Pretty sure presidents have waited until the primary was over, though perhaps not always. And there may be no precedent for a VP against a SoS.
I can’t think of one, but I suspect Obama will follow the Reagan precedent on this one.
Current RCP averages against selected Republicans:
Clinton R Spread Break
Clinton v Bush 47.2 43.0 Clinton +4.2 2.5 : 1
Clinton v Walker 47.8 41.2 Clinton +6.6 4.0 : 1
Clinton v Rubio 48.0 41.4 Clinton +6.6 4.3 : 1
Clinton v Kasich 48.5 39.5 Clinton +9.0 7.0 : 1
Clinton v Trump 51.8 37.0 Clinton +14.8 inf : 1
I’ve added a “Break” column that shows how undecided voters would have to break for the Republican for the results to end up 50/50. e.g. Walker needs undecideds to break his way 4:1 to pull even.
Head to heads are not very meaningful at this point of time especially when Hillary is so much better known than any Republican. Approval ratings are more meaningful and Hillary’s numbers have indeed been sliding in the last few months. Currently they are at 42-48 in the HuffPo aggregator. The 37-57 Quinnipiac number on honesty is perhaps even more worrying.
As I said, Clinton’s losing NH:
Sanders now within 6.
As for why her free fall isn’t showing up much in national general election polls:
http://pollingreport.com/S-Z.htm#Walker
Guys like Scott Walker are still unknown by a large percentage of voters. John Kasich is not known by 65% of voters:
I see no reason why being better known is more likely to help the Republicans vs Hillary vice being lesser known. If they say the things I think is likely that they’ll have to to win the nomination, I think it’s very possible that being better known could significantly harm the Republican candidate.
In a Presidential election, both candidates will have near universal name recognition among likely voters.
You are absolutely right that being better known won’t necessarily help the Republican nominee. The more people know about some of these guys, the less they’ll like. But see, that’s the beauty of a large field. By the time we get to the first primaries, all of the candidates with a chance to win will be fairly well known. Not universal, but instead of numbers like 26-20 favorability we’ll see more like 35-40 for the major candidates. At least one or two of those guys will be in positive territory by Iowa, and those candidates will be able to make an electability argument. Chances are, the guy who gets the nomination will enjoy better favorability than Clinton does right now.
I think it’s very likely that the same sorts of statements that sank McCain and Romney will have been made by whoever is ahead at this point.
Chances are, this is wishful thinking on your part. It might happen, but I see no reason to believe it’s more likely than going the other way.
I think that’s a misinterpretation of what happened in those elections. First, the fundamentals clearly favored Democrats. Second, their statements didn’t sink them. McCain not at all, and Romney only somewhat. The 47% comment was damaging, but whatever, that tactic will be used to beat a Democrat someday, so I’m not whining. What hurt really bad though was Todd Akin. Republicans solved that problem in 2014 and I don’t expect it’ll resurface in 2016. McCain cost himself the election with his poor performance during the financial crisis, not by saying crazy things.
Maybe. But see, unless Biden enters or Sanders pulls of the unthinkable, your candidate WILL be underwater. Ours might be, and we have a chance to choose whoever seems to be the most likeable to reduce the chances of that happening.
I don’t trust in your abilities to see the future. This is a “maybe”, not a “WILL”.
I don’t think it would be wise to predict that Republican voters will select the candidate who is “most likeable” or most electable. We shall see.
How will Clinton make herself seem more honest and trustworthy? That’s the main source of her favorability decline.
It’s not a sure thing, but that’s what they usually do.
By campaigning and speaking. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t, but it’s silly to try and predict the future with certainty.
When you make such certain predictions, expect them to be challenged and mocked.
You act as if all this stuff is random chance, unpredictable. The odds of Hillary Clinton being able to make herself seem more honest given her history are pretty low. That’s one I’d bet on.
Adaher Claim: her favorables will remain negative for the rest of the campaign.
Make the opposite claim if you disagree with me.
I’m not making a claim – I’m saying it’s silly to make one this early. I think your track record is very poor, I think your analysis is poor, so I think your claim is a poor claim. I think it’s likely that her favorability will fluctuate, but I don’t know exactly how. We’ll see.
After the election it might be fun to go back and find all of your predictions. I’m not making many at this point because it’s usually foolish to make predictions so early.
My track record recently has actually been quite good. I called all the GOP debate slots. Besides, there are easy predictions and going out on a limb predictions. Clinton’s inability to change perceptions of herself is pretty well established by now. She could get a run of favorable press to boost her, but that doesn’t seem likely either given the media’s recent behavior, which seems excessive even to me.
If you stuck with the polling averages, good on you. That’s what I would have done too. I don’t think this overturns your really, really bad record in other elections, but it might be a start. We’ll see if you stick with the polling averages in the general election (basically we’ll see if your predictions are different than Nate Silver’s).
So you say. I don’t believe you necessarily. If Nate Silver says Hillary’s favorables are locked in I might believe it, but I’m not going to take your word for it.
I did 2014 well too. And I called Kasich as one of the 10 when he wasn’t qualifying at the time of the poll. Again, not really going out on a limb if you remember that most candidates see an increase in their poll standing when they announce. Biden will also see a nice bump should he actually jump in.
It’s a prediction. Nate would never say they were locked in because you’re right: there’s no way to know. But you can make an educated guess based on history, trends, and the candidate’s abilities. Has Clinton ever struck you as able to change perceptions of her on her own? Seems to me that she makes things worse when she speaks, which is why she’s trying not to. If the media decides to go all pro-Hillary, that might change things for her, but I don’t see that happening either without major changes in Clinton’s behavior towards the press. Remember the moving rope line incident?
I think Hillary changed perceptions at times in the '08 campaign and over the course of her tenure as SoS. We’ll see.
No perceptions changed in 2008. Her positives and negatives were baked in then too. As SoS, her approval went up, mainly because she was out of politics and there were no controversies until Benghazi. Unfortunately for her, she cannot run as a non-political candidate for President, and she has really, really, failed at avoiding controversy
Let’s see a cite that they didn’t fluctuate.
This isn’t exactly a rock-solid cite for an assertion that she can’t change these things on her own. They changed due to multiple factors; they may continue to change.