Are Democrats in trouble if Hillary's campaign collapses?

[bobloblaw]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

And they dont seem to be able to get it back and hold on to it.

[Skye]

Of course they are. Any Democratic candidate that's not Hillary would immediately have lower poll numbers.

[Meeker]

Nah

fwiw, she's not going to "collapse". She's not Herman Cain or George McGovern. "Collapsing" requires a candidate taking a risk (which she won't do) or saying incredibly dumb things over and over again (which she also won't do). There's been no couple more closely scrutinized in American politics than the Clintons, and no couple with more experience speaking on the record. They can make bad strategic decisions (such as her entire 2008 campaign), but that's just called "losing". Losing is definitely is possible, but different from "collapsing".

But if something awful did happen, there are plenty of current and former Democratic senators and governors around who could step in. Off the top of my head come O'Malley, Warner, Kaine, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Vilsack, Brad Henry, Roy Barnes, Bob Kerrey, Cuomo or Bayh if we must. And Biden. And Gore! Obviously not all of these would be ideal, but they're options in a crisis.

[bobloblaw]

She wont collapse because her supporters have no integrity.

[Beet]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

Probably, but they could have held on through the 1990s and possibly through the 2000s.

Only if the GOP held onto the presidency for 30 years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, if Bentsen, Cuomo, Gephardt, Gore, and Rockefeller all don't run, there's not a chance a Democrat can win in 1992.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/08/us/political-memo-democrats-distress-grows-as-presidential-field-shrinks.html

[Prince of Salem]

Guys, if Bentsen, Cuomo, Gephardt, Gore, and Rockefeller all don't run, there's not a chance a Democrat can win in 1992.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/08/us/political-memo-democrats-distress-grows-as-presidential-field-shrinks.html

You just can't generalize what happened in 1992. It was an extraordinary thing. But yet, there's a chance it could repeat itself. But the chances of that are very little.

[Meeker]

All presidential elections are extraordinary things. They happen so infrequently with so much time and change in between that they're tough to really compare at all.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

I do agree there were many factors, but Hillary trying to ram Hillarycare down the people's throats

There are many, many legitimate criticisms one can make of Hillary and even more reasons she's not that strong a candidate.  "Hillarycare" is not one of them.  The idea that the 90s healthcare bill failed because of Hillary is absurd. 

The Clinton administration's healthcare proposal was a political disaster because they got outmaneuvered at every turn by the Republicans, they failed to get their own party to unite around a single vision for healthcare reform (Paul Wellstone, Jim Cooper, and every Democrat in between on the ideological spectrum had their own version of the bill), lost the messaging battle (especially after the Harry & Louise ad), and because the failure played into some of the negative narratives about Bill Clinton and his party since he took office.  Hillary was an awful choice to lead the push, but having someone else do it would just be rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

[bobloblaw]

All the things you say about Hillarycare are true and they are true due to Hillary's incompetence

[Podgy the Bear]

A lot is going to depend on how the second term incumbent fares in his last year--so we'll have to see how Obama fares in 2016. 

Using previous examples, if Obama turns out like Eisenhower in 1960, Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 2000, the Democrat will be competitive and in a strong position.  On the other hand, if the bottom falls out (like Truman in 1952 and Bush in 2008), the Republicans will be strongly favored.

[bobloblaw]

A lot is going to depend on how the second term incumbent fares in his last year--so we'll have to see how Obama fares in 2016. 

Using previous examples, if Obama turns out like Eisenhower in 1960, Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 2000, the Democrat will be competitive and in a strong position.  On the other hand, if the bottom falls out (like Truman in 1952 and Bush in 2008), the Republicans will be strongly favored.

Ive said that 2016 is a lot like 1988. The stench of Jimmy Carter wasnt something that could be overcome in 8 years. Same is true with GW Bush. Running Jeb in 2016 is like running Billy Carter in 1988 (assuming he lived long enough).

[Mister Mets]

…

Now I'm conflicted. Does the lack of a credible opponent to Hillary Clinton mean Democrats are in trouble if she's unable to campaign?…

Please present a list of all potential Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and tell us exactly how each one is or is not electable.

On the Democratic side, the only people (excluding unelected nobodies lucky enough to get on a ballot somewhere) running for President or hinting about running for President are Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee. And Clinton's the only one who could win a competitive presidential primary. So she doesn't really have a credible opponent in the primary.

[RFayette]

If Hillary collapses now, then Warren/Biden/Cuomo will get in the primary and Warren will likely win.  But this is so so improbable.  Even with a lot of weaknesses, Hill is 10x stronger than the others

[Torie]

Depends on when. If it collapses this year, they'll just trot out Gillibrand and use her as a Hillary surrogate.

We have a winner!   And Gillibrand might well be very hard to beat. She is a very skilled politician. She used to live about 5 miles from where I live by the way, when representing NY-19.

[RFayette]

Depends on when. If it collapses this year, they'll just trot out Gillibrand and use her as a Hillary surrogate.

We have a winner!   And Gillibrand might well be very hard to beat. She is a very skilled politician. She used to live about 5 miles from where I live by the way, when representing NY-19.

