Posted on 05/28/2014 10:30:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
The 2016 presidential election is shaping up as another close race, like the last four. From 2000 to 2012, both major parties' nominees received between 45 and 53 percent of the vote.
Historically, that's a narrow range, not seen since 1880-1892. It suggests something close to parity between two highly competitive parties.
Polls for the 2016 race, however, suggest strikingly different results. One would be a nightmare for Republicans. The other would be a nightmare for Democrats.
This column looks at the Republicans' nightmare (a later column will examine the Democrats' nightmare). In this scenario, the Democratic nominee is, as widely expected, Hillary Clinton.
The assumption is that she encounters no significant turbulence in winning the nomination -- a plausible extrapolation from current polling, which shows her miles ahead of any other Democrat.
Straight-line extrapolations from current general election polling also look very good for her.
Against various possible Republican opponents -- in alphabetical order, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan -- Clinton is averaging between 50 and 52 percent in the RealClearPolitics averages of recent polls, while the Republicans are averaging between 38 and 42 percent.
Due allowance should be made for the fact that none of these Republicans is well known nationally. It's reasonable to expect that a Republican nominee will run better if he puts on a competent campaign.
But Clinton is doing something in these polls that Democratic House candidates and, to a lesser extent, Democratic Senate candidates are having a hard time doing: running ahead of President Obama's job approval rating.
That rating currently stands at 44 percent, well below Clinton's 51 percent average in national polls.
Clinton runs ahead of Obama though she too must be considered a supporter of the unpopular Obamacare. His current negative ratings on foreign policy don't seem to hurt her, perhaps because he was getting positive ratings on that during his first term, when she was secretary of State.
It seems that Clinton's standing reflects less current judgments on Obama and more on rosy retrospective ratings of the presidency of Bill Clinton. Voters may not be eager for a third Obama term, but might like a third Clinton term.
When you look at the relatively small number of statewide 2016 polls, you find that Clinton runs ahead of Republicans by double digits in the three electoral-vote-rich states of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18) and Pennsylvania (20), each of which voted only narrowly for Obama in 2012.
One reason for this might be that she is running stronger among older voters, since these states have relatively large elderly populations. These numbers suggest Clinton might carry these states by wider margins.
That would be a nightmare for Republicans if voters continue, as they have increasingly in recent elections, to vote straight tickets. That's because Republicans currently hold 17 House seats in Florida, 12 in Ohio and 13 in Pennsylvania.
Many of those Republicans might be in jeopardy if Clinton should turn out to lead down-ballot Democrats to victory. Democrats currently need to net only 17 seats for a House majority.
In addition, it seems likely that Clinton would run stronger than Obama in the Jacksonian belt stretching from West Virginia southwest to Bill Clinton's native Arkansas. That could also put in jeopardy some House seats that look pretty safe right now.
Then there are the Senate contests. The 2016 lineup, with many incumbents elected in the heavily Republican year of 2010, has many plausible targets for Democrats. Even if Republicans win a Senate majority this year, they could lose it in 2016.
You don't have to agree with Democratic analyst Brent Budowsky's suggestion that Hillary Clinton could win 45 states (Bill Clinton never won more than 32) to see the potential: a Democratic president, Democratic Senate and Democratic House.
Republicans' hopes of repealing and replacing Obamacare would be permanently dashed. The left wing of the Democratic Party could push farther than it has dared under Obama.
None of this is inevitable, of course. Hillary Clinton could get roughed up in the primaries and her record as secretary of state could be more a liability than an asset. The Republican nominee could easily run better than Republicans run now. Events could change attitudes.
I think this scenario is unlikely. But it's one plausible extrapolation from current polling.
None of this matters. The fix is in.
Get ready for President hillary.
Just let the average American vote—the quickest way to national suicide.
If the GOP-e picks McCain, Romney, Cantor, or Christie...we are doomed. I’ll vote Libertarian, Constitution party, etc. Republicans better pull their head out of their ass by 2016.
