Conservatives' worst nightmare: Hillary in 2016

[wolfsblood07]

In 2007, conservatives were terrified that Hillary Clinton, the Nurse Rached of politics, would get the Democratic nomination in 2008 and win the presidency.  Remember Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express?  Then along came Barack Obama and he did what seemed to be impossible, narrowly edging out Hillary for the nomination.  To conservatives, Obama was somewhat worse than Hillary, in some ways.  There was no cheering for Obama from the right.  Then Obama wins the presidency and conservatives feel anguish because we know how bad it will be.
As a conservative, I consoled myself by saying at least Obama has dispatched Hillary.  She is finished.  In 2012 Obama will be the nominee again.  By 2016, Hillary will be seen as a relic from the 90s.  But now, in November 2015 Hillary is the odds on favorite to be the next president!  Not only did we get 2 terms of Obama, we may get 2 terms of Hillary.  What happened?  Did George W. Bush poison the party at the presidential level that badly?

[Abraham Reagan]

If Obama's numbers stay the same by the time election night rolls around, he won't be nearly popular enough to give Hillary any kind of boost. Not to mention that she has massive issues when it comes to public trust and gives off an insincere vibe e.g., "We were dead broke", "I told Wall Street to cut it out". Not exactly the best recipe for success.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems will be favored over Trump. The GOP hasnt gotten behind a solid candidate that can beat Trump. But, the premise is right, as long as the electorate stays the same, Clinton will have the 272 or more electors to clinch the election. If it is Trump, the 2012 map is plausible .

Voters arent interested in tax reform or repeal. They are more interested in keeping the economy afloat and continued improvement, with a Dem prez Clinton, and reform in health care & broken boarders, and wage increases.

[I support Sanders]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

[pbrower2a]

In 2007, conservatives were terrified that Hillary Clinton, the Nurse Rached of politics, would get the Democratic nomination in 2008 and win the presidency.  Remember Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express?  Then along came Barack Obama and he did what seemed to be impossible, narrowly edging out Hillary for the nomination.  To conservatives, Obama was somewhat worse than Hillary, in some ways.  There was no cheering for Obama from the right.  Then Obama wins the presidency and conservatives feel anguish because we know how bad it will be.

Some things are different this time. First of all, much of the cause of the low ratings is, frankly, racism. Many people can't yet accept  the legitimacy of the President as a black man. That will not be a problem with Hillary Clinton for President. Figure that the President would have about 5% higher approval ratings were he white.

Barack Obama is an above-average President. He gets credit for competent stewardship of the economy. He has gotten America into no military or diplomatic disaster. He has had the cleanest administration since at least Jimmy Carter (who was a lousy President at just about everything else). He has not set Democrats up for electoral failure.

Republicans have thwarted most of the Obama agenda. Such success does not keep people from wanting the agenda; if anything, incumbent Democrats who promise to achieve the Obama agenda are in good shape.  Usually the legislative successes exhaust the cause; this time, such has yet to happen.

Congress and especially elected Republicans are even less in political esteem. This applies to most US Senators. Just look at some of the abysmal approval ratings for US Senators up for re-election in Missouri, North Carolina, Arizona, Arkansas, and Kansas -- states in which Republicans should be safe in view of recent Presidential elections.  Republicans should be feel safe in their hold of the Senate -- but they aren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Dubya poisoned the reputation of the Republican Party. Republicans have yet to recognize that he was a horrible President. This is not a partisan statement even if I am intensely partisan -- he makes the elder Bush and Ronald Reagan look good. The elder Bush would have never made the same mistakes. Ronald Reagan wasn't as polarizing. Ford generally made the right choice. Nixon and Watergate? Nixon at least got us out of the Vietnam War.

 

[I support Sanders]

Did George W. Bush poison the party at the presidential level that badly?

Absolutely. W. Bush was the worst President this country has seen in a long time. As a progressive, I would prefer George H.W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney to W. The man was an embarrassment.

[Crumpets]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

How does Hillary win Colorado but lose Nevada without Sandoval on the ticket? The latest poll in each has Hillary +5 against Rubio in Nevada and -8 against Rubio in Colorado (although I admit I find the latter poll suspect).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2007, conservatives were terrified that Hillary Clinton, the Nurse Rached of politics, would get the Democratic nomination in 2008 and win the presidency.  Remember Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express?  Then along came Barack Obama and he did what seemed to be impossible, narrowly edging out Hillary for the nomination.  To conservatives, Obama was somewhat worse than Hillary, in some ways.  There was no cheering for Obama from the right.  Then Obama wins the presidency and conservatives feel anguish because we know how bad it will be.

