# Is there any reason to believe 2016 won't be a landslide victory for the Democrats? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 27, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737 "2014-09-27T19:53:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/201 "2014-10-09T18:38:09Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > Furt, there is a difference between _Republican_ women and women who typically _vote_ Republican. Okay … but your post referred to the former. > [@](#): > > No, she won’t get the former but I think it is safe to assume that Hillary (assuming that she runs and gets nominated) will outpace prior male Democrats among female voters and those votes will have to come from _somewhere._ If she does I think its far more likely that she’d do it by 1) getting apolitical/apathetic female voters, who otherwise wouldn’t vote, to come to the polls and support a historically-significant candidate. (e.g. Obama 2008), or 2) by appealing to young, \*unmarried \*women, who already vote something like 70% Dem, for whom Hillary’s 1990s baggage is before their time, and who are personally invested in most of the things the media refers to as “women’s issues” - e.g. abortion, birth control, career prospects. I think it’s very, very unlikely that older, married women who have already voted for Romney/McCain/Bush, and whose personal concerns are more centered around their 401k and the safety & wellbeing of their children, are going to to turn around and vote for not just any Democrat, but _Hillary_ in large numbers, just because they both have uteruses (uteri?). That’s especially true since the GOP will likely put a woman up for veep again if Hillary is the Dem nominee. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/202 "2014-10-10T13:57:33Z")
> [@furt](#): > > . . . for whom Hillary’s 1990s baggage is before their time . . . What baggage? She was First Lady to a very popular and successful president. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/203 "2014-10-10T14:21:11Z")
… who will become her closest adviser. Look for a fair amount of bullshit from the GOP/Fox campaign hacks about how Bill would be the \*real \*President, since a wife can only be a placeholder. And look for that bullshit to backfire, too, given all that peace and prosperity he presided over. Surpluses. We had _surpluses_. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/204 "2014-10-10T15:57:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What baggage? She was First Lady to a very popular and successful president. Come on, dude. I agree with you that she doesn’t have any real baggage, but you know the Republicans are just salivating to crank up the 1990s faux-scandal Wurlitzer. Having to go through Vince Foster/Travelgate/Whitewater/Monica etc. was bad enough when I was a kid and not paying much attention to politics. Having to listen to all of it twenty years later would be grounds for justifiable homicide. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/205 "2014-10-10T16:13:54Z")
But even their \*trying \*that same old shit will backfire and help ensure her victory. So I’d just cope with it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/206 "2014-10-10T17:10:49Z")
I’ve never understood the Republican hatred of Hillary. She seems like a pretty right-wing politician, for a Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/207 "2014-10-10T17:49:49Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’ve never understood the Republican hatred of Hillary. She seems like a pretty right-wing politician, for a Democrat. So is Bill, so is Obama. Nevertheless . . . ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/208 "2014-10-10T18:57:23Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’ve never understood the Republican hatred of Hillary. She seems like a pretty right-wing politician, for a Democrat. She’s certainly more of a centrist than Obama, though hardly “right wing.” (What is a centrist, anyway, if they aren’t on either wing? The body?). But its not about policy positions per se; as with most divisive figures, its more about 1) percieved personality and 2) history. Pubs aren’t the only ones who find her personally unlikeable… plenty of Dems have, too. And while her history isn’t, on balance, much more or less divisive than anyone else that’s been a major political figure for the last 25 years … but then anyone else you can think of that’s been a major political figure that long is also pretty much hated by the other party. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/209 "2014-10-10T19:06:51Z")
At least as far as foreign policy is concerned, Hillary’s been pretty hawkish, and Republicans should like that…in theory. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/210 "2014-10-10T22:10:12Z")
