How likely is a double digit win for Hillary?

[pbrower2a]

The median win for Barack Obama in 2008 was 16.35% (Oregon). His median loss was about 14.92% (Kansas and Nebraska were practically the same).  Contrast 1980, and the median win for Reagan was  around 12.5% (rough average of Iowa and Washington)  and his median loss (4.51% -- West Virginia).

Barack Obama, contrary to his desires, got very polarized results. Hillary Clinton so far projects to win about everything that Obama won in 2008 but without being so polarizing elsewhere. Should Hillary Clinton win everything that Barack Obama won in 2008 by similar margins and find that some of the giant margins by which Obama lost in other states, then Hillary Clinton can win by a double-digit margin.  

[pbrower2a]

lmao

You #ReadyforHillary guys are not so much jumping the shark as hurtling miles overhead at supersonic speeds.

Yes, because Hillary winning by double digits is such an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, that even suggesting it could be a possibility shows signs of delusion.

Indeed, anyone who thinks polls taken on 2016 in 2014 should be taken seriously does show signs of delusion

The polls so far as I can tell show the weaknesses of the Republican nominees than any strength of Hillary Clinton or the appeal of the likely Democratic agenda. They can contrast potential nominees and show where some pols have relative weaknesses in contrast to other nominees.

[pbrower2a]

We have been looking at shifts in votes from Obama 2008. Hillary Clinton is not so polarizing as Barack Obama was. I doubt that she will win a huge number of states with 60-40 margins. That said, I doubt that she will lose so many states by 60-40 margins as did Barack Obama. The 60-40 margins for Barack Obama, whether wins or losses, result from his particular fits to the political culture of the states.

I suggest that we look at the 2000 election, as close an election as America has ever had, and one in which the polarization of the states was not so severe. To give some idea of how small the polarization was, Gore won two states (NY and RI) and DC by with a percentage of 60% or more -- but lost only seven states (ID, ND, OK, NE, SD, UT, and WY) with a percentage of 60% or more. Except for New York those were small states in electoral votes, and the edge in fact goes to Gore because of New York. To give some idea of how slight the polarization was, Gore could not crack 60% in Massachusetts or California, and Dubya did not crack 60% in Kansas or any Southern state.

A shift of 5% in vote share from 2000 gives a 10% nationwide margin.   Oddly, Hillary Clinton would still get about 350 electoral votes (Obama did better than that in 2008) based upon a shift of states from Dubya to a Democrat.   

[pbrower2a]

Let's start with the last real 50-50 election.. when America was only beginning to become as polarized as it is today on regional lines.  2000, but with 2016 electoral votes.

Hillary Clinton (D) 254

An even shift of 4.48% of the popular vote based upon 2000 would give Hillary Clinton 55% of the popular vote. Anything more is superfluous, and anything less allows a 10% margin only if third-party candidates muck things up.   

So you don't believe that map? Neither do I. For one thing, just about any Republican nominee  is going to get more than 53% in Kansas, 51% in Alabama, and 55% in Oklahoma. That doesn't even show on the map. So let me do a little horse-trading of states. Hillary Clinton is much more likely to win  Virginia than Tennessee and much more likely to win Colorado than Missouri. Make those two shifts and the map looks so:

OK -- that map looks all too familiar. Barack Obama won that map with 51-47.  But Hillary Clinton is not as polarizing as Barack Obama, as shown in recent polls. I told you that I didn't think that Hillary was going to hold a Republican nominee to vote-counts under 55% in Alabama, Kansas, or Oklahoma. But to concede those votes 'back' to the Republican I must take them from somewhere. Hillary Clinton is not going to get 60% of the vote in Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin either.

I've seen plenty of polls for North Carolina, and so far Hillary wins every one of the matchups. The potential nominee who wins Arizona loses Arkansas -- and vice-versa. Georgia looks close enough in early polling. Missouri and Indiana just don't get polled much. Your guess is as good as mine on the states in white.

[pbrower2a]

A lot less likely than a double digit win for Ted Cruz.

This is the wrong place for discussing the Chicago Cubs' chance of winning the 2014 World Series.