Then, too...an enormous flaming meteor could hit earth between now and the election.
The establishment Republicans are completely OUT OF TOUCH and it costs ALL OF US every single national election.
Insult to injury, they blame Tea Party types for their OWN failure (inability) to see how laughably antiquated THEIR understanding of American Conservatism IS!
It may be that only Palin or Cruz can stop Hillary.
“Voters may not be eager for a third Obama term, but might like a third Clinton term.”
Hillary’s campaign might seek to create “a third (Bill) Clinton” term in office in the voters’ minds, but that ain’t going to happen.
1) Bill Clinton benefited from a economic Boom that started under Reagan, albeit with a short recession under GHW Bush.
2) Bill Clinton, after the 1994 mid-terms, had a Republican Congress to hold his feet to the fire. Clinton trimmed his sails and survived politically, while the economy expanded.
3) Obama has spend, borrowed & printed the economy into such a tank that it hasn’t snapped back from the Recession he inherited under George W. Bush. The overhang from the national debt that he has created is going to burden the economy for decades.
4) Hillary doesn’t have any particular expertise to skill to improve things, even if that were possible.
If we’re faced with a Bush run or any other GOPe I will vote third party or just write in Ted Cruz. I will never again vote for another Dole, McCain, Romney type loser. Never again.
I agree. I don’t see any Republican in the running (or not in the running for that matter) for the nomination capable of attracting enough of the abysmally dumbed-down electorate to defeat the Hildebeest. What to do about it? I refer the reader to my tagline.
In a sane country with a fair media, it would and should be. This statement pretty much acknowledges that her liabilities will be covered up.
If we had anything close to a fair media, Benghazi would have doomed 0.
CAN SHE REMEMBER ANY OF THIS? Did Hillary suffer a brain aneurysm. Did she become comatose? How many times has she blacked out? Did she go to any neurological centers? Was she in rehab?
She is rarely seen standing any more.
Her left eye can't focus.....indicating brain damage.
Even with months of rehabilitation, victims of aneurisms can't hold a thought for more than 20 seconds, according to experts in the field.
===========================================
Poor Hillary must be having blackouts from that nasty fall.
<><> She can't remember a thing about Benghazi.
<><> Doesn't know where Obama was when they gathered in the Situation Room.
<><> Doesn't remember a thing about her State Dept giving Boko Haram a pass.
<><> She's in the dark about the $6 billion missing from the State Dept.
<><> She can't remember the Clinton Foundation's Muslim terrorist who was planning jihad while employed by her and Bill.
<><> She can't remember the NY Times reporting that the Clinton Foundations were rife w/ Clinton corruption, greed, cronyism, and shady deals.
<><> She can't remember that the Sultan of Brunei contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
<><> She can't remember the Clinton Global Initiative Foundation gave a rare grant to Harry Reid's grand-daughter (for some unknown global purpose).
<><> Heck, She cant even remember the Bank of Libya's solid gold bars when she and Obama staged a military incursion there.
So true....I wish to hell the Pub’s had a coordinated effort to take on the media, especially on Sunday mornings. Unfortunately, it would take a spine to successfully execute the plan.
“Just let the average American vote...”
It is even worse than that. Encourage everyone to vote!
Motor voter.
Get out the vote. Absentee vote. Early voting.
Vote on campus. Vote off campus.
No documents? No problem!
Entire nursing home with the 110% voter turnout.
Vote winter address. Vote summer address.
Vacant lots with scores of voters. Graveyard voters.
Oh the poor disenfranchised.
Let me put the “X” here for you.
Which has no possible bearing on today's politics of corruption. Blacks couldn't vote, women couldn't vote and usually non-property owners couldn't vote as well. The electorate has dramatically changed in over a hundred years, to the point where statistics as old as this are meaningless........................
I will vote for Sarah Palin even as a write-in......................
The perfect liberal mind: History started at breakfast this morning................
Heh-—good one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