That is the reason they don’t like her. Truly leftist Dems are easy for Republicans to fight, or at least contrast themselves to. With someone closer to the center, the playbook isn’t so clear so they generally have to resort to the personal stuff. One of E-Dub’s rules. The closer two candidates are position-wise, the nastier the race will be personality-wise. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2014, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/211 "2014-10-20T05:47:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The reason the candidates you mentioned can challenge Clinton, aside from weariness with the current party in the White House, is youth vs. experience. Youth usually wins. Ask Richard Nixon, Bush 41, and John McCain. Would that be the Richard Nixon who was a whopping four years older than JFK? And, experience wise, had been first elected to Congress the same year as JFK (1946)? On the bright side, it makes your paragraph a mere 33% hopelessly wrong, which may be a new personal record. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/212 "2014-10-20T05:54:54Z")
Nixon appeared less than youthful at the TV debate. That appearance contrast changed everything. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/213 "2014-10-21T04:16:16Z")
What exactly is Hillary’s platform? What is she going to do if the voters elect her? What’s her foreign policy? How does she intend to jump start the economy? How will she deal with all the problems with Obamacare? Student loans? Unemployment? The deficit? Does she have any substantial policy prescriptions, or is she running entirely on a mountain of campaign cash? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/214 "2014-10-21T04:33:17Z")
Of course she’ll have a platform: Obama’s third term. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/215 "2014-10-21T05:49:19Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > Would that be the Richard Nixon who was a whopping four years older than JFK? And, experience wise, had been first elected to Congress the same year as JFK (1946)? On the bright side, it makes your paragraph a mere 33% hopelessly wrong, which may be a new personal record. I have no cite, but I can second that I learned that many[sup][yeah yeah weasel words][/sup] think that Kennedy’s family’s connections with people that had experience on camera helped him immensely. Little things like makeup made him look much better than Nixon. This isn’t quite “youth”, but it is physical appearance. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/216 "2014-10-21T06:39:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > What exactly is Hillary’s platform? … Does she have any substantial policy prescriptions, or is she running entirely on a mountain of campaign cash? She hasn’t even formally announced she’s a candidate. First things first. > [@adaher](#): > > Of course she’ll have a platform: Obama’s third term. She must have missed the memo and just been looking at his abysmal approval ratings when she started distancing herself from him on foreign policy. As a relatively centrist registered Republican I am pretty excited about her probably running. In my life, Democrats who are strong on foreign policy and defense don’t run or get chewed up in the primaries. She’s actually got a good shot to get passed that. Given that my party is likely to pick someone weak there and who also throws in batshit craziness, authoritarianism, and an urge to move us socially back to pre-enlightenment times… :smack: Let’s just say I hope she announces. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/217 "2014-10-21T14:50:55Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > She must have missed the memo and just been looking at his abysmal approval ratings when she started distancing herself from him on foreign policy. I know, I was just taking some enjoyment in doing to her what they did to JOhn McCain, with her active participation. Karma states that she deserves to be seen by voters as nothing more than Obama’s third term. > [@](#): > > As a relatively centrist registered Republican I am pretty excited about her probably running. In my life, Democrats who are strong on foreign policy and defense don’t run or get chewed up in the primaries. I agree and I’m actually pretty interested in seeing the Clintons back in the White House myself. A vast improvement over Obama. However, as for getting chewed up in the primaries, I think that’s a myth that that hurts a candidate. It’s the best way to vet a candidate, plus it gives them experience fighting an actually competitive campaign. If Hillary does her overly cautious, “I’m the frontrunner, gotta be careful” act and it doesn’t get challenged in the primaries, she’ll bring that strategy into the general election. If there’s one thing Republicans know how to do, it’s how to defeat a directionless and overly cautious Democratic candidate. > [@](#): > > Given that my party is likely to pick someone weak there and who also throws in batshit craziness, authoritarianism, and an urge to move us socially back to pre-enlightenment times… :smack: We’ll see. Depends on who it is and how they manage to define themselves. I don’t see Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie or even Rand Paul as that way. Santorum and Ted Cruz obviously have big problems in that regard, but I see their chances of nomination as somewhere between slim and none. As always, the GOP candidate will be a plausible President. Liberals keep gleefully predicting that we’ll nominate an extremist but we never do. > [@](#): > > Let’s just say I hope she announces. On one level, I hope she does because at least then we’ll get a decent President. On the other hand though, I’d like to see the Democrats be forced to actually choose from candidates with substantive qualities rather than picking the brightest celebrity. Remove Clinton from the field and you have no big names or celebrities, just well qualified, accomplished, competent candidates. Plus I believe increased Democratic turnout in the last two elections has been based primarily on Obama’s celebrity and I fear that Clinton could inspire the same levels of turnout. I’d be less annoyed by that if Democratic voters turned out for a boring Democrat like O’Malley or Webb or Dean. It’s not good for democracy for a large percentage of voters to only be motivated when they find the candidate’s celebrity enthralling. And frankly, I think liberals are also caught up in Clinton’s celebrity, because without the name “Clinton”, which means “win” in Democratese, most wouldn’t even consider voting for someone with her record and positions on the issues. Seriously, is there ANYTHING different between her and Joe Lieberman? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/218 "2014-10-21T15:17:14Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > She hasn’t even formally announced she’s a candidate. She’s been going to Iowa _voluntarily_. What more do you want? > [@adaher](#): > > Karma states that she deserves to be seen by voters as nothing more than Obama’s third term. You say that like it’s a bad thing. > [@](#): > > However, as for getting chewed up in the primaries, I think that’s a myth that that hurts a candidate. It’s the best way to vet a candidate, plus it gives them experience fighting an actually competitive campaign. After all these years of vilification by your guys, I think she’s past that point, don’t you? Part of her attractiveness as a candidate is that she’s bulletproof - there’s nothing more you guys can try on her that won’t simply backfire. > [@](#): > > I don’t see Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie or even Rand Paul as that way. If _that’s_ your A team, the guys you’re depending on, the ones who you think would make the best Presidents out of your entire party, then it’s all over, isn’t it? And deservedly so. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see the Democrats be forced to actually choose from candidates with substantive qualities rather than picking the brightest celebrity. Isn’t that what you wish for the Republicans too? Or is that simply not a possibility for them anyway? > [@](#): > > Remove Clinton from the field and you have no big names or celebrities, just well qualified, accomplished, competent candidates. And yet you continue to cheer for the party of batshit instead, despite your occasional lucid moments like this one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/219 "2014-10-21T22:53:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You say that like it’s a bad thing. Perhaps you missed the lack of Obama campaigning. Clinton is going to be in the same position McCain was: trying to distance herself without disavowing him. See how well that’s worked out for Democratic Senate candidates. And they can go a lot further to disagree with the PResident than Clinton can. > [@](#): > > After all these years of vilification by your guys, I think she’s past that point, don’t you? Part of her attractiveness as a candidate is that she’s bulletproof - there’s nothing more you guys can try on her that won’t simply backfire. You’re absolutely right, but you’re missing the point. Clinton was just as indestructible in 2008 and fell short. Her weaknesses, namely her artificialness and her caution, will be used against her the same way Obama used those things against her. She also had a campaign team that was internally at war with itself and ineffective as a result. Will that happen again? Then there’s Bill, who while a great campaigner inexplicably came down with Biden disease during the primary, probably due to his fury at the Obama campaign. Don’t think the GOP isn’t taking note of that: piss off Bill and he makes unforced errors. > [@](#): > > If _that’s_ your A team, the guys you’re depending on, the ones who you think would make the best Presidents out of your entire party, then it’s all over, isn’t it? And deservedly so. We’ve got a much deeper bench than your side does. No celebrities to be sure but that’s not a problem in elections. Most elections don’t have celebrities. Do you really think a guy like O’Malley is going to have greater stature than John Kasich or Bobby