General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNate Silver: Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up
Theres already plenty of bad punditry regarding the chances of Hillary Clinton who officially announced her candidacy on Sunday to become the 45th president. You can find Democrats boasting about their blue wall in the Electoral College and how hard this will make it for any Republican to win. Or Republicans warning that the Democratic Party rarely wins three elections in a row.
Most of this analysis is flimsy. So is the commentary about the ups-and-downs in early swing state polls. And when you see some pundit declaring a minor misstep to be a game changer, find someone else to follow on Twitter.
The truth is that a general election win by Clinton shes very likely to become the Democratic nominee is roughly a 50/50 proposition. And were not likely to learn a lot over the rest of 2015 to change that. Heres why:
Incumbency and Obamas Approval Rating. Start with the fact that theres no incumbent president running. There actually havent been a lot of cases that precisely meet the circumstances voters will face next year: Barack Obama, assuming he serves out the rest of his term, will become just the fifth president limited by the 22nd Amendment from seeking an additional term in office.1 This is slightly different from the case where an incumbent voluntarily declines to run again.2 Still, the evidence we have from presidential elections and from other contexts like gubernatorial elections is that these cases default to being toss-ups.
More here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Hey Nate, we know every Republican that will possibly run. Do the numbers.
Or is this just self-promotion?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Are her negatives higher than her positives this week? We'll have to see in 19 months.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Honestly.
Logical
(22,457 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)The third factor is a candidates ideology as measured on a left-right scale. Extreme candidates (like Barry Goldwater) suffer an electoral penalty, while moderate ones (like Dwight Eisenhower) usually perform well.
But nominees like Goldwater (or George McGovern) are rare. So are those like Eisenhower, for that matter. Usually a party nominates a candidate closer to the median of its voters and elected officials.
Thats part of why Clinton is such a safe bet to be the Democratic nominee. Her political positions are essentially those of a generic Democrat. Shes neither a true centrist, nor extremely far to the left, so shes not especially vulnerable to a challenge from either flank of her party.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Right now my money is either on Bush, or maybe Walker. Paul is a dark horse, might bag a #2 slot but unlikely to get the GOP apparatus behind him.
We might luck out and get someone like Santorum. That would be big fun.
okaawhatever
(9,469 posts)elections. I hope every DUer gives it a glance. It will inform us as to what we are up against for 2016.