Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside)

[IceSpear]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

[bedstuy]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

Exactly.  As a fellow Hillary Clinton hack, I agree with your points.  But, you might be beating a dead horse.  Or, in the case of Wulfric or IndyRep, you're beating a stupid horse.

[King]

What race are these younger voters? Majority black and hispanic. Even if the nominee tries, the GOP has too many loudmouths bad for PR and bad for business. Not even famous loud mouths, Republican voters on facebook and twitter that these young people read more than anything are absolutely vile representations of the GOP brand.

This also requires the assumption that Clinton and the Democrats are a static punching bag, helpless to campaign positively in their own right. By the time the GOP nominee is ready to start chipping away at the Pennsylvania black vote or Colorado latinos, it'll be too late.

Clinton will be able to launch a pseudo general election campaign from the start, just like Obama did in 2012. She'll have an arsenal of ridiculous GOP primary debates to define whoever the nominee will be from the start, just like Obama did in 2012. She'll have more money and more resources. She'll have the supermajority beloved Bill Clinton to campaign for her. She'll have the supermajority beloved (with non-whites) Barack Obama to campaign for her.

[NeverAgain]

CHAFEE ANNOUNCED SUCK ON THAT ICESPEAR! HE'S ALREADY 50 POINTS AHEAD OF HILLS IN NEW YORK!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

I know you hate the Republican candidates and probably the Republican party in general, but even you have to admit that there is a SMALL chance (like 10%) that she could lose in 2016. Are you a totally deluded Hillary hack? What is this evidence you are talking about? Why do you think polls this early do mean anything? And people who say that the 2016 election will be competitive are biased and anti-Hillary hacks? Seriously?

Let's take polls out of it.

Who has the financial advantage (keep in mind all the GOP candidates will have to spend more in 2015 and the primaries)? Hillary Clinton
Who has the structural advantage (most base safe EVs to start)? Hillary Clinton, 253 EVs solid
Who has the most beloved brand name? Clinton
Who has the best surrogates (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren versus Mitt Romney... John McCain... George W. Bush... uh)? Hillary Clinton
Who has the more popular stance on potential major 2016 issues like minimum wage and SS/Medicare? Hillary Clinton
Does the GOP have any room to grow in white vote from 2012? No.
Does the GOP have any path to significant growth (at least a 20 point swing) in Hispanic or Black vote in 2016? No.
Can Scott Walker beat her in Florida? No. (That's 270)
Can Jeb Bush beat her in Ohio? No. (That's 270)
Can Rand Paul beat hear in Virginia? No. (That's 270)
Can Ted Cruz beat her in any swing state? No. (That's 270)

There's no path to 270 anywhere on the map for any GOP contender. Each one of them falls short in a critical swing state. The GOP is in a bad position. They have to SWEEP the swing states to win. They have less than 200 safe/solid EVs. This is impossible to win on.

In 2004, George W. Bush had Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado locked in base. He only had to go on offense for Ohio or IA/NM/NV to win.

The resources are stretched too thin. The candidate would have to twist and pander too much.

Walker could definitely beat her in Florida and Paul could win without Virginia.

[King]

What race are these younger voters? Majority black and hispanic.

In PA, really?

Not in PA, but a significant amount and you'd have to go after them to win young voters.

Romney won young whites 18-29 by 7 points nationwide but lost 18-29 by 23 points. This magic bullet of finding more young white people to become Libertarians for Rand isn't going to happen. Winning young whites by 7 is about as good is it gets. You need to add black and brown to the coalition and it's not going to happen in 2016.

[King]

Walker could definitely beat her in Florida and Paul could win without Virginia.

What about Walker makes him a better fit than Clinton in Florida?

[bedstuy]

What race are these younger voters? Majority black and hispanic.

In PA, really?

Not in PA, but a significant amount and you'd have to go after them to win young voters.

Romney won young whites 18-29 by 7 points nationwide but lost 18-29 by 23 points. This magic bullet of finding more young white people to become Libertarians for Rand isn't going to happen. You need to add black and brown to the coalition and it's not going to happen in 2016.

Right.  Republicans only try to appeal to people who are culturally or politically conservative.  They've gotten so laser focus on that, a winning strategy once upon a time, that they never try to target anyone else. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nothing is ever completely certain. But it's about as certain as saying James Lankford or Chuck Schumer will be re-elected, which most people have no problem doing.

Nice strawman, but presidential election is hardly comparable to Senate races in NY or OK.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

Good thing they're reading the Atlas Forum daily. You totally showed them, bro

[IceSpear]

Nothing is ever completely certain. But it's about as certain as saying James Lankford or Chuck Schumer will be re-elected, which most people have no problem doing.