Jindal? > [@](#): > > Isn’t that what you wish for the Republicans too? Or is that simply not a possibility for them anyway? Oh yeah, because there are no successful Republicans anywhere in the country. You’ve got some serious partisan blinders on. I can hate what the Democrats stand for while still appreciating that many of them are very good at what they do. Democrats have a ton of well qualified candidates who no one has ever heard of and who Democrats can’t be bothered to support because they are boring. Because I think at this point most of you recognize that without a celebrity, you won’t get any turnout. Republicans, by contrast, don’t have nearly as much to worry about as far as turnout goes. We can nominate a current unknown. You can’t. > [@](#): > > And yet you continue to cheer for the party of batshit instead, despite your occasional lucid moments like this one. I cheer for the party of fiscal conservatism and good government. Whoever that is in any given election. Clinton was just fine, maybe Clinton 2.0 will be just as good. I’ve said before that I’ll support Clinton if the GOP nominee is someone who I find unserious or unready. But the party under Obama has not been one of fiscal conservatism nor good government. It’s been the liberal version of George Bush: incompetence, cronyism, lack of accountability. Chicago politics brought to DC. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/220 "2014-10-22T01:00:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Perhaps you missed the lack of Obama campaigning. Clinton is going to be in the same position McCain was: trying to distance herself without disavowing him. See how well that’s worked out for Democratic Senate candidates. And they can go a lot further to disagree with the PResident than Clinton can. For Presidential politics, the Democratic nominee will use Obama for what he does best – get minorities to turn out. I see no reason why he won’t be able to continue this… once people vote, they’re much more likely to vote again. > [@](#): > > You’re absolutely right, but you’re missing the point. Clinton was just as indestructible in 2008 and fell short. Her weaknesses, namely her artificialness and her caution, will be used against her the same way Obama used those things against her. She also had a campaign team that was internally at war with itself and ineffective as a result. Will that happen again? Then there’s Bill, who while a great campaigner inexplicably came down with Biden disease during the primary, probably due to his fury at the Obama campaign. Don’t think the GOP isn’t taking note of that: piss off Bill and he makes unforced errors. Unless the GOP has an Obama/Bill Clinton level political talent stashed away somewhere, these problems aren’t likely to repeat themselves. An A+ Obama barely beat a B+ Hillary. I don’t know if the Republicans have anyone better than a C+ in political talent, if that. > [@](#): > > We’ve got a much deeper bench than your side does. LOL. > [@](#): > > No celebrities to be sure but that’s not a problem in elections. Most elections don’t have celebrities. Do you really think a guy like O’Malley is going to have greater stature than John Kasich or Bobby Jindal? Once they’re on the national state, then absolutely (especially with Jindal). > [@](#): > > Oh yeah, because there are no successful Republicans anywhere in the country. You’ve got some serious partisan blinders on. I can hate what the Democrats stand for while still appreciating that many of them are very good at what they do. Democrats have a ton of well qualified candidates who no one has ever heard of and who Democrats can’t be bothered to support because they are boring. Because I think at this point most of you recognize that without a celebrity, you won’t get any turnout. Republicans, by contrast, don’t have nearly as much to worry about as far as turnout goes. We can nominate a current unknown. You can’t. Sure we could, if Hillary doesn’t run, or if she falters. O’Malley and others are quite politically talented, and haven’t said ridiculous things like Jindal has. > [@](#): > > I cheer for the party of fiscal conservatism and good government. Whoever that is in any given election. It hasn’t been the Republican party in decades. > [@](#): > > Clinton was just fine, maybe Clinton 2.0 will be just as good. I’ve said before that I’ll support Clinton if the GOP nominee is someone who I find unserious or unready. But the party under Obama has not been one of fiscal conservatism nor good government. It’s been pretty fiscally conservative, and far more conservative (small c) and better governmentally than the previous administration. You’re not particularly capable of judging Obama’s administration with anything approaching objectivity. > [@](#): > > It’s been the liberal version of George Bush: incompetence, cronyism, lack of accountability. Chicago politics brought to DC. So says Hannity, but not reality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737.md?page=12)