# The Great Un-Fork Hillary Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 12, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458 "2015-04-12T00:17:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/221 "2015-04-19T12:41:53Z")
McCain has opposed his party much more than Clinton has opposed hers. And he’s got the enemies to prove it. I won’t totally knock Clinton, she’s made some enemies on her left flank. But she is broadly supported by most Democrats, whereas McCain’s appeal has mostly been with independents and for awhile, even many Democrats. Kerry wanted him as his running mate. The best example of a Democrat like him is Joe Lieberman. As a result, according to Silver’s analysis, he probably did better than any other Republican would have. He might have even won if not for his poor judgment on a number of issues late in the campaign. Starting with his VP selection and ending with his decision to “suspend campaigning” in the wake of the fiscal crisis. AS for Obama’s popularity, check out the approval numbers of Ike and Clinton. Pretty high, yet their wannabe successors couldn’t quite pull it off. Bush 41 is the only one of the last five to succeed, and he trailed by as much as 20 points at one point. Clinton can certainly win, but anyone expecting this to not be a close race is kidding themselves. I’d actually expect Clinton to trail significantly at some point and cause a lot of bedwetting here. ---
**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:** [April 19, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/222 "2015-04-19T12:54:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > McCain has opposed his party much more than Clinton has opposed hers. And he’s got the enemies to prove it. I won’t totally knock Clinton, she’s made some enemies on her left flank. But she is broadly supported by most Democrats, whereas McCain’s appeal has mostly been with independents and for awhile, even many Democrats. Kerry wanted him as his running mate. The best example of a Democrat like him is Joe Lieberman. The Republican party, as of late, has been much more “opposable” (by reasonable thinking humans) than the Democratic party. So that doesn’t say much for McCain. The Lieberman comparison doesn’t reflect well (for me, at least), since the things Lieberman has opposed the Democrats on have been on the blunders we’ve been discussing in the Iran thread. > [@](#): > > As a result, according to Silver’s analysis, he probably did better than any other Republican would have. He might have even won if not for his poor judgment on a number of issues late in the campaign. Starting with his VP selection and ending with his decision to “suspend campaigning” in the wake of the fiscal crisis. No chance he would have won, but he could have done better. > [@](#): > > AS for Obama’s popularity, check out the approval numbers of Ike and Clinton. Pretty high, yet their wannabe successors couldn’t quite pull it off. Bush 41 is the only one of the last five to succeed, and he trailed by as much as 20 points at one point. > > Clinton can certainly win, but anyone expecting this to not be a close race is kidding themselves. I’d actually expect Clinton to trail significantly at some point and cause a lot of bedwetting here. It will be a challenge for Hillary (or whoever), but in my view based on demographic trends (the somewhat overstated “blue wall”) and the shit show that is the Republican primary these days, it won’t be as hard as the task was for Gore and Nixon. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/223 "2015-04-19T13:05:35Z")
It was actually ridiculously easy for Gore, he just made a fundamental error by distancing himself from Clinton and was the victim of a hostile press. Clinton is certainly going to have an issue with the latter(the negative stories are a daily thing for her already). I mean seriously, was “the sigh” a big deal, or his inventing the internet comment? I was so annoyed with the media coverage that I actually voted for Gore in 2000. And I’d likely vote for him again. Clinton, on the other hand, at least they are focusing on actual stuff. They literally had nothing bad they could say about Gore, so they made up the weakest stuff anyone has ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/224 "2015-04-19T13:17:41Z")
Yeah and Carter was ahead of Reagan along the way. It was a blow out. The ending tells you if it really was competitive or not. Not a transient poll spike. Humphrey Nixon was an electoral blow out as well and only close in popular vote because of the 13 to 14% of the vote Wallace got as a third party run. Again, Obama’s favorability is right where Reagan’s was at this point in time. Not particularly unpopular. Taking notes from McCain’s playbook given his results, losing by over 7%, seems like not a good idea for anyone in any case. He was hurt less IMHO by GWB than by his own pandering to the farthest Right who then failed to really believe him, even though it was more his true self. But yes with a GWB in as the incumbent you distance as much as you can. Obama is no GWB … not Bill Clinton or Eisenhower either. Of course for bigger n we can go back a bit farther … FDR’s third term won by almost 10%, his fourth by 7.5% … Hoover had won a third term in a row for the GOP with a 17.4% margin. Teddy Roosevelt with a 19% margin. Harding against Cox, after two terms of Wilson, had a 26% margin … The idea that third term for the party races were more consistently close horse races than other ones and in particular precisely because they were third term’s for the parties involved, is babble. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/225 "2015-04-19T14:14:33Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yeah and Carter was ahead of Reagan along the way. It was a blow out. The ending tells you if it really was competitive or not. Not a transient poll spike. Not necessarily, because in order to get to that ending a candidate may have had to use new tactics. The way that Bush and Lee Atwater destroyed Dukakis is legendary. Had they not done that, he probably would have maintained his lead. > [@](#): > > Again, Obama’s favorability is right where Reagan’s was at this point in time. Not particularly unpopular. That’s misleading, because Reagan bounced up and down due to recession and at this point in his Presidency, a huge scandal. Obama has been remarkably steady at the mid-40s, which means he will probably conclude his Presidency in the 40s. > [@](#): > > Of course for bigger n we can go back a bit farther … FDR’s third term won by almost 10%, his fourth by 7.5% … Hoover had won a third term in a row for the GOP with a 17.4% margin. Teddy Roosevelt with a 19% margin. Harding against Cox, after two terms of Wilson, had a 26% margin … True, but the Presidency changed a great deal under FDR, which is why a lot about Presidential elections is only useful going back to FDR. I’m sure if Obama himself ran for a third term he’d have a good chance of winning too. > [@](#): > > The idea that third term for the party races were more consistently close horse races than other ones and in particular precisely because they were third term’s for the parties involved, is babble. It could be, since the sample size is so small. And because of that, every Presidential election brings about firsts. Obama was the first President to win reelection with less of the electoral and popular vote than he won the first time. Usually if people like a President less than they did starting out, they turn him out. Obama was the lone exception to that rule. Clinton could be the next Bush 41. But again, if you think it’s going to be a blowout, you’re simply going to be wrong. Clinton polled in the mid-50s for awhile, and that certainly looked good, but now she’s back around 47-48, very early in the process, against candidates the public doesn’t even know. The only threshold a Republican nominee has to meet is to be acceptable to win that 52-53% of the vote that isn’t voting for Clinton right now. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/226 "2015-04-19T15:18:22Z")
Let’s not misunderstand each other. I think there is virtually no chance of a blow out, at least in the popular vote. It will be less than 5% I’m guessing. But it won’t really be in doubt most of the way despite, as you predict and I agree, every effort by the media to make it closer by trying to run with every scandal du jour the GOP machine comes up with. In today’s electorate there is a reliable cohort that will vote GOP almost no matter what (whether they party ID as Republican or Independent) and a reliable cohort that will vote Democratic pretty much no matter what, and much smaller but key group, who mostly identify as moderate, that can go either way. Therefore elections get decided on two factors - Who wins those few percent of swing voters, especially in a few key states that are potentially up for grabs, and Turn-out of those who are reliably in your corner if only they vote. There are, IMHO, significant, shall we call them fundamental, factors are in HRC’s favor for both those counts, and this far out those are the more meaningful items to think about than “no blonde left handed pitcher going against a right handed batter in the fourth inning has ever thrown a strike-out” types of analysis. We are repeating ourselves at this point but again, a known entity essentially polling 47 to 48 against the generic opposition candidate is in very good shape. The generic candidate has no warts, has taken no positions that piss anyone off, has made no flubs. If we take her favorability ratings as a proxy for how people would vote today in a race against her vs the generic wart free candidate she is winning, call it 47 to 45% with about 8% undecided. The named candidate needs to win over not 53% but 63% of those undecideds to win (just more than 5 out of 8 of them). The conservative votes and the liberal voters are not undecided even now; the undecideds are overwhelmingly moderates and more women vote than men. Do you really think that any candidate who is able to come out the winner in the GOP primary will be in position to win those moderate voters by that sort of margin? Anywhere even close? The best hope the GOP candidate has, beside hoping for team Clinton to hurt themselves or for the media to be extremely effective in their goal to make it close, is that Clinton overplays to the center right and points left stay home. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/227 "2015-04-20T03:51:12Z")
It’s simpler than that, popular vote being irrelevant under current rules. It’s only: What states have to flip from the last time for the GOP nominee (whoever it is and it doesn’t really matter) to reach 270 electoral votes, how close/reachable are they likely to be, and what breaks have to fall his way for that to happen? Hint: Too many, not very, and not enough that have a real chance of happening. What’s your list of states your guy is going to take, **adaher** , and how’s he gonna do it? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/228 "2015-04-20T04:06:53Z")
Popular vote is not actually irrelevant. If the GOP candidate wins the popular vote, he’ll almost certainly win the election. And some states got redder between 2008 and 2012. Why shouldn’t states also get redder between 2012 and 2016? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/229 "2015-04-20T11:17:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Popular vote is not actually irrelevant. If the GOP candidate wins the popular vote, he’ll almost certainly win the election. And some states got redder between 2008 and 2012. Why shouldn’t states also get redder between 2012 and 2016? I’ll answer your question - because mid terms and state level elections favor the GOP in general. You now answer his - which states do you see as the ones that will flip? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/230 "2015-04-20T11:44:28Z")
I was referring to 2008 to 2012. Despite demographic movement away from the GOP, Romney won more states than McCain. WHy wouldn’t the GOP nominee win more states than Romney? And again, we’ll see if there’s a midterm problem or a not-Obama problem soon enough. And you won’t get any warning, since the primaries will be low turnout affairs due to lack of competition. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/231 "2015-04-20T11:56:14Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I was referring to 2008 to 2012. Despite demographic movement away from the GOP, Romney won more states than McCain. WHy wouldn’t the GOP nominee win more states than Romney? > > And again, we’ll see if there’s a midterm problem or a not-Obama problem soon enough. And you won’t get any warning, since the primaries will be low turnout affairs due to lack of competition. [I’ll give you the 2016 map right now.](http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bKOH) Now which of those blue states are you going to take from Hillary? ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/232 "2015-04-20T12:01:00Z")
