"Our tired old Bush/Clinton can beat your tired old Bush/Clinton."
Posted on 04/17/2015 3:32:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In which we learn that old memes do not learn new tricks as Politico explains the biggest factors facing Hillary Clinton in her presidential campaign.
Remember how important it was for Democratic senatorial candidates in the 2014 midterms to "distance themselves" from the massively unpopular policies of the massively unpopular incumbent president? Remember how well that worked out for Senators Bruce Braley, Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Michelle Nunn? Well, thanks to Tiger Beat On The Potomac this morning, we see that someone's rolled back the stone on that particular meme.
The two factors that might be most vital to Hillary Clinton's chances—the identity of the eventual Republican nominee and the standing of President Obama—are elements over which she has little influence. It's the second factor, Obama's job approval rating, that is especially critical. And the state and national polling numbers present a contradictory story.
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. I would maintain that the "identity of the Republican nominee," given the fine array of gooberhood under discussion over there at the moment, is the single most critical factor of all. Does this piece maintain that there is no difference between nominating, say, Ted Cruz and Jeb (!)? I am a firm believer in the horses-for-courses philosophy when it comes to presidential campaigns. For example, in 1988, the Democrats couldn't possibly have nominated a worse candidate to oppose the Bush/Atwater campaign than Michael Dukakis. But that's not the point of the piece.
The overall history lesson is crystal clear. Should Obama regain majority approval before the election, Clinton would probably benefit dramatically. While Obama scoring in the mid-to-high 40s isn't ideal for the Democratic nominee, at that level he wouldn't be an anvil tied to Clinton's ankle. And if Obama becomes mired in the unpopularity swamp that characterized Truman, Johnson, and both Bushes, Clinton will have been defeated by Obama twice, once in the 2008 Democratic primaries and once in the 2016 general election.
Besides the obvious argument regarding my aunt's hypothetical testicles, what evidence is there that the president's approval rating will plunge into the 20's in the next 500 days? Ah, you say, the evidence is in the state-by-state polls?
Indeed, Obama held modest polling leads in every swing state on the eve of the election, with the exception of two: North Carolina, which the president ended up losing, and Florida, where Obama was either trailing or tied, but which he won by a point in a mild surprise. In other words, the state polls seemed to be a better metric than the national ones. Fast forward to this month. The state and national polls are saying different things about Obama's approval rating, and the variance is quite pronounced in some states that should be very competitive in 2016.
I think this is about where Nate Silver comes swinging in through a window, a knife between his teeth and his cape billowing behind him. People were really wrong about the unmatchable appeal of Mitt Romney in 2012. They're still trying to make this up. There follows an outburst of math concerning the importance of white people, leading to this conclusion.
If Republicans are able to capture an even larger share of the 2016 white vote than Romney did in 2012 (59 percent), this could have major consequences in the Electoral College. The 2012 exit poll found that 72 percent of the national electorate was white. But of the 10 states with the closest margins, six had whiter electorates than the nation as a whole—Colorado (78 percent), Iowa (93 percent), New Hampshire (93 percent), Ohio (79 percent), Pennsylvania (78 percent), and Wisconsin (86 percent). Add this group's 67 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 2012 total and the Republican could theoretically secure 273 electoral votes and the presidency. These states could provide a path to victory for the 2016 GOP nominee, though he will have to break the party's long dry spells in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But lower white support for the Democratic presidential nominee could at least open the door to Republicans in all of these states.
Can you see the problem here? No, it's not the whitesplained electorate, although that is a bit of pundit sleight-of-hand that is worth keeping an eye on over the next year. The fact is that the calculations all rely on Hillary Rodham Clinton's running against "Republicans," rather than any one actual Republican out of the current roster of Double-A ballplayers. To take one specific example, let's look at Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage their midwest subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin. According to these calculations, the "Republican" candidate will have to "break his party's long dry spell" in Wisconsin. As we discovered yesterday, from alma mammy's latest polling data, if Walker is the "Republican," he's going to have a few problems pulling off this magic trick.
To look ahead to a possible 2016 presidential matchup, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads Walker in Wisconsin, 52 percent to 40 percent.
What I think is going on is that, the last time we had open nominating processes in both parties, the Republicans were saddled with the staggering millstone that was C-Plus Augustus. Now, I guess, "objectivity" demands that what was then a tragic fluke of history be made axiomatic. (And, to be fair, their assessment of Al Gore's mistake of not wholeheartedly embracing Bill Clinton has more than a little truth to it. However, I suspect that HRC probably learned from that mistake.) This will become a Thing in the coverage because Larry Sabato is one of those guys mistaken for being a smart person on television. But, honest to god, according to the byline, it took three people to come up with this speculative bafflegab. Was anyone in charge of, you know, thinking?
Nowhere is any issue mentioned or reason for voting for anyone.
If it is truly the case that candidates win or lose based on vague average preferences reported in polls then we are officially toast as a country.
I look at it this way.
Hillary has 47% and $2.5 billion to “convince” another 4%.
Or, Jeb gets the R nomination, there’s the inevitable Tea Party candidate, and Hillary wins without spending anything, and uses the $2.5 b for (female) hookers and blow.
It’s certainly possible.
We’ll know pretty soon.
It’s takes a bit of work to get on all those state primary ballots.
You can’t do it at the last minute (like November) I don’t think.
Obama declared in Feb 07.
I would put nothing past an electorate that twice voted in the worst president in history.
"Our tired old Bush/Clinton can beat your tired old Bush/Clinton."
Should you conclude things are hopeless and decide to go that route, I’d avoid rock-gut Prestone. Zerex on the other hand has a woody, earthy bouquet. Happy trails!
Naw, Hillary has this now that the prostitutes of the Bunny Ranch have endorsed her.
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.