I have given you two serious candidates with better net favorability than Hillary. You dismiss them because they are relatively unknown. But really every single candidate is unknown compared to Hillary. So how exactly are you able to judge the political environment and conclude that -13 is an acceptable favorability number? Your position seems to be that Hillary in 2015 is so unique that there is literally no benchmark either in the past or present to judge her numbers. If that is wrong, can you tell me what you think is the best comparison point to judge Hillary's numbers ?
I think comparing Hillary to, say, Jeb Bush is a much more apples to apples comparison than comparing Hillary to candidates in previous cycles or to relatively unknown candidates.
Naturally, you reject those comparisons. So it’s not really fair to accuse me of being the one to have ad hoc reasons.
Another reasonable comparison is an aggregate of the net favorables of all the candidates with enough polls to matter against the favorability of the field in 2008 or 2012. I’m quite certain you’d see a downward trend, though I haven’t done the math myself.
It’s pretty obvious there’s something going on in the wider political environment when your chief examples of people with better favorability are Kasich (who has polled between -2 and -14 in the last four polls) and Rubio (who has polled between -1 and -5).
Jeb is not that well known. If you rank Rubio, Jeb and Hillary by public awareness, he is closer to Rubio than Hillary. I don’t see any reason to include Jeb and ignore virtually every other candidate who has ever run for President.
Let’s compare 2012 to 2016. Presumably you would agree that the two candidates most similar to Hillary in stature were Obama and Romney. And around April 2011 their net favorables were similar to hers this April. However neither one collapsed like Hillary over the next five months. This suggests that the problem is with her and her campaign and not the political environment.
Let’s also compare Obama today with Hillary. He isn’t running but he is on the receiving end of relentless partisan attack, probably more so than Hillary over the last few months. And in a very real sense he **is **running and Republicans are shaping a strategy against a “third Obama term”. If he can weather those attacks and still have a favorability above 0, she can do better than -13.
Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbut, Hilary was going to be the first woman President. Why are Sanders and Trump being so mean? Lol
You have foreseen a helluva lot of things, haven’t you? Some even, by chance, true.
I know that we who frequent this forum and this thread pay lots of attention to this stuff, but really, a reality check: only a fraction of the American public is paying close attention to the 2016 Presidential Election cycle yet and those who are are mostly fixated on the GOP side. It is just so much more entertaining! Those who pay any attention to the Democratic side are more interested in a story that is new … which is Sanders and maybe the chance of Biden getting in. (Doesn’t sound like he has it in his heart.)
All the pontification aside the game does not really start until the weeks just before New Hampshire and Iowa when more people start to actually pay attention. And here are the likely possible courses:
-
Sanders actually scores a win in New Hampshire and is at least competitive in Iowa. Improbable IMHO but let’s play it out. Lots of media hullaballoo about how much trouble Hillary is in and then her “comeback” with solid victories in Nevada, South Carolina, and then virtually locking it down on SuperTuesday. Odds of him winning anywhere else? Quite low. Odds of him winning the nomination? Much less than that. Not impossible but very low.
-
Sanders fails to score in either New Hampshire or Iowa. End of his game. Hillary suffers from lack of much media attention for a few more months as the entertainment value remains all on the GOP side.
Not sure which option is better or worse for her.
From the virtual lock down after Super Tuesday on the party unites around Hillary and the pivot to the general begins, not a far pivot for her. What happens then depends on what is going on on the GOP side and how she campaigns from then on … anything can happen (albeit she has some built in structural advantages) but what happens then is simply better predicted now by fundamentals than by any (even if it was not of less and less high quality) polling data at this point in time. Despite those who like to trot out that no left handed hitter has ever struck out in the second inning and come back to hit a double in the fifth before.
So these are fun nerd conversations to have at this point but the reality is that it is meaningless pre-game entertainment to give us junkies something to do waiting for the game to actually begin.
I would not underestimate the butthurt among the faction that has already chosen to personalize the policy differences they purport to see. The problem would be if enough of them can’t get over it that they do to Clinton what the Nader crew did to Gore - give us a Republican president.
Uhm, actually Nate Silver suggests
Except that Silver’s talking about the popular vote, saying that Nader didn’t change its outcome in 2000. And since Gore won the popular vote, this is clearly true.
But that doesn’t contradict the assertion that Nader almost surely tipped both Florida and New Hampshire from D to R in 2000.
QFT. Gotta admit, I’ve got a strong preference for #1. I think we saw Hillary at her best in the 2008 cycle once she realized she was in trouble. To come back strongly after losing in IA or NH would dispel a lot of this ‘Clinton campaign in disarray’ narrative bullshit.
And yeah, she would come back strong. She will win NV and SC, and given that 8 of the 12 Super Tuesday primaries are in Southern and border states, Sanders will have a rough day on March 1. (VT has its primary that day, so he won’t get shut out in all likelihood, but.)
While I basically agree with the driven-by-fundamentals logic, I also have to point out that there are still a few percentage points of play around where the fundamentals would predict the results to be. And given how closely divided the country still is between the parties, how well the game is played can still change the outcome of a Presidential election. If this were not so, Al Gore would have been President when Katrina slammed into New Orleans.
Don’t think that’s so “surely”. If you believe exit polls, Nader voters didn’t swing it to Bush in Florida.
If you believe exit polls, Gore won Florida. So?
If you read the article, Nader didn’t cost Gore the Florida vote which was the point I was refuting. It includes more than just exit polling as evidence.
Sanders now has leads in IA and NH and is getting closer in SC. Close enough that momentum from IA and NH wins would make him a contender there.
Biden is rising in the polls too and it’s anyone’s guess where his support goes if he doesn’t run.
I had not thought Hillary Clinton stupid before this, but this is a special kind of stupid:
She says that sexual assault survivors have the right to be believed. Unless, apparently, they claim they were assaulted by her husband, in which case they should not be believed. What a hypocrite.
Love this cartoon posted to her account by a disgruntled follower (of Hillary on Twitter that is, not necessarily a follower of her as a politician). He or she asked about the women in the cartoon, “Did they have the right to be believed?”
Another commentor posted this gem by James Carville in defense against one of Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions” by offering the observation: “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”
That’s right… You know who is to blame for sexual assault? The wife of the accused.
It’s always women to blame, apparently.
You’ll never convince me Hillary didn’t know about Bill’s philandering all through their decades together. Her alleged anger over Bill’s infidelity with Monica Lewinsky and making him sleep on the couch and all that other nonsense was just for show. If she ever got made at him over his womanizing, it was only because of the media and political fallout it created.
Plus in Monica’s case it gave her standing to go on The Today Show and smugly proclaim that Bill’s alleged activity with Lewinsky was all due to the famous “vast right wing conspiracy” out to get her husband.
I’d say nice try, but it’s not a very good try. If sexual assault victims(oh wait, not allowed to say that anymore, gotta use “survivor”?) have a right to be believed, then she should have believed her husband’s accusers. That makes her a hypocrite.