How does Walker beat Hillary?

[bobloblaw]

Right now Id say the odds favor Hillary but less than they favored Obama in 2012

[King]

Right now Id say the odds favor Hillary but less than they favored Obama in 2012

Republicans living in 2012 would vehemently disagree. He's going DOWN. There's no way someone with his unemployment rate can win. None whatsoever. Who cares what the polls say?

Plus the Redskins lost. And D+7.

[bedstuy]

Grasping for factoids is what losers do.  You can know tons of electoral trivia and arrange it into a picture you like, it's not necessarily going to be an accurate depiction of anything.  These facts can be illustrative, but only in context. 

A few points of fact:

Incumbents have an advantage.  Hillary is not an incumbent so she does not have that advantage.  But, that doesn't equal she will probably lose.

Hillary Clinton's popularity has had its ups and downs.  But, at this point, she's fairly popular for a prominent political figure in our polarized country. 

Ultimately, it's a popularity contest.  Nobody in Ohio is deciding not to vote for Hillary Clinton because her margin over Rick Lazio wasn't impressive enough.

[King]

Rarely does a party win the white house three terms in a row....simple as that.

Except for 1980-1992, 1932-1952, 1920-1932, 1896-1912, 1868-1884, and 1800-1828, totally. Except for those 104 years of our 224 years of presidential elections, it simply never happens.

Ill bet everyone of those instances when the party won a third term, they won a 2nd term by a large margin, not the third closest in history. I do agree that it is more likely to happen in 2016 than in the past because the GOP has the blame of Iraq and Economic meltdown

You would be incorrect. McKinley vs William Jennings Bryan was close, Hayes won controversially in 1876, and it did not effect the party victory 4 years later.

All of this is nonsense anyway. People don't vote based on the position of the stars. Democrats could lose in 2016, they could win 2016, we could go 48 years without another Republican President, we could go 100 years without another Democratic President.  We could go on a string of 20 consecutive one term Presidents each defeated by the next challenger on the opposite party.

Precedent doesn't determine what happens next. Public opinion polls suggest what happens next and they are suggesting Hillary.

[pbrower2a]

1. Unforeseen scandal

2. Economic meltdown

3. Catastrophic war associated with the Democrats

4. Rigged election


...Scott Walker is not the Republican equivalent of John F. Kennedy.

[Mehmentum]

Walker has the best chance if the economy is in the tank. 

Walker has already shown that he isn't very strong on foreign policy.   If the economy is doing well and people are more worried about terrorism, ISIS, and Russia, not only will Hilary be able to campaign on the economy, but she'll also outclass Walker on foreign policy.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

If this comparison proves anything it is that Clinton did pretty well considering she had a bigger challenge (at least in New York state).  And also that she did not run 15 points behind Gore.

EDIT: I see what you did there.

Yeah, that's the post I was responding to.

[bobloblaw]

Right now Id say the odds favor Hillary but less than they favored Obama in 2012

Republicans living in 2012 would vehemently disagree. He's going DOWN. There's no way someone with his unemployment rate can win. None whatsoever. Who cares what the polls say?

Plus the Redskins lost. And D+7.

D+7? It was a 4 point Obama win in 2012. The third closest re-election in US history.

[King]

Right now Id say the odds favor Hillary but less than they favored Obama in 2012

Republicans living in 2012 would vehemently disagree. He's going DOWN. There's no way someone with his unemployment rate can win. None whatsoever. Who cares what the polls say?

Plus the Redskins lost. And D+7.

D+7? It was a 4 point Obama win in 2012. The third closest re-election in US history.

So you were too young to remember 2012. Got it.

[IceSpear]

Albert Gore Jr.   Joseph Lieberman   Democratic   4,113,791   60.22%   
George W. Bush   Richard Cheney   Republican   2,405,676   35.22%

Hillary Rodham Clinton   Democratic   3,747,310   55.27%
Rick Lazio   Republican   2,915,730   43.01%

This is a pretty good indication of Hillary's lack of popularity. She won by 12 when Gore won by 25. There was clearly no wave of women for Hillary. Gore almost certainly did better among women than Hillary did and frankly with every other Dem group. This is one data point indicating that all of Hillary's strengths are myths.

That extrapolation is about as dumb as saying that she's destined to win by double digits nationwide because she won by 36 points in 2006.

[Mechaman]

Next up:

Ronald Reagan   Republican           3,439,664   52.84%
Jesse M. Unruh   Democratic   2,938,607   45.14%

That Reagan has no chance in hell, doesn't he?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He has been moving to center to repair his polarizing image on the unconstitutional voter ID law, and on unions. But hard core liberals like Blacks will only remember his treatment of Burke who was part of teacher's union and voter ID law and be the one's not believing that moderate image. The only hope is seperate his appeal to minorities from his support from whites, similar to what he did in WI and hope for more Clinton foundation scandals, which is low.

[Mister Mets]

Rarely does a party win the white house three terms in a row....simple as that.

Except for 1980-1992, 1932-1952, 1920-1932, 1896-1912, 1868-1884, and 1800-1828, totally. Except for those 104 years of our 224 years of presidential elections, it simply never happens.

Ill bet everyone of those instances when the party won a third term, they won a 2nd term by a large margin, not the third closest in history. I do agree that it is more likely to happen in 2016 than in the past because the GOP has the blame of Iraq and Economic meltdown

You would be incorrect. McKinley vs William Jennings Bryan was close, Hayes won controversially in 1876, and it did not effect the party victory 4 years later.

