Will Hillary do better with blue collar white males than Obama?

[pbrower2a]

Better, but most of the gain will be in states that Barack Obama lost badly in 2008 and 2012.  But not enough to swing any state except perhaps North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, or Georgia... and except for North Carolina those states are long shots unless the baseline for improvement is 2008.

[henster]

She is definitely doing worse with white men than Obama, the real question is how she does with white women. You'd think she'd do better but from the polls I've seen so far however she's not doing any better and in some cases worse than Obama with white women.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think it will depend on each state's dynamics Obama over-performed his national position with white men in states like OH. I think Hillary might under-perform Obama with white men, but will likely over-perform with white women.

But this all changes once the GE dynamics are in place.

[henster]

I think it will depend on each state's dynamics Obama over-performed his national position with white men in states like OH. I think Hillary might under-perform Obama with white men, but will likely over-perform with white women.

But this all changes once the GE dynamics are in place.

I haven't seen polling of her over performing with white women though.

[Asian Nazi]

She'll do worse.

[Young Conservative]

No, Worse dude to the polarization caused by Pres. Obama's Policies and divisive nature of American society caused by his presidency. Whites will vote overwhelmingly Republican. FYI to the people saying Hillary Clinton will do better in the south, please stop. She will NOT. Just because her husband was a moderate in a different era of blue dogs and socially conservative populists, doesn't mean Sec. Clinton, a noted liberal and flip flopper with a severe image problem, will do better in the south than Pres. Obama, who inspired black turnout. She will do worse if anything. Blue dogs are severe minority now, and even then most vote Republican or have become Republican, parts of my family included. There is no possible way that sec. Clinton will inspire a shift in the south or have hope of winning ANY state in the deep south, including Arkansas. 

Nobody is saying that she'll win 90s southern Clinton voters, but I do expect she'll win back some white southern Kerry 2004 voters.

Kerry didn't get any white southern votes. He's loathed and pictured as an elitist out of touch guy.

[Ogre Mage]

No.  But she can do better with white women, even the working class types. 

[Mister Mets]

I'm guessing she won't, mainly because she's unlikely to gain votes when going for a third term for her party.

[pbrower2a]

No winning Presidential nominee has ever been so polarizing as Barack Obama in recent times. Everybody will have states that he wins by huge margins and states that he loses by large margins -- but Obama in 2008 was just simply extreme. Ignoring the District of Columbia, Obama won twenty states with 10% or larger margin. Yet he lost fifteen states by margins of 10% or more.  Cut the margin to 8% and the number of big wins and big losses goes to twenty-three overpowering wins and nineteen overpowering losses.

The tipping-point state that year was Iowa, and Obama won that state by more than 9%.

Another way to put it, only 116 electoral votes (that includes NE-02) were decided by less than 8%.

If you want to see what non-polarization looks like, contrast 1980. OK, that election had a significant third-party nominee...but Ronald Reagan won 25 states and lost two by margins greater than 8%. The tipping-point state that year was Illinois, which Reagan won by 7.93%. 264 electoral votes were decided by less than an 8% margin that year.

Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes following the first term of a President generally understood at the time as a failure; Barack Obama followed the most failed President since Buchanan. Both Reagan and Obama have generally been understood to be slick communicators. 

Obama actually got a larger portion of the popular vote in 2008 than Reagan got in 1980.

[Higgs]

No winning Presidential nominee has ever been so polarizing as Barack Obama in recent times. Everybody will have states that he wins by huge margins and states that he loses by large margins -- but Obama in 2008 was just simply extreme. Ignoring the District of Columbia, Obama won twenty states with 10% or larger margin. Yet he lost fifteen states by margins of 10% or more.  Cut the margin to 8% and the number of big wins and big losses goes to twenty-three overpowering wins and nineteen overpowering losses.

The tipping-point state that year was Iowa, and Obama won that state by more than 9%.

Another way to put it, only 116 electoral votes (that includes NE-02) were decided by less than 8%.

If you want to see what non-polarization looks like, contrast 1980. OK, that election had a significant third-party nominee...but Ronald Reagan won 25 states and lost two by margins greater than 8%. The tipping-point state that year was Illinois, which Reagan won by 7.93%. 264 electoral votes were decided by less than an 8% margin that year.

Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes following the first term of a President generally understood at the time as a failure; Barack Obama followed the most failed President since Buchanan. Both Reagan and Obama have generally been understood to be slick communicators. 

Obama actually got a larger portion of the popular vote in 2008 than Reagan got in 1980.

Well duh, the population grew a lot from 1980 to 2008. Reagan still had a more impressive margin winning 9.8% over Carter whereas Obama beat McCain by 7.2%.

[HillOfANight]

I think it will depend on each state's dynamics Obama over-performed his national position with white men in states like OH. I think Hillary might under-perform Obama with white men, but will likely over-perform with white women.

But this all changes once the GE dynamics are in place.

I haven't seen polling of her over performing with white women though.

In June 2015, she led among white women, where Obama lost white women by 14 points.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/13/why-hillary-clinton-will-be-hard-to-beat-and-what-might-sink-her/




http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/lid-trumps-poll-numbers-ailing-against-hillary-clinton-n479966
In the December 2015 poll, she led Trump by 9 among white women.

[couchpotato07]

I don't think so. When you look at her poll numbers, you can see that she is unpopular with white males.