As one that wants a Republican to win in 2016, I find myself torn as to whether I want Hillary to be the Democrat nominee. To be clear, I despise her and her politics, would hate for her to win the presidency, and in that sense I do not want her to run. I am approaching this more in the sense of whom is easiest to beat in a general election. A strong part of me believes that her political skills are way over rated. People seem to think that her and Bill were a package deal, and assume that both possess the same abilities. While we can never really know what goes on behind closed doors, my gut tells me that Hillary was the more legalistic, stonewall, parse every word advocate behind the scenes, and Bill was the man with the Midas touch and endless charisma that was able to pull off the entire charade. Ideology aside, Bill was probably the most charismatic, skilled politician in our lifetime. He had a likeability that could get him out of almost any jam. He could take the load of baggage that accompanies the Clinton's, and almost turn that into a strength, because his charismatic defense would successfully paint his opponents as being unfairly out to get him. Lets be clear, Hillary does NOT possess even a shred of Bill's charisma. In fact, she distinctly lacks that trait. The only thing charismatic about a potential Hillary run is that you will once again have Bill out on the campaign trail ( which does worry me), but I am not so sure that is enough to carry her to victory. If Bill Clinton never existed, Hillary doesn't really possess the typical traits that you would see in a presidential candidate. She is in the national eye solely because of her affiliation with the Clinton presidency, and NOT because of her individual political skill. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will be the one defending the Clinton baggage, and with her lack of charisma and typical traits you see in presidential candidates, that may very well be a losing formula. I believe that Bill may be able to help her deflect some of the heat, but at some point in the general election, she is going to have to stand on her own two feet, and I do not believe she has the political moxie and skill to be able to do that. People grossly overestimated her in 2008, and I believe they grossly overestimate her now. She has been essentially coronated as the nominee to be in two different elections, and in truth, in neither of those situations has she done anything to earn that designation, other than being a novelty in that she is the former first lady. When it is all said and done, I do not believe that is enough to carry her to victory, especially when she will have to defend all of the Clinton Baggage in the process. Upon further reflection, with all factors considered, my sincere hope is that Hillary wins the nomination. I am not saying she will lose in a landslide, because the truth is whomever is the nominee from both sides, the election is going to predictably be decided by a few percentage points. In the race for those few swing percentage points however, I do not believe Hillary possesses the skill to prevail. I know that on the surface leftists love all things Clinton, but for the reasons stated above, it is still very possible that she will lose in the primaries. As a rightist, that is not the outcome that I desire. My hope is that she marches through the Democrat primaries unvetted and unchallenged.
I do agree, however Warren, Sanders, or even Biden are about as likely to win their party's nomination as is Trump. If a serious Democrat challenger were to emerge, I do believe Hillary is extremely vulnerable.
I think that nostalgia for the pre-9/11 world and Clinton's presidency will give Hillary the White House. The public is mostly apathetic towards politics. Near all of the information they receive comes through the television, print, or social media. The first two are very positive towards the current administration (with a few exceptions), the third constantly clamors for a return to progressive era policy. A very small minority pay attention to media which is critical of the administration, excepting Fox News of course - which gets a fair amount of viewership (as far as political news gets viewership lol). [hr][/hr] Therefore, it will be an election of personalities and superficial nonsense; and Hillary wins that contest 9 times out of 10. Just accept it - she will be President in 18 months.
Really the only way that happens is if Hillary withdraws. I am sure the DNC are already considering pushing her to do just that.
Although I do agree with the OP's insightful analysis, I would still rather have Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee. Bernie is so far left that he will appeal to the Democratic left wing and no one else. Bernie Sanders is George McGovern revisited and I would expect that the election would yield George McGovern results. So if you win by a little or lot, what difference does it make? Simply, the undercard in the election is just as important as the main event. Getting a cloture proof majority in the Senate will guarantee the end of Obamacare, and end to the Iran deal, and more importantly, an end to the Dodd-Frank Act. If Hillary is nominated, there will be less Democrats staying home, and more Senate and House races won by democrats.
