Hillary Clinton vs Mitt Romney

[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.

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.

The right tried to use Benghazi against Obama immediately after it happened, and it had no effect, so why would it work 4 years later?

[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.

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.

Again, this is solely because there is no alternative. What would those numbers look like if Warren were to run? Or even if people start paying attention to Jim Webb. As Beet correctly points out, when people are forced to develop a semi-coherent opinion of Hillary Clinton as opposed to "uh she is a Democrat and is married to Bill Clinton and ran before" they're almost always negative. She is a paper tiger that would put Ed Muskie to shame.

If the hashtag Democrats want to dismiss anyone raising Benghazi (pseudo)scandal concerns as "trolling" that's fine, but don't come crying when Hillary's numbers start plummeting down to the ground. She's still as polarising and disliked a figure as she was in '08, and yet another scandal won't help. Again, I actually don't think Hillary Clinton is complicit in what happened but that's not really that important, or important at all, in narrative terms.

[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.

Again, this is solely because there is no alternative. What would those numbers look like if Warren were to run? Or even if people start paying attention to Jim Webb. As Beet correctly points out, when people are forced to develop a semi-coherent opinion of Hillary Clinton as opposed to "uh she is a Democrat and is married to Bill Clinton and ran before" they're almost always negative. She is a paper tiger that would put Ed Muskie to shame.

If the hashtag Democrats want to dismiss anyone raising Benghazi (pseudo)scandal concerns as "trolling" that's fine, but don't come crying when Hillary's numbers start plummeting down to the ground. She's still as polarising and disliked a figure as she was in '08, and yet another scandal won't help. Again, I actually don't think Hillary Clinton is complicit in what happened but that's not really that important, or important at all, in narrative terms.

Warren could make things interesting because of her large following among the activist types, but anybody else? No dice. Nobody's going to mistake the 68 year old uncharismatic Jim Webb or the bland Martin O'Malley as the second coming of the young, energetic, and inspiring Obama. Oh, and part of the reason there's no real alternative is because of the fact that she's in a much stronger position than she was in the 08 cycle. If people saw weakness in Hillary they'd pounce, but they don't. That's why the only people who end up running will be people who want to talk about their issues on the national stage and try to influence the debate (Sanders), who want to be Hillary's VP or the backup option in case she declines to run or implodes (O'Malley), or who want to stay relevant and sell books (Webb).

[Mehmentum]

Does name recognition & inevitability make 20% of Democrats name Clinton, in an open ended question, as the woman they most admire?  People who shrug and say they'd guess they'd vote for her because it looks like she's going to win anyway wouldn't answer that way.

She's been the United States' most admired woman for 17 of the last 18 years, but I guess that's just because everyone knew she'd be elected president in 2016, 18 years in advance.

She clobbers Warren in Massachusetts just as much as anywhere else in the U.S, but I guess Massachustens don't really know the Senator they just elected.

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

Every poll, every scientific survey contradicts what you guys are trying to say.  Nobody on here had offered any objective evidence for your claims.  Its all anecdotal 'evidence' at best.

Polling doesn't lie.  Its sometimes somewhat inaccurate, but people who ignore the polling are proven wrong again and again.  Republicans in 2012 and Democrats in 2014 made the same type of anecdotal, wishful thinking based arguments for why they thought the polls are wrong, do you remember how that turned out? 

[Oakvale]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.

[Mehmentum]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.

Even if you can find a way to make the % go as low as 40%, that is still a very large chuck of the party that's in her corner.  40% of the party supported her when she wasn't inevitable and against an opponent with equal name recognition.  Having that large a portion of the party support you is always a good position to be in during the primaries. Its also something that none of her potential opponents has, which is a massive starting advantage for Clinton.    

More people preferred George Bush to John McCain in 2000, McCain won 8 years later. Even though more people preferred McCain to Romney in 2008, Romney won 4 years later.  There is a long history of candidates who lost in the primary coming back to win the next time around.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.

Even if you can find a way to make the % go as low as 40%, that is still a very large chuck of the party that's in her corner.  40% of the party supported her when she wasn't inevitable and against an opponent with equal name recognition.  Having that large a portion of the party support you is always a good position to be in during the primaries. Its also something that none of her potential opponents has, which is a massive starting advantage for Clinton.    

More people preferred George Bush to John McCain in 2000, McCain won 8 years later. Even though more people preferred McCain to Romney in 2008, Romney won 4 years later.  There is a long history of candidates who lost in the primary coming back to win the next time around.

A substantial chunk of that 40% are racist "Demosaurs" who haven't voted for a Democratic candidate in 5+ years...

[IceSpear]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.

Well, you're quite well versed in empirical data when it suits your purposes, but it seems not so much when it doesn't. Either way you slice it, the popular vote was within 1% and essentially split the party in half. Despite starting in a much worse position than she's in now, she still nearly won. The mythology that "Obama DEMOLISHED Hillary so Sanders/Webb/whoever can too!" is quite amusing though.

