2016 = 2008

In 2008 the Republicans assumed up until the Democrat Convention that their opponent would be Hilary Clinton. They were wrong and so they had no plan for defeating Obama.

In 2012 the Republicans assumed that the economy was so bad that any Republican could beat Obama. Again they were wrong even though Obama achieved the rare feat of winning re-election with a smaller popular vote total (because his stance on gay marriage reduced the black voter turnout).

So what happens in 2016 when Hilary Clinton again isn’t the Democrat nominee?

Obama vs. Clinton is very different than Sanders vs. Clinton. Obama had far more advantage going for him.

In what universe won’t Clinton be the Democratic nominee?

When compared to Sanders now, but not when compared to Clinton in 2008.

That’s what the Republicans were asking in 2008.

No, they didn’t. Obama had it wrapped up long before the convention. Most folks knew it was over in April, but absolutely over by June. The convention was held in August.

Neither of these assertion are true.

Obama secured the nomination nearly three months before the August 25th Democratic convention, with HRC conceding on June 7th. For several months prior to that it was obvious that Obama might win. The Republicans could have been given a year to formulate a plan and they still would have lost.

In 2008, black Americans accounted for 13% of the vote. In 2012, the percentage was again 13%. The idea of a black voter backlash against Obama’s stance on gay rights is a myth.

Not exactly. Hilary received more primary votes than Obama did and Obama had to promise to pay off her campaign debt to keep her from making a floor fight to keep him from being nominated.

By the end of June every state had had its caucus or primary, so of course everybody knew by then how many delegates each candidate would have at the convention. The problem for the Republicans was that June came and the Republicans still had no plan on how to campaign against Obama, and couldn’t come up with one fast enough to keep him from winning the General election.

In the 2008 primaries Obama won only 168.5 delegates more than the majority he needed to win the nomination. This was with the Florida and Michigan delegations being penalized for holding their primaries early. Hilary won both of those states. Had she made a successful floor fight for these states’ other delegates she likely would have won the nomination.

The percentage turnout isn’t the issue I am talking about. Obama’s total vote count was less in 2012 than it had been in 2008, and the difference has been attributed to socially conservative black Christians refusing to vote for him as they had done in 2008.
But, none of this is the issue I raised. The Republicans spent so much time running against Hilary that when she didn’t get the nomination the Republicans didn’t know how to run against Obama.

In 2008, Hillary never broke 50% in the Democratic polling and in January 2008, Obama was always within 10 points of her. After Edwards dropped out, most of his supporters gravitated towards Obama. Obama had pluralities in Feb 2008 and beyond. The idea that the Republicans were caught flat-footed in June 2008 is ludicrous.

Contrast with national polling in 2015-2016. Hillary has always been above 40% and usually been above 50%. In January, Sanders has typically been over 10 percentage points away from Hillary. Latest polls show Hillary above 50%.

Sanders will win New Hampshire and he might even win Iowa. But he still has a long road ahead of him. Very different from 2008. The OP is engaging in wishful thinking.

That’s an odd way to admit your error. From wikipedia:

You claimed that: “In 2008 the Republicans assumed up until the Democrat Convention that their opponent would be Hilary Clinton.”

You’re not going to do too well around here if you don’t admit obvious, factual errors like that.

Interview with Karl Rove in May 8, 2008. He was well aware that McCain could be facing Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/03/DI2008050302514.html

But if that makes Rove insightful(and he is on politics, you have to admit), then his backing of Sanders through America Crossroads seems to indicate that he thinks Sanders can win.

The Republicans were hoping that Hilary would make a floor fight for the rest of the delegates from Michigan and Florida and thus take the nomination from Obama. Also, in previous elections the Democrat nominee was apparent by the end of April and most of the Superdelegates had announced their support long before the primaries were finished. But, in 2008 most of the Superdelegates had remained silent until June because the polling and election results were so close.

Rove also thought Romney was going to win Ohio on Election Day 2012, so what’s your point? Even Fox News was embarrassed because of him.

I think the OP is correct that the Republicans didn’t have a plan for beating Obama. But his thesis fails, because they also didn’t have a plan for beating Clinton.

Some may have hoped for that, but most understood the realities of politics and knew that Obama was going to be the nominee. In other words, you were wrong.

When John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate the election was lost. The Democrats could have nominated Mickey Mouse and it wouldn’t have mattered.

I’m not sure if she will. But she won’t be the Democrat nominee.

There wasn’t one sane Republican who thought Hillary would be the nominee after the primaries were over. Even if they were so deluded (and there is no evidence that they were), they had about three months to hone a message to run against Obama.

The economy wasn’t so bad in 2012, certainly it had improved immensely since 2008. I’ll grant that the Republicans made every attempt to sabotage the economy so that they could win in 2012, but they did not succeed.

If I might offer a bit of critique of your posting style, you might get a more neutral reaction to your post if you refrain from the perceived pejorative “Democrat nominee”.