Uh, Gillibrand would get crushed big time in a general election. Hillary is the only one who can and WILL win in 2016!!!!11!!1! (Atlas Democrat) 

In reality though, Hill is much stronger than Gillibrand due to her higher name recognition and Gillibrand's big-tobacco past.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

I do agree there were many factors, but Hillary trying to ram Hillarycare down the people's throats

There are many, many legitimate criticisms one can make of Hillary and even more reasons she's not that strong a candidate.  "Hillarycare" is not one of them.  The idea that the 90s healthcare bill failed because of Hillary is absurd. 

The Clinton administration's healthcare proposal was a political disaster because they got outmaneuvered at every turn by the Republicans, they failed to get their own party to unite around a single vision for healthcare reform (Paul Wellstone, Jim Cooper, and every Democrat in between on the ideological spectrum had their own version of the bill), lost the messaging battle (especially after the Harry & Louise ad), and because the failure played into some of the negative narratives about Bill Clinton and his party since he took office.  Hillary was an awful choice to lead the push, but having someone else do it would just be rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

Putting the First Lady in charge of a Healthcare proposal was a new thing for America in 1994.  It made MRS. Clinton part of the Bill Clinton ADMINISTRATION; she was no longer just a family member.  Hillary is more associated with the Clinton Healthcare proposal than even Bill Cliinton, who would have been better off if Ira Magaziner had been the clear front man on the deal.

Because HILLARY was so vested in this plan, BILL was less able to compromise for the sake of his Administration getting credit for an accomplishment.  Bob Dole and the GOP were proposing a plan that was not unlike Obamacare/Romneycare.  Passing it would have been a HUGE compromise, but it would have allowed BILL Clinton to claim an accomplishment; a step forward.  Such a step forward, however, would have come at the expense of HILLARY Clinton's image; HER plan would have been jettisoned in favor of Bob Dole's plan, which BILL Clinton would have coopted. 

The ultimate problem for BILL Clinton in 1994 was that his Healthcare plan didn't pass.  BILL Clinton didn't get it done; if he HAD "gotten it done, the Democrats would have done better in 1994.  BILL Clinton would have looked like a guy who got it done, but HILLARY Clinton would have looked like a kid who was put in charge of something, but when it was time for the kid's proposal to be put forth, the kid's ideas were disregarded, and the kid was made to look like a kid, and not like "somebody important". 

[bobloblaw]

She wont collapse. Her supporter lack any integrity, shame or ethics. Why should what she does matter?

[Thunderbird is the word]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

Probably, but they could have held on through the 1990s and possibly through the 2000s.

Well prior to Obama a lot of southern districts were still in play that aren't now. I think that it was strategically stupid to dump Howard Deans 50 state strategy and only focus on gining up turnout.

[IceSpear]

She wont collapse. Her supporter lack any integrity, shame or ethics. Why should what she does matter?

What exactly "has she done"?

[pbrower2a]

NO!

The Republicans have nobody who can cut into the Blue Firewall which has shown itself willing to vote for just about any Democrat for President.  Such leaves the Republicans with several states that they absolutely must win and cannot guarantee.

The Republicans now basically need a new Ronald Reagan to win, someone capable of exploiting disappointment among Democrats. We are unlikely to have a failed Presidency because the President that we now have is just too cautious.   

[pbrower2a]

A composite of Presidential elections, 1976 and 1992-2012:

 
Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race. 248
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race. 15
White -- always went with the winner 22
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican 38
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic 13
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green) 38/48
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race. 56
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race. 98

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

Mass dissatisfaction with the Republican party is strong outside core GOP areas. Republicans will need either a catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration or a quickly-forming cultural trend (like a right-wing religious revival) in most Blue (Atlas Red) states to create an opportunity.

OK, one might trade Nevada for Iowa... but that leaves the Republican nominee with several must-win states (Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina), none of which will be certain.

The winner of the Democratic nomination gets the Obama campaign apparatus intact. 

[Mr. Smith]

Again, you keep on using that map, when it doesn't prove anything. How could 1976 be more relevant to 2016 than 1988 was? 1988 wasn't even a landslide. You may as well just take out 2000 and 2004 as well. Your map shows Georgia as the same shade as NC, even though NC went Democrat in 2008, and Georgia hasn't gone Democrat since 1992.

Also the West Coast voted for Ford in 1976

[Mr. Smith]

He should've just used 1992-Present since that is when the realignment we have began.

Which would look like:

Deep Blue for 6/6 Republican
Dark Blue for 5/6 Republican
Light Blue for 4/6 Republican
Green for 3 Republican/ 3 Democratic
Light Red for 4/6 Democratic
Dark Red for 5/6 Democratic
Deep Red for 6/6 Democratic

As is, this gives the Democrats 281 built-in, even if Clinton really does lose Colorado and Florida..

And if we assume only the Deepest Red are for sure, then Clinton will be at 242 EV,...leaving 28 votes to grab, and Florida should be doable.


Whereas the GOP have only 113 from the loyalist, and 219 built-in.


But this ignores so many things such as demographic changes and states' pet issues.

Nonetheless, this is more perfect by pbrower logic.

[Frodo]

1992 was not a realignment election.  The elections we have had since 2008, and continued white flight into the GOP have made most of the states in the South won by Bill Clinton off-limits to Democrats.