[IceSpear]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.

Even if you can find a way to make the % go as low as 40%, that is still a very large chuck of the party that's in her corner.  40% of the party supported her when she wasn't inevitable and against an opponent with equal name recognition.  Having that large a portion of the party support you is always a good position to be in during the primaries. Its also something that none of her potential opponents has, which is a massive starting advantage for Clinton.    

More people preferred George Bush to John McCain in 2000, McCain won 8 years later. Even though more people preferred McCain to Romney in 2008, Romney won 4 years later.  There is a long history of candidates who lost in the primary coming back to win the next time around.

A substantial chunk of that 40% are racist "Demosaurs" who haven't voted for a Democratic candidate in 5+ years...

Indeed.



Just look at how Hillary won those right wing Demosaur states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and California, while Obama was only sweeping progressive bastions such as Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, South Carolina, Kansas, Wyoming, and Idaho.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

[Mehmentum]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

It really doesn't matter where the votes come from, if Clinton wins in part because of Southern Dixiecrats, she still wins.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

It really doesn't matter where the votes come from, if Clinton wins in part because of Southern Dixiecrats, she still wins.

My point is that many of her so-called supporters in 2008 didn't actually support Hillary Clinton so much as they reviled Barack Hussein Obama. In the context of this discussion, this point is very relevant: it shows that her base is smaller than it's made out to be.

Again, I'm not saying that no one supports Hillary Clinton or that she's a paper tiger. I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy. The data that you used to dispute this point is spurious at best. For one, it's rather dated. Many people who voted for Clinton in the primary are dead or have left the Democratic Party. There are also millions of new voters, who almost certainly are not enthusiastic about Hillary.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

Even if that's true, the fact that Hillary won many Democratic/liberal states belies your notion that her candidacy was propped up solely by racist Conservadems.

And please don't try to pull the moral high ground. If we want to talk about spin, it's blatantly obvious your dislike of Hillary is what's fueling your analysis in desperately trying to find ways she can lose the primary despite all objective evidence and empirical data showing her as one of the strongest non incumbent frontrunners in history. Step back and just look at the evidence without letting your personal feelings get in the way. It's not a coincidence that the only people who still think Hillary could lose the Democratic primary are people who intensely dislike her. Even if I despised Hillary, I'd still argue against the people who think she can lose the primary, because it's ludicrous based on the evidence. I hate Jeff Sessions and Andrew Cuomo, but I didn't delude myself into believing Victor Sanchez Williams or Zephyr Teachout could win.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

Even if that's true, the fact that Hillary won many Democratic/liberal states belies your notion that her candidacy was propped up solely by racist Conservadems.

And please don't try to pull the moral high ground. If we want to talk about spin, it's blatantly obvious your dislike of Hillary is what's fueling your analysis in desperately trying to find ways she can lose the primary despite all objective evidence and empirical data showing her as one of the strongest non incumbent frontrunners in history. Step back and just look at the evidence without letting your personal feelings get in the way. It's not a coincidence that the only people who still think Hillary could lose the Democratic primary are people who intensely dislike her. Even if I despised Hillary, I'd still argue against the people who think she can lose the primary, because it's ludicrous based on the evidence. I hate Jeff Sessions and Andrew Cuomo, but I didn't delude myself into believing Victor Sanchez Williams or Zephyr Teachout could win.

I don't think that Hillary Clinton's candidacy was solely propped by conservative Democrats but I think she would have dropped out of the race much sooner without their support.

Nope, I think that she'll almost certainly win the Democratic Primary and I think that she'd probably defeat Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush by a substantial margin in 2016. Certainly, I dislike Hillary Clinton but I don't care about this election all that much. I feel very dispassionately about the whole charade. I'm annoyed by the irrational exuberance of Hillary hacks because it has ruined this board.

This is how I think a Mitt Romney vs Hillary Clinton campaign would play out:

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

Yes that is true but what is the argument/conclusion you are trying to make? That Hillary will win the primaries with the support of "Demosaurs" who will then vote Republican against Hillary in the general election rendering her a weaker GE candidate than the primary results would suggest?

Hillary may secure the nomination with the help of such "Demosaurs", but she doesn't really need their votes in the general election to win. I think the Clintons are smart enough to realize they are working with a post-Obama electoral map, not Bill Clinton's 90s electoral map, and are not going to waste much resources trying to chase Arkansas or West Virginia unless Hillary is up by double-digits in the polls and has all the Obama states locked up already.

[Mehmentum]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

It really doesn't matter where the votes come from, if Clinton wins in part because of Southern Dixiecrats, she still wins.