Romney won Indiana, that was a fluke pickup by Obama in 2008 and always goes Republican and North Carolina which Obama barely carried in 2008 and was carried by Romney by 2% in 2012 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/233 "2015-04-20T12:15:00Z")
Okay, so 2008 was a fluke and 2012 is your baseline? Anyway, Vox has a good article on how hawkish Clinton is and how if she wins the US will be much more aggressive on the foreign policy front. > **[Hillary Clinton will pull the Democrats — and the country — in a hawkish...](https://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8395917/hillary-clinton-hawk)** > > Clinton's approach to foreign policy is much more aggressive than that of many in her party. But it's the Democrats, not Clinton, who will change if she wins the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/234 "2015-04-20T15:28:40Z")
New CNN/ORC poll released today. [Link](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/04/20/cnnorc2016poll04202015.pdf). Clinton at 69% has a 58 point on her closest competetitor (Biden 11%). Clinton is polling between 55% and 60% against likely republicans (Bush, Christie, Rubio, Huckabee, Paul Carson, Walker, and Cruz). This seems like good news across the board for HRC, but I predict that someone will be along shortly to explain why this is, in fact, good news for the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![SirRay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@SirRay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirRay)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/235 "2015-04-20T19:21:58Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > This seems like good news across the board for HRC, but I predict that someone will be along shortly to explain why this is, in fact, good news for the Republican party. [Clearly this is Great News for John McCain.](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=This+is+Great+News!+For+John+McCain!) (Ha! Hoped we forgot that meme, didn’t you :p) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/236 "2015-04-20T21:25:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Okay, so 2008 was a fluke and 2012 is your baseline? What is so hard about the question **adaher**? Here is an [interactive map](http://www.270towin.com/) that should come up set at 2012 as the baseline. Let’s assume that the GOP wins every state they won then, including Indiana, of course. That’s 206 to start. You then have to flip all of FL, OH and VA. (Improbable but not impossible. Remember that Clinton whooped Obama in the Ohio primary and Obama handily beat both McCain and Romney there.) But _not enough_. You still need one more, say CO or NV … Don’t flip OH and then you need WI and \*both \*CO and NV. (So maybe Walker as a VP nominee choice to try to carry WI if OH is ceded.) None of which is impossible but it is a hard hard climb. And harder if the GOP nominee gets married to statements that piss off Hispanic voters during the primaries. Which of those, or what other combination, do you see as the path? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/237 "2015-04-20T22:36:16Z")
This could all be neatly resolved if Gov. Kasich gets the God nod. > **[Kasich awaits signal from God on presidential bid](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ohio-john-kasich-awaits-god-2016-presidential-bid-117120)** > > “My family is a consideration,” the Republican governor says on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” \*\*John Kasich awaits signal from God on presidential bid \*\* Well, there you have it. Solid conservative cred, and the endorsement of God Almighty (reliably polled to be firmly in the “very, _very_ religious” theographic.) His sane centrist cred will need balancing with a VP choice from edgeward, most likely a Baptist or a Pentecostal. Discord remains, as Pentecostals often feel undervalued, and regard Baptists as too secular and “mainstream”. Conferences can be arranged, of course, for a frank and constructive sharing of views, if the Baptists will promise not to bring guns and the Pentecostals won’t bring snakes. Of course, analysts will be keen for any evidence that his might slow the growing momentum of the Draft Romney! movement. Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/238 "2015-04-20T23:02:32Z")
I made a prediction about 15 years ago that he’d be president one day. I still think it’s a definite possibility, but he’s got a big handicap to overcome-- limited name recognition. He’s pretty animated, but not necessarily someone you remember after only a few observations. Chris Christie has it, but Kasich does not. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/239 "2015-04-20T23:04:32Z")
Who? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458/240 "2015-04-21T18:06:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Popular vote is not actually irrelevant. If the GOP candidate wins the popular vote, he’ll almost certainly win the election. Depends on how Justice Kennedy votes, as usual. > [@](#): > > And some states got redder between 2008 and 2012. Why shouldn’t states also get redder between 2012 and 2016? Again: Which ones? > [@adaher](#): > > I was referring to 2008 to 2012. Despite demographic movement away from the GOP, Romney won more states than McCain. WHy wouldn’t the GOP nominee win more states than Romney? Again: Which ones? What is the path to 270 for the Republican nominee? > [@DSeid](#): > > You then have to flip all of FL, OH and VA. (Improbable but not impossible. Remember that Clinton whooped Obama in the Ohio primary and Obama handily beat both McCain and Romney there.) But _not enough_. Simpler than that: I don’t see Jeb winning Florida, where he’s too familiar, and he’d probably come the closest. Without Florida, it’s over already. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-un-fork-hillary-thread/717458.md?page=13)