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

[Whacker77]

So much of this discussion about 2016 seems off base to me.  In 1988, GHB won Reagan's "third term" essentially because the economy had done and continued to do so well.  If Reagan's approval ratings were in the low 40's and the economy was lackluster, Dukakis would have been elected president.  As James Carville once said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

Third terms are a real rarity.  And, at least since the turn of the last century, they have all been the result of well regarded economic conditions.  That was essentially the case in 1908, in 1928, in 1940, and especially in 1988.  Now to be fair, the first two examples were unique cases because three different presidents filled each term.  And in 1940, FDR became the first man to run for a third term and win, but he wouldn't have been able to do so had the country not believed the worst of the depression was behind them and things were improving.

Given that, I just don't see how anything at this stage points to a clear Clinton victory in 2016.  I'm not saying she can't/won't win, but I think it's going to be very difficult for any Democrat to win if Obama's approval numbers remain mired in the low 40's, his signature legislative achievement remains unpopular, and, most of all, the economy remains stagnant at best.  And to that point, it would be a rarity for Obama to go a full eight years without suffering his own economic recession.

If anything, I think the current conditions suggest an electoral map realignment might be in the offing just as happened in 1968 and 1992.  Just as the 1946 and 1948 elections served as a very good template for the 2010 and 2012 elections, the current economic conditions and general unhappiness of the country may point to 1918 and 1920 serving as a good template for 2014 and 2016.  That might even be truer if Republicans nominate someone in 2016 who can't be easily portrayed as anti-immigrant or anti-minority.

Things can turn on a dime and everything might look far rosier for Democrats in 2016 (economically), but the worst thing we can do is put too much weight in general election polls taken 30 months in advance.  We won't know how the electorate really feels about the candidates and the economy at least until late 2015 and early 2016.  Even then, it might be too soon.

[Whacker77]

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.

At about the same time in the 2008 process though, a well known Senator named John McCain also led the vast majority of presidential polls and by a lot in some of them.  Yet as time wore on, Bush fatigue caught up with McCain and Republicans.  Bush's approval numbers and the war in Iraq became a huge drag.  Both of those issues were hot early in 2006, yet he looked in good shape then just as Clinton does today.

As we saw in 2008 though, Democrats tarred and feathered Republicans all over the country with Bush's problems.  Even though Bush and McCain rarely saw eye to eye, Democrats made the case McCain was running for Bush's third term and it worked.  McCain just couldn't shake the unpopular president and all that came with him.

Given that, why would Clinton or any Democrat be immune from Obama's problems?  Why wouldn't Republicans be able to tar and feather her with all of Obama's problems like a stagnant economy and an unpopular healthcare plan?  After all, Clinton has to be considered closely associated with Obama's tenure since she served as his Secretary of State.  They may not see eye to eye on some issues, but neither did Bush and McCain.

If the situation in 2016 is as toxic for Obama as it is today, I just don't see how the country decides to go with his heir apparent when they never have in the past.  Now, of course, that could all change if Republicans nominate an unelectable candidate like Cruz or Paul or the economy improves, but history suggests no national candidate of the same party can overcome the low numbers of the current occupant.

[Whacker77]

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.

[Whacker77]

McCain got 46% of the vote because the country has become politically polarized.  Even Michael Dukakis got 45% and his campaign was a train wreck.  There's a floor under each national party these days so the age of 60-40 blowouts is probably gone for some time to come.

I'm not suggesting, that because Obama's approval might be in the low 40's, Clinton will only get in the low 40's.  I'm just saying Obama's approval, the likely stagnant economy, and the ACA will have an effect on Hillary and the Democrat's numbers that simply aren't being factored into the current polling.

And let's be honest, the polls we're seeing today mostly measure name ID.