My point is that many of her so-called supporters in 2008 didn't actually support Hillary Clinton so much as they reviled Barack Hussein Obama. In the context of this discussion, this point is very relevant: it shows that her base is smaller than it's made out to be.

Again, I'm not saying that no one supports Hillary Clinton or that she's a paper tiger. I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy. The data that you used to dispute this point is spurious at best. For one, it's rather dated. Many people who voted for Clinton in the primary are dead or have left the Democratic Party. There are also millions of new voters, who almost certainly are not enthusiastic about Hillary.

Its completely fine to make that claim.  My main issue is that nobody has backed up that claim with a poll or some other empirical data.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

Yes that is true but what is the argument/conclusion you are trying to make? That Hillary will win the primaries with the support of "Demosaurs" who will then vote Republican against Hillary in the general election rendering her a weaker GE candidate than the primary results would suggest?

Hillary may secure the nomination with the help of such "Demosaurs", but she doesn't really need their votes in the general election to win. I think the Clintons are smart enough to realize they are working with a post-Obama electoral map, not Bill Clinton's 90s electoral map, and are not going to waste much resources trying to chase Arkansas or West Virginia unless Hillary is up by double-digits in the polls and has all the Obama states locked up already.

My conclusion is that the Clinton campaign may take the Democratic base for granted in the general election. It's difficult to inspire the "Rising American Electorate" with soundbites tested in focus groups. 2014 is a great example of an election where Democrats attempted to engineer high turnout via messaging and a strong ground game rather than an overarching progressive theme founded on concrete policy proposals. My argument isn't that Clinton will fail to win over a non-negligible number of McCain/Romney voters, I think she probably will, but the problem lies in the fact that these voters will be disproportionately located in states that don't matter.

It's far too early to engage in detailed prognostication but I think there are a number of scenarios in which Hillary Clinton's weaknesses lead to a Republican victory in 2016.

[IceSpear]

I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy.

The first part is a fair point to make. I don't think anybody thinks Hillary will actually win by 50 points in the end, and name recognition certainly makes an impact in the current polls. But there's no evidence whatsoever to support the bold, besides your own personal feelings or anecdotal evidence. If a large portion of the Democratic base was merely tolerating her, she wouldn't be polling at 93-6 (November 2014 CNN) or 92-4 (November 2014 Quinnipiac) favorability scores among Democrats.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. All of these voters supported Obama in 2008 and the vast majority of them did in 2012. Many Clinton supporters in the South, a substantial portion of her support in 2008, haven't voted for a Democratic candidate since 2010. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

It really doesn't matter where the votes come from, if Clinton wins in part because of Southern Dixiecrats, she still wins.

My point is that many of her so-called supporters in 2008 didn't actually support Hillary Clinton so much as they reviled Barack Hussein Obama. In the context of this discussion, this point is very relevant: it shows that her base is smaller than it's made out to be.

Again, I'm not saying that no one supports Hillary Clinton or that she's a paper tiger. I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy. The data that you used to dispute this point is spurious at best. For one, it's rather dated. Many people who voted for Clinton in the primary are dead or have left the Democratic Party. There are also millions of new voters, who almost certainly are not enthusiastic about Hillary.

Its completely fine to make that claim.  My main issue is that nobody has backed up that claim with a poll or some other empirical data.

Unfortunately, the intensity of the support for Clinton cannot be accurately measured by polling numbers at stage of the campaign.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy.

The first part is a fair point to make. I don't think anybody thinks Hillary will actually win by 50 points in the end, and name recognition certainly makes an impact in the current polls. But there's no evidence whatsoever to support the bold, besides your own personal feelings or anecdotal evidence. If a large portion of the Democratic base was merely tolerating her, she wouldn't be polling at 93-6 (November 2014 CNN) or 92-4 (November 2014 Quinnipiac) favorability scores among Democrats.

Most people who tolerate a prominent political figure, would say that they have a favorable opinion of that prominent political figure. By no means is this an exaggerated claim. To be fair, I think you have the right to be skeptical. There's not that much quantitative evidence for my argument at this point. I think there will be in 6 months or so.

[IceSpear]

IceSpear, that's political analysis that's on the level of a 5th grader throwing poo at his playground rival. You're not trying "spin" Hillary Clinton's candidacy at CNN. This is a forum devoted to psephology, not political boosterism.

Democrats/left-leaning Independents who participate in the primary process in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas are very progressive. I'd like to think that this statement goes without saying on this forum but apparently the level of discourse has been degraded to the point of drooling idiocy.

Even if that's true, the fact that Hillary won many Democratic/liberal states belies your notion that her candidacy was propped up solely by racist Conservadems.