All of this is nonsense anyway. People don't vote based on the position of the stars. Democrats could lose in 2016, they could win 2016, we could go 48 years without another Republican President, we could go 100 years without another Democratic President.  We could go on a string of 20 consecutive one term Presidents each defeated by the next challenger on the opposite party.

Precedent doesn't determine what happens next. Public opinion polls suggest what happens next and they are suggesting Hillary.

Precedent does matter, even if there's no guarantee that patterns will continue.

As for opinion polls, two years ago, there were plenty of times when McCain was leading Obama. Hillary also led Obama in every national poll taken in 2007 (the one exception was a 2007 gallup poll that had a one point lead for Obama but that was if Clinton's husband's Vice President had been in the race, which didn't end up happening.)

Polls and precedent do provide significant information, but it's not a guaranteed indication of the outcome.

[Mister Mets]

Next up:

Ronald Reagan   Republican           3,439,664   52.84%
Jesse M. Unruh   Democratic   2,938,607   45.14%

That Reagan has no chance in hell, doesn't he?

California had been pretty close to the national average in the 1964, 1968 and 1972 elections. That's not a bad result for a Republican.

[pbrower2a]

Right-to-Work (but only for much less)  legislation is not moderation. Walker is a mirror-image of a Marxist, the sort of person who takes delight in the vices that Marx saw in the capitalist order of his time instead (as any decent person would do) of seeing those as abominable or unnecessary.

Moderate? Nothing about him is moderate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rarely does a party win the white house three terms in a row....simple as that.

Except for 1980-1992, 1932-1952, 1920-1932, 1896-1912, 1868-1884, and 1800-1828, totally. Except for those 104 years of our 224 years of presidential elections, it simply never happens.

Ill bet everyone of those instances when the party won a third term, they won a 2nd term by a large margin, not the third closest in history. I do agree that it is more likely to happen in 2016 than in the past because the GOP has the blame of Iraq and Economic meltdown

You would be incorrect. McKinley vs William Jennings Bryan was close, Hayes won controversially in 1876, and it did not effect the party victory 4 years later.

All of this is nonsense anyway. People don't vote based on the position of the stars. Democrats could lose in 2016, they could win 2016, we could go 48 years without another Republican President, we could go 100 years without another Democratic President.  We could go on a string of 20 consecutive one term Presidents each defeated by the next challenger on the opposite party.

Precedent doesn't determine what happens next. Public opinion polls suggest what happens next and they are suggesting Hillary.

Precedent does matter, even if there's no guarantee that patterns will continue.

As for opinion polls, two years ago, there were plenty of times when McCain was leading Obama. Hillary also led Obama in every national poll taken in 2007 (the one exception was a 2007 gallup poll that had a one point lead for Obama but that was if Clinton's husband's Vice President had been in the race, which didn't end up happening.)

Polls and precedent do provide significant information, but it's not a guaranteed indication of the outcome.

Most social issues are moving in a secular direction even if the south and Mnt W still hold sway on the G o P. Voter ID law in WI, was recently ruled unconstitution and union collective bargining.

The precedent of two consecutive terms and switch party control should be thrown out window. Even in 2014, there was no realignment. The states the GoP won in were ruby red. I expect the trend to continue as Dems will win over constitutiencies and win elections even further.

[IceSpear]

He has been moving to center to repair his polarizing image on the unconstitutional voter ID law, and on unions. But hard core liberals like Blacks will only remember his treatment of Burke who was part of teacher's union and voter ID law and be the one's not believing that moderate image. The only hope is seperate his appeal to minorities from his support from whites, similar to what he did in WI and hope for more Clinton foundation scandals, which is low.

Signing right to work and abortion restrictions is moving to the center?

[heatmaster]

Keep calling Hillary by her nickname,  Barack Hussein Obama😉

[Panda Express]

Keep calling Hillary by her nickname,  Barack Hussein Obama😉

All that would do is ensure she wins. The American people adore Barack Obama. He never has, and never will, lose to a Republican.

[RI]

He has been moving to center to repair his polarizing image on the unconstitutional voter ID law, and on unions. But hard core liberals like Blacks will only remember his treatment of Burke who was part of teacher's union and voter ID law and be the one's not believing that moderate image. The only hope is seperate his appeal to minorities from his support from whites, similar to what he did in WI and hope for more Clinton foundation scandals, which is low.

Signing right to work and abortion restrictions is moving to the center?

Don't forget about suddenly taking the hardline on immigration.

[Devils30]

Walker will have an extremely tough time winning Florida vs Hillary. He doesn't appeal to minorities one bit so that problem will be amplified there. 67% white in 2012 becomes 64% white or so in 2016 and I just have trouble seeing Walker getting more than 48.5% there.

[heatmaster]

Which points to Jeb, logic dictates it...He would appeal to a good cross-section of the electorate, will do better than his brother did with the Latino vote, his position on Education wins him voters; he wins Florida,  no matter who is opponent is...hope it's Hillary (e-mails, foreign money donations, Benghazi....and e-mails) what's not to like? Also Obama fatigue will be a drag on Democrat hopes; being a woman won't be enough for her and there are going to be other issues not on the political radar. Yup Jeb is looking better by the day.😎

[Stockdale for Veep]

It's completely out of his hands. He needs the economy to collapse; or have a real scandal bring the Dems down.

[Lupo]

Energy.  I'm not saying Dems aren't energized for the prospective Hillary campaign, but by summer 2016 Walker could outpace her.  Walker appeals to movement conservatives more than Hillary to movement progressives, in my opinion. 

[Mister Mets]

It would be wise to make the election about character and trust.

Hillary Clinton is not the candidate who can ever say "You may not agree with me on everything, but I will always tell you the truth" and have people believe her.