up being almost identical to Colorado with percentage of the vote.

Romney/ Martinez- 273 Electoral Votes
Clinton/ Bennet- 265 Electoral Votes

I chose two running mates who make sense. I don't think it matters that much.

If Romney comes short of that, which would remain a strong enough possibility, Hillary would be the first female Prez.

[Devils30]

Pennsylvania is not a good bet for the GOP there, Hillary might run better in western PA and unless Romney does much better in Philly area, the math doesn't add up.

[IceSpear]

Obama 2008 states + MO.

Clinton - 369
Romney - 169

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I'd expect Romney to do better than in '12. Hillary's not as effective a campiagner as Obama. It's easier to run in an open election, especially when the other party held the White House for two terms. And he has practice.

Obviously there are numerous ways it could turn out. My guess is that a slight majority of the time Romney flips at least Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Ohio and Florida were the closest in '12, and Pennsylvania's been getting closer to the national average. It's also a state Romney didn't invest in much during the last election, but it ended up being almost identical to Colorado with percentage of the vote.

Romney/ Martinez- 273 Electoral Votes
Clinton/ Bennet- 265 Electoral Votes

I chose two running mates who make sense. I don't think it matters that much.

If Romney comes short of that, which would remain a strong enough possibility, Hillary would be the first female Prez.

Hillary isn't losing PA to Romney. That's just beyond absurd.

[IceSpear]

Pennsylvania is not a good bet for the GOP there, Hillary might run better in western PA and unless Romney does much better in Philly area, the math doesn't add up.

Yeah, Hillary is a much better fit for PA than Obama is/was. I don't see why the same guy who lost it to Obama would be able to swing the state 5+ points without a substantial Republican wave to aid him.

Also, guys, Obama 2012 is not the Democratic ceiling. That's like saying Bush 2004 is the Republican ceiling. It's complete oversimplification.

[Mehmentum]

Romney doesn't stand a chance, Hillary would significantly outperform Obama.  If he couldn't win against Obama in 2012 with a struggling economy, he'll do even worse against Clinton with a recovering economy. 

Romney still has every weakness that he had in 2012.  Having been nominated before will give the appearance of the GOP having no new ideas (though going against Clinton will ameliorate that).  Not to mention, the Obama economy is already outperforming Romney's campaign promises of 6% unemployment after 4 years.

[Mister Mets]

Hillary isn't losing PA to Romney. That's just beyond absurd.

Pennsylvania's been trending more conservative relative to the rest of the nation.

Hillary's likely to be in a worse position in 2016 than Obama in 2012, since he was an incumbent seeking reelection, and he's generally agreed to be a superior political talent.

Romney got okay results in Pennsylvania despite relatively little ad spending. Given the electoral value of the state (the Republican who wins that likely wins the election) that is almost certain to change in 2016.

[Flake]

	Hillary Clinton	Williard Romney	Others
Electoral Vote	374	164	0
Popular Vote	52%	45%	3%

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

Hillary consistently has 90% favorables with Democrats. So not "lukewarmly popular".

[pikachu]

Hillary wins with the Obama 2012 map maybe minus Colorado. They're irrelevant today, but does anyone have Hillary vs Romney polls from 2008? It'd be interesting to see how they matched up 8 years ago.

[IceSpear]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

[IceSpear]

Hillary wins with the Obama 2012 map maybe minus Colorado. They're irrelevant today, but does anyone have Hillary vs Romney polls from 2008? It'd be interesting to see how they matched up 8 years ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

[Devils30]

Hillary isn't losing PA to Romney. That's just beyond absurd.

Pennsylvania's been trending more conservative relative to the rest of the nation.

Hillary's likely to be in a worse position in 2016 than Obama in 2012, since he was an incumbent seeking reelection, and he's generally agreed to be a superior political talent.

Romney got okay results in Pennsylvania despite relatively little ad spending. Given the electoral value of the state (the Republican who wins that likely wins the election) that is almost certain to change in 2016.

A 1.5-2% trend for a couple cycles really is not a long term indicator. Clear trends are what's happening with the GOP in West Virginia and Dems in Virginia. Pennsylvania the last two cycles is more noise than a rightward trend. I think with Hillary it would trend 2-3% D and be back to around 4% more D than the country.

[bobloblaw]

Romney wouldnt win anything more than he won in 2012. But that being said, I dont know why a state like MO, GA and AZ would swing towards Clinton. MO and AZ were won by Romney by double digits and GA wasnt close either. Given Michelle Nun''s pathetic performance the idea that GOP women would vote for Hillary is a myth, in GA anyway.

I dont see any changes. Excpet maybe NC.

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out. If or when an alternative emerges those numbers will collapse just as much as they already have among non-Democrats. Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out.

No, that's not a valid comparison at all. Hillary wasn't even polling 50% back then.

Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

LOL seriously?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out. If or when an alternative emerges those numbers will collapse just as much as they already have among non-Democrats. Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

You should have put Benghazi as the first word in your post so posters know to stop reading right there rather than waste time reading 4 sentences before getting to the cue to stop reading and dismiss your post as trolling.

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out.

No, that's not a valid comparison at all. Hillary wasn't even polling 50% back then.

Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

LOL seriously?

I'm not a Benghazi truther myself of course, but the fact remains that Clinton's alleged complicity - one of the few charges against Hillary Clinton that I think she's probably innocent of - is quite likely to be incredibly damaging to a lot of low-information voters. The kind of people who, in other words, are currently jumping on the Hillary bandwagon for lack of a purportedly viable alternative.

[IceSpear]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out. If or when an alternative emerges those numbers will collapse just as much as they already have among non-Democrats. Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

What? The name recognition argument doesn't even make sense in this context. That could potentially be used as a factor in the primary/GE polls, but when it's a favorability rating, the fact that she's in the 90s among Democrats shows they know AND like her. Her being "similarly inevitable" in January 2007 is just objectively false. In January 2007 she led Obama by 17 points nationally and trailed Edwards in Iowa. Now she leads by 50 points both nationally and in Iowa. A pretty huge difference.

Anyway, the last line of your post leads me to believe you're actually trolling, in which case well done. But I like to debunk the 2008 redux narrative regardless, so it's no skin off my back.