And please don't try to pull the moral high ground. If we want to talk about spin, it's blatantly obvious your dislike of Hillary is what's fueling your analysis in desperately trying to find ways she can lose the primary despite all objective evidence and empirical data showing her as one of the strongest non incumbent frontrunners in history. Step back and just look at the evidence without letting your personal feelings get in the way. It's not a coincidence that the only people who still think Hillary could lose the Democratic primary are people who intensely dislike her. Even if I despised Hillary, I'd still argue against the people who think she can lose the primary, because it's ludicrous based on the evidence. I hate Jeff Sessions and Andrew Cuomo, but I didn't delude myself into believing Victor Sanchez Williams or Zephyr Teachout could win.

I don't think that Hillary Clinton's candidacy was solely propped by conservative Democrats but I think she would have dropped out of the race much sooner without their support.

Nope, I think that she'll almost certainly win the Democratic Primary and I think that she'd probably defeat Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush by a substantial margin in 2016. Certainly, I dislike Hillary Clinton but I don't care about this election all that much. I feel very dispassionately about the whole charade. I'm annoyed by the irrational exuberance of Hillary hacks because it has ruined this board.

This is how I think a Mitt Romney vs Hillary Clinton campaign would play out:

How have Hillary supporters "ruined the board"? I wasn't on Atlas for the 08 primary season, but I'm fairly confident in guessing that there were tons of enthusiastic Obama and/or Edwards supporters, probably with very few Hillary supporters, and that most people were fine with that arrangement. Of course her supporters will annoy you since you personally dislike her, but that's how it goes. People constantly bash it as the "Hillary hack board", but what else do you expect people to talk about? Obviously the conversation is going to be dominated by the essentially inevitable Democratic nominee and current favorite in the general, especially since the Republican field is split between like 20 people. When people get annoyed that people "talk about Hillary too much" or "support Hillary too much", it just sounds like sour grapes to me. I doubt very many people would care if you replace "Hillary" with "<insert their favored candidate here>".

[IceSpear]

I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy.

The first part is a fair point to make. I don't think anybody thinks Hillary will actually win by 50 points in the end, and name recognition certainly makes an impact in the current polls. But there's no evidence whatsoever to support the bold, besides your own personal feelings or anecdotal evidence. If a large portion of the Democratic base was merely tolerating her, she wouldn't be polling at 93-6 (November 2014 CNN) or 92-4 (November 2014 Quinnipiac) favorability scores among Democrats.

Most people who tolerate a prominent political figure, would say that they have a favorable opinion of that prominent political figure. By no means is this an exaggerated claim. To be fair, I think you have the right to be skeptical. There's not that much quantitative evidence for my argument at this point. I think there will be in 6 months or so.

I think "tolerates" would be more likely to split three ways into positive, negative, and undecided. It just doesn't seem likely to me that all of them would go into the positive camp. But fair enough, as you said, we'll see.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

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.

Yea those white working class ancestral Democrats that Hillary slaughtered Obama among in the 2008 primary, will swing hard to Hillary.

Obama collapsed in Western PA and Hillary will win back a lot of ground there.

[Devils30]

Wolf also did pretty well in western Pennsylvania. Look at Fayette, Cambria, Greene. They might not bounce back to 2004 kerry showings but even a repeat of 2012 numbers out there makes it close to impossible to lose the state. SW Pennsylvania is heavily catholic and the evangelical right might not have huge appeal here. Hillary is a strong fit.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm saying that the polling overstates her levels of support and that many people, perhaps the majority of the Democratic base, are not enthusiastic about her potential candidacy.

The first part is a fair point to make. I don't think anybody thinks Hillary will actually win by 50 points in the end, and name recognition certainly makes an impact in the current polls. But there's no evidence whatsoever to support the bold, besides your own personal feelings or anecdotal evidence. If a large portion of the Democratic base was merely tolerating her, she wouldn't be polling at 93-6 (November 2014 CNN) or 92-4 (November 2014 Quinnipiac) favorability scores among Democrats.

Most people who tolerate a prominent political figure, would say that they have a favorable opinion of that prominent political figure. By no means is this an exaggerated claim. To be fair, I think you have the right to be skeptical. There's not that much quantitative evidence for my argument at this point. I think there will be in 6 months or so.

The Democratic base (by which I assume you mean the liberal or progressive base, since the Dems have become such a giant tent party as it's taken in refugees from the sunken ship that was the Rockefeller wing of the GOP) might not be excited about Hillary. I'm not excited about Hillary and I won't vote for her. I am hoping Warren runs a serious campaign against her, or at least Sanders runs a protest campaign against her. I would vote Green in the general election since if Hillary is not automatically winning New York by 30 points, there would have had to have been some major scandal to cause her to implode and a Republican landslide would be imminent.

But she would still be the first woman president. Democratic women, and even female voters in general, will probably be quite enthusiastic for her. And there are a lot of Democrats like IceSpear who are shameless Hillary hacks and very enthusiastic for Hillary even if they don't represent the Democratic base.