Does Hillary Win?

[Free Bird]

I mean, her poll numbers are consistently slanting downward.

[Ebsy]

I mean, her poll numbers are consistently slanting downward.

Begone troll.

[Free Bird]

People voting yes can't seriously believe that the polls will stay the way they are. Then again, you guys thought Bob Baxter would win until October, so I can't say I'm surprised

[bobloblaw]

If the economy is expanding and unemployment is no higher than today, yes.


As I have said here before. The problem the GOP faces in 2016 is the same the Dems faced in 1988.

A party doesnt preside over the domestic and foreign policy disasters of 1979-80 and 2006-08 and win 8 years later.

The GOP will win again when the Dems preside over a recession and rising unemployment. Then youll see the so called "Blue Wall" crumble

[Free Bird]

If the economy is expanding and unemployment is no higher than today, yes.


As I have said here before. The problem the GOP faces in 2016 is the same the Dems faced in 1988.

A party doesnt preside over the domestic and foreign policy disasters of 1979-80 and 2006-08 and win 8 years later.

The GOP will win again when the Dems preside over a recession and rising unemployment. Then youll see the so called "Blue Wall" crumble

Except Reagan was stupidly popular. Obama is not

[Gallium]

If the economy is expanding and unemployment is no higher than today, yes.


As I have said here before. The problem the GOP faces in 2016 is the same the Dems faced in 1988.

A party doesnt preside over the domestic and foreign policy disasters of 1979-80 and 2006-08 and win 8 years later.

The GOP will win again when the Dems preside over a recession and rising unemployment. Then youll see the so called "Blue Wall" crumble

Except Reagan was stupidly popular. Obama is not

At this point in his presidency Reagan's approval rating was 47% - the same as Obama's.

[Skill and Chance]

If the economy is expanding and unemployment is no higher than today, yes.


As I have said here before. The problem the GOP faces in 2016 is the same the Dems faced in 1988.

A party doesnt preside over the domestic and foreign policy disasters of 1979-80 and 2006-08 and win 8 years later.

The GOP will win again when the Dems preside over a recession and rising unemployment. Then youll see the so called "Blue Wall" crumble

NO ONE will care about what the GOP did in 2008. Otherwise, it wouldn't have won in 2010, just TWO YEARS later.

That's ambiguous.  Democrats did well in 1982 after all.

[IceSpear]

People voting yes can't seriously believe that the polls will stay the way they are. Then again, you guys thought Bob Baxter would win until October, so I can't say I'm surprised

You don't need to necessarily think the polls will stay the same in order to think she'll win. She could win, but by a lesser margin. Or the GOP could nominate a joke and she'd win in a massive landslide.

[bedstuy]

You can find two polls with a trend you like and then extrapolate that out at a constant rate until election day.  

That is not accurate though.  You can find nationwide polls in 2013 where Chris Christie leads Hillary Clinton, you can find polls from 2014 where Mitt Romney leads Clinton, you can find polls where she's leading by 20%, at this point it's complete noise.  Polls aren't accurate at all until the dust of the primary race has settled, we're not anywhere close to that.

It's dumb to say that Hillary Clinton is going to win because of the polling.  It's dumb to say that she's going to steadily lose 2% every month because you hope she will.  It's just grasping at random facts that you like, it's completely subjective nonsense.  All we know is that Hillary Clinton has a small but significant lead on the Republican field at this point.  But, leading an election with a year and a half to go is pretty much worthless, things change.  

Elections are really complicated and unpredictable.  If you want to say something worthwhile, you need to get much more granular and talk about specific variables that will affect the outcome.  Just throwing out little facts or trends, XYZ happened in 1988, it's just worthless grasping at straws.

[bobloblaw]

If the economy is expanding and unemployment is no higher than today, yes.


As I have said here before. The problem the GOP faces in 2016 is the same the Dems faced in 1988.