Some things are different this time. First of all, much of the cause of the low ratings is, frankly, racism. Many people can't yet accept  the legitimacy of the President as a black man. That will not be a problem with Hillary Clinton for President. Figure that the President would have about 5% higher approval ratings were he white.

Wrong. Hillary's favorable ratings are worse than Obama's. Hillary's favorables are 43-50, while Obama's favorables are 47-46.  

[I support Sanders]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

How does Hillary win Colorado but lose Nevada without Sandoval on the ticket? The latest poll in each has Hillary +5 against Rubio in Nevada and -8 against Rubio in Colorado (although I admit I find the latter poll suspect).

It's a toss-up, and she could lose either one, but unlikely both. They are both purple states that would go Republican with the right candidates. I just chose Nevada for the purpose of this map, assuming Kasich and Rubio are both "moderate" enough (relative the to the Republican Party) to win NV.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In 2007, conservatives were terrified that Hillary Clinton, the Nurse Rached of politics, would get the Democratic nomination in 2008 and win the presidency.  Remember Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express?  Then along came Barack Obama and he did what seemed to be impossible, narrowly edging out Hillary for the nomination.  To conservatives, Obama was somewhat worse than Hillary, in some ways.  There was no cheering for Obama from the right.  Then Obama wins the presidency and conservatives feel anguish because we know how bad it will be.

Some things are different this time. First of all, much of the cause of the low ratings is, frankly, racism. Many people can't yet accept  the legitimacy of the President as a black man. That will not be a problem with Hillary Clinton for President. Figure that the President would have about 5% higher approval ratings were he white.

Wrong. Hillary's favorable ratings are worse than Obama's. Hillary's favorables are 43-50, while Obama's favorables are 47-46.  

You also ignore the Quinnipiac poll showing Sanders losing to every GOP candidate; even 12 points to Carson. Dems wont risk Sanders struggling to get 257 electors. Clinton will win 272 electors and Kaine wont be nominee, Castro will

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2007, conservatives were terrified that Hillary Clinton, the Nurse Rached of politics, would get the Democratic nomination in 2008 and win the presidency.  Remember Sean Hannity's Stop Hillary Express?  Then along came Barack Obama and he did what seemed to be impossible, narrowly edging out Hillary for the nomination.  To conservatives, Obama was somewhat worse than Hillary, in some ways.  There was no cheering for Obama from the right.  Then Obama wins the presidency and conservatives feel anguish because we know how bad it will be.

Some things are different this time. First of all, much of the cause of the low ratings is, frankly, racism. Many people can't yet accept  the legitimacy of the President as a black man. That will not be a problem with Hillary Clinton for President. Figure that the President would have about 5% higher approval ratings were he white.

Wrong. Hillary's favorable ratings are worse than Obama's. Hillary's favorables are 43-50, while Obama's favorables are 47-46.  

You also ignore the Quinnipiac poll showing Sanders losing to every GOP candidate; even 12 points to Carson. Dems wont risk Sanders struggling to get 257 electors. Clinton will win 272 electors and Kaine wont be nominee, Castro will

Bernie beats Trump in that poll, and Hillary doesn't beat any other Republicans.

[Yank2133]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

But Sanders is?

Outside of white millennials, Sanders doesn't appeal to any other significant demographic group. Hillary may not be an exciting candidate, but she is the only Democrat that could bring in the Obama coalition. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Obama's numbers stay the same by the time election night rolls around, he won't be nearly popular enough to give Hillary any kind of boost. Not to mention that she has massive issues when it comes to public trust and gives off an insincere vibe e.g., "We were dead broke", "I told Wall Street to cut it out". Not exactly the best recipe for success.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Obama currently has his best numbers since the beginning of 2013.

[henster]

I think atp conservatives probably want to run against her.

[Abraham Reagan]

If Obama's numbers stay the same by the time election night rolls around, he won't be nearly popular enough to give Hillary any kind of boost. Not to mention that she has massive issues when it comes to public trust and gives off an insincere vibe e.g., "We were dead broke", "I told Wall Street to cut it out". Not exactly the best recipe for success.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Obama currently has his best numbers since the beginning of 2013.

Obviously you see one or two polls and think they indicate an overall trend. I look at the RCP average which has him at 44.5% approval and 52.1% disapproval, which is the lowest it's been since August.

[I support Sanders]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

But Sanders is?

Outside of white millennials, Sanders doesn't appeal to any other significant demographic group. Hillary may not be an exciting candidate, but she is the only Democrat that could bring in the Obama coalition.  

