Which state is more likely to flip in a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush election?

[pbrower2a]

Well, I guess I would respond this way.  As far as Hillary goes, it's not surprising she performs relatively well right now.  She's very well known.  She was first lady, a Senator from New York, a high profile candidate for the Democrat nomination in 2008, and just completed a term as Secretary of State.  Having said that, Clinton's job at State was, essentially, non-political and that has definitely boosted the image most have of her.

A well-known analogy. I remember seeing a projection of an Obama-McCain contest that showed Obama winning 27 electoral votes -- those of Illinois, Hawaii, and DC. But know well -- Barack Obama was still little known.

Also know well -- most projections show Hillary Clinton basically winning states that Barack Obama won, so she is far behind John McCain at this stage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

George W. Bush would be widely seen as a disaster as a President by the early autumn of 2008 -- but through the middle of 2006 he wasn't. Not until the  November election was it clear that Dubya was a disaster on foreign policy, his "mission accomplished" proving increasingly less than accomplished. The economy was still chugging along... but wise people saw how sordid its realities were.  Those people did not shape the election.

Dubya was still getting away with a bungled war and an economy based on a rip-off (a speculative boom financed on predatory loans). In 2006 the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were beginning to go bad, and by November the Democrats offered a solution. Many of the inexpensive ads looked like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbAaJf34OJo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Dubya created those problems with his reckless foreign policy and the worst economic stewardship of any President in decades. Dubya would have created fewer problems had he promoted the usual Republican policy of promoting thrift and industrial investment with low taxes and limited spending. Instead Dubya was a reckless spender in ways that Republicans usually attribute to Democrats, and his reckless spending exploded on America. So did the speculative boom.

Had I been a conservative Republican I would have promoted thrift and industrial investment with the expectation that people getting jobs would be able to qualify for cars, houses, etc.  But that's not the sort of policy that the GOP stood for around 2001.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Barack Obama hasn't started any budget-busting wars. He has not supported a speculative boom likely to go bust. He is very cautious. He does not create problems as Dubya did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is more 'toxic' is that we are no longer so tolerant of Presidential misconduct, reckless spending, and rash foreign policy. We are too fussy to tolerate another George Worthless Bush, and in the toxic environment that Dubya created for trust in politicians, our fussiness could be a good thing.  

President Obama seems to be taking the rap for Democratic 'failure'... and it is still possible that Obamacare will work well for Democrats.

[pbrower2a]

Well, if Clinton rolls to an electoral college and popular vote win in 2016 with Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, then I will genuinely be surprised.  If the American voting public has lost confidence in Obama, it's hard to see that not transferring, at least in part, to the heir apparent of the party.  We'll just have to see.

If McCain can get 46% while Bush's approval was ~25%, why can't Hillary get 50% when Obama's approval is ~43%?

Hmm.. That's an interesting point, but what about Al Gore getting just 48% in 2000 when Bill Clinton's approval was in the 60s? Whatever percentage Hillary wins will ultimately have to do with the national mood and how she is viewed compared to the GOP candidate.

Yup, that's exactly what I meant. Incumbent president approval is overrated as a factor in an open seat election. It only matters heavily when that president is running for re-election.

With a failed incumbent President running for re-election (which applies to Hoover in 1932 for economic bungling and Carter in 1980 for everything going wrong in foreign policy) one can reasonably expect the next election to be a blow-out. For an open-seat election they might want the next President to either (1) be a complete repudiation of the current President, (2) be very different in style as they tire of the style of the current President, (3) want more of the same, or (4) want the next President to achieve the promises of the current President that others (Congress?) stopped. 

(1) Americans wanted a complete repudiation of George W. Bush in 2008 and they got it. Barack Obama promised to give America a jump start on an economic recover and make major changes in American life. He also promised to be cautious in foreign and military policy. John McCain was too closely connected to Dubya on issues, if not practices.

(2) Americans wanted someone young, energetic, and ebullient after eight years of Eisenhower, who was not a bad President. JFK was precisely that.  (OK, Richard Nixon was physically ugly, which may have made the difference).

(3) George H W Bush, 1988.

(4) Your guess is as good as mine if this applies to Hillary Clinton. She will not have to repudiate Barack Obama to be elected.  I don't see President Obama prone to scandal; he has not promoted a speculative boom sure to go bust; he is about as cautious in foreign policy as Dubya was reckless.