Which Best Represents Hillary's Margin of Victory (Primary)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I had been hearing for awhile now that Hillary's lead in the polls was unprecedented for a non-incumbent, but I had never actually followed primary elections pre-04 (and even then, I was in 3rd-4th grade so moreso the general), so I was never aware of just how big a blowout both parties had in 2000. Both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore were never in serious danger of losing and consistently polled over 50%. Gore went on to win every state and drop just a handful of delegates. while Bush had a few defectors including one early state on his way to an otherwise decisive victory.

Which scenario do you think will more aptly compare to the Democratic Primaries in 2016? (Or are you a non-believer in Hillary's inevitability?)

I honestly have no idea since I've never experienced anything quite like it. I'm leaning towards Gore 2000 since it appears all her challengers are terrible at putting up a fight, but perhaps Sanders can win NH or a very late-in-the-game caucus? or Webb pulls off an Iowa miracle?

What do you think?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Isn't North Carolina an early state?  I could see Webb win that state.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

While her likely challengers (ie not Warren or Biden) have a collective 5% or so, I think that at least one of them will likely gain some support. I could see someone winning a state or two, but not 7 like McCain in 2000. I think it will be closer to Gore in 2000.

[Mr. Morden]

More dominating than Gore 2000, but less dominating than, say, Obama 2012.  In 2000, Bradley was leading in the polls in NH at one point, and actually looked like he he had an outside chance of winning.  But once he lost both IA and NH, it was all over.

In contrast, I don't think either Webb or Sanders will ever pose a serious threat to Clinton.  They'll eventually poll more strongly than they do now, if only because their name recognition will improve, and Clinton will have a bad week at some point, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never pull within single digits of Clinton in either Iowa or New Hampshire.  Webb might then drop out before Iowa, while Sanders carries on, just to get his message out.

But they'll at least be significant enough challengers that they'll be included in polls and invited to debates (we'll see if Clinton accepts the debate invitations), unlike the no-names who ran in the primaries against, say, Obama in 2012 or Bush in 2004.

[IceSpear]

More dominating than Gore 2000, but less dominating than, say, Obama 2012.  In 2000, Bradley was leading in the polls in NH at one point, and actually looked like he he had an outside chance of winning.  But once he lost both IA and NH, it was all over.

In contrast, I don't think either Webb or Sanders will ever pose a serious threat to Clinton.  They'll eventually poll more strongly than they do now, if only because their name recognition will improve, and Clinton will have a bad week at some point, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never pull within single digits of Clinton in either Iowa or New Hampshire.  Webb might then drop out before Iowa, while Sanders carries on, just to get his message out.

But they'll at least be significant enough challengers that they'll be included in polls and invited to debates (we'll see if Clinton accepts the debate invitations), unlike the no-names who ran in the primaries against, say, Obama in 2012 or Bush in 2004.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan '84 or Clinton '96 seem more apt.

[bobloblaw]

Isn't North Carolina an early state?  I could see Webb win that state.

No blacks are the majority there in the Dem primary. Hillary wins it. Webb wont even be like Bradley in 2000.

The GOP should hope Hillary criuses thru the primary because she will be unprepared for the general

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

2016 Democratic Primary

Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (64.5%)
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (18.3%)
Fmr. Virginia Senator Jim Webb (15.6%)
Others 1.6%

I found this in the map thread. It shows a decent representation of what a Bush-2000-esque victory for Hillary could look like (if Webb and Sanders did that well, I would think that Iowa and NH might be slightly lighter, myself).

[IceSpear]

2016 Democratic Primary

Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (64.5%)
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (18.3%)
Fmr. Virginia Senator Jim Webb (15.6%)
Others 1.6%

I found this in the map thread. It shows a decent representation of what a Bush-2000-esque victory for Hillary could look like (if Webb and Sanders did that well, I would think that Iowa and NH might be slightly lighter, myself).

The problem is the calendar. WV/KY are both in May, when Hillary would already be the presumptive nominee. It's rare for candidates to stay in past that point, and I don't see Webb as being the type to do so (but Sanders might).

It could be a 2004 minus Edwards map, with Sanders as Howard Dean and Webb as Wesley Clark.

A more Bush 2000-esque map would likely be due to Sanders doing well in the early caucus states.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

2016 Democratic Primary

Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (64.5%)
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (18.3%)
Fmr. Virginia Senator Jim Webb (15.6%)
Others 1.6%

I found this in the map thread. It shows a decent representation of what a Bush-2000-esque victory for Hillary could look like (if Webb and Sanders did that well, I would think that Iowa and NH might be slightly lighter, myself).

The problem is the calendar. WV/KY are both in May, when Hillary would already be the presumptive nominee. It's rare for candidates to stay in past that point, and I don't see Webb as being the type to do so (but Sanders might).

It could be a 2004 minus Edwards map, with Sanders as Howard Dean and Webb as Wesley Clark.

A more Bush 2000-esque map would likely be due to Sanders doing well in the early caucus states.

That's a fair point about the calendar. Perhaps it's better to think of this map as showing the margins of "What if every state had their primaries/caucuses on the same day."

The calendar still seems like it's fluctuating, at least according to this: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-presidential-primary-calendar.html?m=1

[Intell]

The Primary challenge is going to be like Gore's was in 2000.

[TDAS04]

Gore 2000 seems pretty likely. 

[Mr. Morden]

Again, Bradley led the polls in New Hampshire for a while, and, as of Sept. 1999 or so, looked like he had an outside chance of winning the nomination.  You guys really think Sanders or Webb will ever reach that position?

In the end, Bradley only lost NH by 4 points.  You guys really think Sanders or Webb will come that close in either IA or NH?

[stegosaurus]

I haven't seen anyone mention Biden yet. If he chooses to run, he'll have the closest proximity to Obama and will be best position to take some credit for the economy (something Clinton can't realistically do). It doesn't show in the polls now, but Clinton v Biden could get interesting.

[Mister Mets]

I'm thinking Obama 2012.

Someone may hit 40 percent in a few primaries, but that's as far as they'll go.

[IceSpear]

I haven't seen anyone mention Biden yet. If he chooses to run, he'll have the closest proximity to Obama and will be best position to take some credit for the economy (something Clinton can't realistically do). It doesn't show in the polls now, but Clinton v Biden could get interesting.

Biden won't run because he doesn't want his last act on the political stage to be getting curbstomped.

[ShadowRocket]

Voted Gore 2000 though I think Sanders could win VT, with maybe Webb picking off a Southern state or two. 

I don't think a primary victory similar to Bush 2000 is that far fetched if say O'Malley got in and was able to catch some fire perhaps.