I think that Hillary would make a good president but her pubic persona lacks Bill's natural magnetism. It's the same for a lot of capable people in our celebrity-driven age. Jeb is easily the most capable of the repub lot, but he also struggles with a lack of natural charisma that his brother George had.
That is part of politics and part of being a leader. Being able to inspire and motivate is oftentimes just as important as the policies you support.
Nostalgia for the pre 9/11 world is all Hillary has, and I acknowledged that in the OP. The public at large has ALWAYS been apathetic towards politics, and near all the information THEY receive has always been through a media/Hollywood/education system that has always been very positive towards Democrats. There is absolutely NOTHING new in that regard. Even with that being the case, there has always been a pretty even split with which party wins the Presidency, and in fact, the split has still favored the Republicans. A willing media in the tank for Democrats is business as usual, and in no manner shape or form spells impending doom for Republicans. Virtually all elections come down to a very even split in the electorate, and who wins comes down to which party the public wants to be in power, and the individual personalities of the candidates. You almost never see the public keep one party in power more than two terms, except in the case of Reagan, in which case he was enormously popular. Obama does not share that level of popularity, so in that respect the advantage definitely goes to Republicans. For the reasons mentioned in the OP, Hillary is about as unlikeable of a candidate as you would ever see win her party's nomination, so in that respect, the advantage would also go to the Republicans. In light of the above stated realities,to cavalierly state that "Hillary wins that contest 9 times out of 10", is premature to say the very least.
Jim Webb has quietly tossed his hat in for the Democrats. War Vet. Past Secretary of the Navy. Past Senator. Well spoken. On the short list for VP if Hillary gets nominated.
At the same point in his Presidency, Reagan's approval was 1% lower than Obama's. I am clearly no fan of Obama (the exact opposite) - but he's not an overly unpopular President. Besides, the upcoming election will be based more on the candidates themselves than the policy, as I stated and you affirmed. Hillary has a great deal of popular appeal, and her husband is a whole lot more popular than George W. Bush's father was in 2000 - even than Reagan was in 1988. Of course it's premature. The GOP doesn't even have a candidate yet, it's all premature! Speculation is all we have. I strongly hope Hillary isn't President in 2017, but am not holding my breath. Plus - the GOP candidate won't be much better anyway, so why get passionate?
A year is a lifetime in politics. If Obama enjoys a huge uptick in popularity, we can revisit the notion of him having coat tails that propel his predecessor into the white house. Until that time though, you HAVE to give the advantage to the party that has not been in power for the last 8 years, if history is going to be our guide. What great deal of popular appeal? She is well known, I will grant you that, but her negative ratings are through the roof. You are making the assumption that her husband is going to carry her to victory, which was the general assumption in 2008, and we all know how that turned out. I agree that it is premature. While I have left open a wide range of possibilities, focusing solely on what we know at this point, you have gotten as specific as saying she will win " 9 times out of 10". Making such a specific declaration seems overly fatalistic to me. One thing we can count on is that there will be nominees that both party's will rally around, and the election will be decided by a few percentage points. Given the penchant the public has for switching the party in power after 8 years, and the unconventional means that Hillary would win the nomination ( Nostalgia for her husband and a corresponding unlikeable personality with plenty of built in baggage), I REALLY like the Republicans chances. Assuming that Warren, Sanders, or Biden couldn't realistically win the nomination, I would much rather see Hillary versus a realistic upstart Democrat candidate that subsequently gained the necessary momentum to win the Democrat nomination.
Hillary Clinton Is Named America’s ‘Most Admired Woman’ Americans named Hillary Clinton the woman they admire most of anywhere in the world, a new poll found, for the 17th time in 18 years. When Gallup asked a random sampling of Americans who is the living female they admire most, 12% named Clinton. The former Secretary of State was followed by Oprah Winfrey at 8% and Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafazi at 5%.
That was the assumption in 2008, and "Hillary's Reagan" didn't propel her into anything other than a massively disappointing campaign run, that contradicted ALL projections that "Hillary's Reagan" made her a shoe in for the nomination. You are using the exact same logic that failed to deliver in 2008. Maybe two times is a charm, but you will have to forgive me if I remain just a little skeptical of this recycled assumption. How are you defining winning the "personality game" ? Have you had a look at her negative ratings? Aside from political proclivities, do YOU find her likeable? Is she someone likely to win the "I wanna have a beer with them game" that seems to be the common standard the media has used lately in defining likeability?