Nice strawman, but presidential election is hardly comparable to Senate races in NY or OK.

It's not a strawman, it's a comparison. Hillary's chances of losing the primary are around the same as their chances of losing re-election. Can you say with 100% certainty that those two will be re-elected? Nope. There's always the chance of a perfect storm happening (extremely strong opponent combined with massive wave combined with gaffes and/or scandal) that could dislodge them. The same applies to Hillary. Nevertheless, when you start getting into ludicrous and extremely unlikely hypotheticals, analysis becomes worthless. Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic primary is a ludicrous and extremely unlikely hypothetical. It shouldn't be discussed as if it's a serious possibility just because it's a part of your own wishful thinking.

And I notice you STILL haven't addressed any points of the original post other than the reliability of "early" polls.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sheesh... You wish to operate under some bizzare assumption that this election season is somewhat exceptional from all rules of political dynamics and everything is already set in stone, go knock yourself out. I've already said my piece, but trying to argue with you is like trying to break down a wall with one's bare head. Not worth of efforts.

[IceSpear]

I also like how I'm supposedly "arguing with nobody", yet here is Kalwejt continually plugging away with the "Hillary not inevitable" meme. I suppose he doesn't actually exist and is just a figment of my imagination.

[IceSpear]

Sheesh... You wish to operate under some bizzare assumption that this election season is somewhat exceptional from all rules of political dynamics and everything is already set in stone, go knock yourself out. I've already said my piece, but trying to argue with you is like trying to break down a wall with one's bare head. Not worth of efforts.

You didn't actually address the point. The rules of political dynamics do apply to this election as well. Extremely unlikely ludicrous circumstances can happen. But there's no point in dwelling on them, because 99.9% of the time they don't happen. This particular 0.1% chance of Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic primary without dying is dwelled on far too often considering its likelihood, mostly because it's the wet dream of so many.

[morgieb]

Kalwejt.....who do you think can beat Hillary in a primary? I seriously don't see how O'Malley, Webb, Chafee or Sanders can knock her off. Are there candidates that can beat her? Yes, but they aren't running. To me, that is the main reason why she will most likely be the Dem nominee.

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

Exactly.  As a fellow Hillary Clinton hack, I agree with your points.  But, you might be beating a dead horse.  Or, in the case of Wulfric or IndyRep, you're beating a stupid horse.

Except that IndyRep never said that Hillary would be vulnerable in the primary. Her supposed invincibility in the general election is the bigger issue.

IceSpear never said she was invincible in the General Election either


Also, I don't see why this thread was necessary. Most people who aren't trolling would agree with you.

[Oak Hills]

Regarding the general election: Is Hillary the favorite?  Absolutely.  Would she win if the election were held today?  I'm 99% sure she would.  But could circumstances change to favor the Republicans by November of 2016?  Of course they could.  It is simply hackery to declare that any swing state has under 20-30% chance of going for either major party, almost no matter who the nominee is.  Let's say there is a massive economic crash weeks before the election, and the public blames the Democrats.  Bush, Rubio, Walker, Paul, etc. would beat Clinton.  Period.  The only potential Republican nominee who could realistically screw it up in those circumstances is Cruz, and his chances of winning the nomination are about 5%.  And it doesn't have to be anything that drastic for public opinion to change enough in favor of the Republicans for them to win, if the nominee is not insane on the level of Cruz.  Clinton would have to be consistently getting 15+-point leads nationally for me to peg the possibility of Bush or Walker winning at less than 30%.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Kalwejt.....who do you think can beat Hillary in a primary? I seriously don't see how O'Malley, Webb, Chafee or Sanders can knock her off. Are there candidates that can beat her? Yes, but they aren't running. To me, that is the main reason why she will most likely be the Dem nominee.

Yeah, this is what cheeses me off about the #Hillarynotinevitable crowd. There's nothing wrong with saying a candidate could lose an election. There is something wrong when the likely opposition is a clowncar of has-beens (Webb, Chafee) and bland milquetoasts (O'Malley). Take those out and you're left with Bernie Sanders. Now I love Bernie as much as the next progressive, but I don't even think he can become the left's Goldwater in 2016.

[Lurker]

Claiming that Clinton has less than, say, 95 % chance to win the Democratic primary is pretty damn hackish.

Though the idea that she's massively favored to win in November 2016 is almost just as hackish.

[NeverAgain]

All this has shown me is polling without Vermin Supreme... Fraud Pollsters biased towards Hillary.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Man, this thread is so hillarious now.

[Blue3]

She still is very, very likely the nominee.

She's just not inevitable, but no one ever is.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

She still is very, very likely the nominee.

She's just not inevitable, but no one ever is.

That's the point