A party doesnt preside over the domestic and foreign policy disasters of 1979-80 and 2006-08 and win 8 years later.

The GOP will win again when the Dems preside over a recession and rising unemployment. Then youll see the so called "Blue Wall" crumble

Except Reagan was stupidly popular. Obama is not

At this point in his presidency Reagan's approval rating was 47% - the same as Obama's.

He is right. By election day 1988, Reagan was up to 55%/ What knocked Reagan down from 60% to 45% in a few months was Iran-Contra. But once it passed, his approval rating climbed.

[bobloblaw]

You do have to go back to 1904 where a party that was in power for 8 years, increased its share of the vote. The average decline since 1940 for a third term is over 5% of the popular vote (im not counting 1944 and 1948). But you could also argue that the electorate is more inelastic today than in the 1940-2000 period.

McCain only lost about 5% off GW Bush 2004 performance. Given the economy and the war in Iraq, it should have been more like 10%. 4-5% of the two party vote is what Bush in 88 and Gore in 00 lost in perfect conditions.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, she will take Julian Castro in an attempt to lock down FL, PA and NV, CO senate, as well as win IL, WI. She wins around 300 electors against Jeb or Walker and leaves GOP with a comfortable margin in House around 233 members.

[The Free North]

She actually already won the election last september so this poll is a bit late

[MATTROSE94]

I'm not really sure. As of today, I feel that Hillary Clinton is slightly favored, but a lot can happen between now and November 2016

[7,052,770]

Voted yes, but obviously there's a huge amount of uncertainty and it would not be shocking or surprising if she lost.

[Senator Cris]

I don't know, really.
But I think it'll be very close, either way.

[The Other Castro]

Probably. It's not that I can't see her losing, it's just that I can't see anyone else winning.

[© tweed]

"no" is probably the smallest of favorites right now.  say 48% yes - 52% no.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Tentatively, yes.

She is far from being a sure thing or a perfect candidate, and there are two big variables: who the Republicans nominate, and what disasters (if any) happen during the remainder of Obama's term.

I doubt there are any scandals more significant than "emailgate" or "Benghazi" lurking, but one could always emerge. I think it's more likely that something happens to damage the Democratic brand generally, but I'm not sure what it would be. A disastrous terror attack or massive economic collapse would hurt her chances, I think.


But a great deal still depends on who the Republicans nominate to oppose her. Their roster is awful, and they're going to have to struggle to get someone even marginally electable as the nominee.

Of course, Hillary could still screw-up her primary somehow, but I think that's pretty unlikely too.

[Sir Mohamed]

I mean, her poll numbers are consistently slanting downward.

Her numbers were in the upper 40s and lower 50s for more than a year now. It's unusal candidates in an open race are for beyond 50% more than a year before the election. Barack Obama underperformed in most poll numbers in 2007 and 2011 (the years before the election) Hillary's numbers. Nobody knows what's in 18 months, but if the numbers stay the same, I'll give her a solid victory (with simular results than 2008).

[ViaActiva]

I think that 2016 is pretty much a toss-up. Economy and demographics could be in Hillary's favour, but if she's going to be the same wooden and awkward candidate of 2008 then she's in trouble.

[Blair]

In all fairness most people would look wooden against Obama in 2008, for all his faults he was a destiny politician in 2008.

It all depends who the Republicans nominate

[morgieb]

Tricky to call for obvious reasons. For now though I'm not convinced that any of the field would be a favourite against her. So yes for now.

[Sir Mohamed]

In all fairness most people would look wooden against Obama in 2008, for all his faults he was a destiny politician in 2008.

It all depends who the Republicans nominate

I'm sure that will only matter how bih she's going to win...

[MT Treasurer]

In all fairness most people would look wooden against Obama in 2008, for all his faults he was a destiny politician in 2008.

It all depends who the Republicans nominate

I'm sure that will only matter how bih she's going to win...

I completely disagree. What if she implodes?