This would be a really powerful point, IF 12% were enough to win the presidency, because she does in fact have a loyal following. Unfortunately for her and your subsequent implication though, winning the presidency requires at least a plurality of the electorate, and 12% does NOT a plurality make.
You have a great point with the history. However, there are several factors that mitigate the historical precedence to which you are referring. Probably the most important one is that out of the last 6 presidential "elections," the Democratic Party candidate received the majority of the public vote in 5 of the contests. Then there's Trump, the spoiler. It's extremely likely that, assuming he doesn't crash and burn, he will run as an independent if he doesn't receive the Republican nomination. He's just that kind of person, he loves the attention, has something to say, and is willing to pay to make sure that people listen to it. If Trump runs, he will suck votes from some of the center-left (he appeals in general to the working middle class), but will heavily damage any establishment Republican's chances of winning. Based on Fox New's approach to Trump, it appears that the establishment GOP is none too happy that he is in the race, so you can expect the attacks to ramp up over the next few months until they've whittled Trump down to a size they feel they can manage. I'm guessing Walker, Bush or Kasich are the real front-runners in terms of who is the anointed candidate. Trump is merely a fly in the GOP's anointment.
The Democrat candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections ( not 6 out of 6), and one of those was so close that it was essentially a tie. For I believe the second time in history, the popular and electoral votes diverged. What you are really saying is that Democrats have had two of the last 3 presidents, Republicans have had one, and in one of those elections it was a statistical tie. In the context of historical precedents, that isn't anything that out of the norm. Republicans could have said they had won 6 out of 7 in 1992, and it would have been equally irrelevant in projecting the future. If Trump were to run 3rd party, that would without question create enormous problems for Republicans, and very likely hand the election to the Democrats. To assume at this point that will happen however, is a bit premature.
Actually, I wouldn't vote for him because I despise what the New American Century project has done for our country. We will hopefully never see a neo-con again. Even if it means going Far Left.
They asked a few scant Americans, among whom an even fewer scant said "Clinton"(albeit, the largest scant). Polls are irrelevant, as the master of polls learned this past mid-terms.While these Americans say they "admire" her, would they vote for her? We don't know. I'll bet you many who answered don't even know a woman they admire.
Somehow, I left out an important part of that. In 5 out of the last 6 elections, the Democratic Party candidate has won the "popular vote." In 4 of those, the margins were huge. Any speculation is premature at this point. Frontrunners have a tendency to drop precipitously after a while and are replaced by another. Trump's star is burning pretty hot at this point, will it have enough fuel to burn until the end? He would have to be lucky, particularly with the right-wing media breathing down his neck just waiting for him to mess up. Fortunately for him, those "mess-ups" appeal to a certain group of people, but are they enough to nudge him to run as an independent? I guess we'll see.
Aside from your incorrect initial assertion that Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 6 elections, I guess you are now saying that 8 pts, 7 pts, 6 pts ( with only 43% of the vote), and 4 pts are huge margins. They are wins, I will grant you that, but from a historical perspective, I am not sure that I would call them huge, then subsequently infer that other historical precedents are therefore thrown out the window. I could go back and quote Reagans landslide winning percentage in 88, but that would be about as useless as Clintons percentage in 96 and 92 in order to predict an election today. Republican have won two elections since Clinton, and so have the Democrats. To draw any larger conclusion from any other arbitrary time period seems mostly irrelevant. Trump is little more than a celebrity curiosity, and is not a serious threat to win the Republican nomination. He could theoretically decide to run 3rd party and create enormous havoc, but that is highly speculative at this point. We could also speculate that one of Hillary's scandals will explode, but until either of those things happen, they don't really belong in the sphere of predicting the upcoming election.
The popular vote is irrelevant. It means nothing. The only vote that counts is the electoral college. Also, Bill Clinton never even won a plurality of the vote. His first win was at 43%.