Hahaha. Thanks for playing. If the race is between Sanders and Trump, Carson, or Cruz, I'm confident that Sanders will suddenly become a lot more appealing to the "Obama coalition." Generally speaking, however, I don't think Bernie's electable, either, because of the power that big money plays in American politics. O'Malley may be the Democrats' only hope for 2016.

[Yank2133]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

But Sanders is?

Outside of white millennials, Sanders doesn't appeal to any other significant demographic group. Hillary may not be an exciting candidate, but she is the only Democrat that could bring in the Obama coalition.  

Hahaha. Thanks for playing. If the race is between Sanders and Trump, Carson, or Cruz, I'm confident that Sanders will suddenly become a lot more appealing to the "Obama coalition." Generally speaking, however, I don't think Bernie's electable, either, because of the power that big money plays in American politics. O'Malley may be the Democrats' only hope for 2016.

Please Bernie isn't electable because he is a crappy general election candidate. The only group that is excite for him is young white millennials.  He has no appeal when it comes to Blacks, Hispanics, and Women.

Bernie fans may not want to hear it, but he is a joke candidate. Hillary isn't great either, but if the Dems are serious about the winning in 2016, she is the best option by far.

[Maxwell]

If Obama's numbers stay the same by the time election night rolls around, he won't be nearly popular enough to give Hillary any kind of boost. Not to mention that she has massive issues when it comes to public trust and gives off an insincere vibe e.g., "We were dead broke", "I told Wall Street to cut it out". Not exactly the best recipe for success.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Obama currently has his best numbers since the beginning of 2013.

Obviously you see one or two polls and think they indicate an overall trend. I look at the RCP average which has him at 44.5% approval and 52.1% disapproval, which is the lowest it's been since August.

That is a beyond solid number for an incumbent President in his second term.

[I support Sanders]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

But Sanders is?

Outside of white millennials, Sanders doesn't appeal to any other significant demographic group. Hillary may not be an exciting candidate, but she is the only Democrat that could bring in the Obama coalition.  

Hahaha. Thanks for playing. If the race is between Sanders and Trump, Carson, or Cruz, I'm confident that Sanders will suddenly become a lot more appealing to the "Obama coalition." Generally speaking, however, I don't think Bernie's electable, either, because of the power that big money plays in American politics. O'Malley may be the Democrats' only hope for 2016.

Please Bernie isn't electable because he is a crappy general election candidate. The only group that is excite for him is young white millennials.  He has no appeal when it comes to Blacks, Hispanics, and Women.

Bernie fans may not want to hear it, but he is a joke candidate. Hillary isn't great either, but if the Dems are serious about the winning in 2016, she is the best option by far.

2016 will have relatively low turnout for a presidential election year if the race is between two establishment-supported candidates like Clinton and Kasich (or Rubio). If this is the case, we will see a repeat of 2014 (midterms) and last week (Republicans taking Kentucky). I have met some progressives who have said that they would prefer an honest Republican to a Republican in Democrats' clothing, and I feel the same way.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

As a progressive, I hope Bernie Sanders does in 2016 to Hillary, what Obama did in 2008. I don't think Hillary is electable, if that consoles you at all. She does not excite the base, and Republicans have been having success in most elections across the country since 2010. Even with the higher turnout of the 2016 presidential election, while Democrats are favored to retake the Senate, the Presidency will go to Rubio or Kasich.

If the race is between Clinton/Kaine (which seems to be the ticket many users on this site predict, although this would turn off the base even more than Clinton alone would) vs. Kasich/Rubio, here is the electoral map: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av20J.png

But Sanders is?

Outside of white millennials, Sanders doesn't appeal to any other significant demographic group. Hillary may not be an exciting candidate, but she is the only Democrat that could bring in the Obama coalition.  

Hahaha. Thanks for playing. If the race is between Sanders and Trump, Carson, or Cruz, I'm confident that Sanders will suddenly become a lot more appealing to the "Obama coalition." Generally speaking, however, I don't think Bernie's electable, either, because of the power that big money plays in American politics. O'Malley may be the Democrats' only hope for 2016.

Please Bernie isn't electable because he is a crappy general election candidate. The only group that is excite for him is young white millennials.  He has no appeal when it comes to Blacks, Hispanics, and Women.

Bernie fans may not want to hear it, but he is a joke candidate. Hillary isn't great either, but if the Dems are serious about the winning in 2016, she is the best option by far.

You obviously base this on instinct and not facts. National polls continuously show Bernie performing around Clinton's strength. So saying that she is far better in the general is untrue. Now to your other point...compared to republicans minorities will overwhelmingly vote for sanders and yes the turnout will be high due to not having the GOP win.