It's almost too easy for D's to win in 2016, makes me think R's will win

[IceSpear]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[IceSpear]

All evidence except this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think this is a much better indicator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

When will the people learn polls at this time are worthless, as proved over time and time again.

When is the magic arbitrary point they start becoming useful? Hillary has consistently led every Republican candidate in polls for a year and a half now. It's pretty foolish to dismiss that just because "it's early, and things COULD (emphasis) change".

[IceSpear]

I still think that Hillary will win if she runs, but I'm not really basing that on how she is doing in polls right now. I'm just looking at the national environment, Hillary's strengths as a potential candidate, and other things.

I agree with you.  Clinton would be the favorite at the moment.  But I don't say that because of polling, as I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that general election polling in presidential elections 2+ years before the election has any predictive value.

Heck, we've seen some crazy polling movement before *within* the election year, never mind 2 years ahead of time.  The most extreme case I can think of being:

You guys bring up good points, but increased polarization has likely increased the predictive value of early polls. I doubt we'd see any crazy swings like this in the modern era, barring a major game changer such as a scandal or economic collapse.

For example, in Romney vs. Obama numbers, there was nothing TOO crazy and wildly different from the end result in there, except during Obama's peak of popularity. Especially if there was enough polls to create an average, which there currently is for Hillary vs. the GOPers.

[IceSpear]

I don't see why everyone thinks that Democrats are only in a good position because of Hillary.  Does anyone really think their electoral advantage is dependent upon Hillary [Clinton] specifically?

If the Democratic Party can only win with Hillary Clinton as the nominee for president of the United States, it will not win in Election 2016. A major party's shot at the White House does not tend to rely on only one candidate being able to pull it off.

This Hillary Clinton-must-be-the-nominee stuff comes from people who are wanting liberals in the Democratic Party to [STFU] and kowtow to who the establishment wants.

That's why the b.s. stuff about Elizabeth Warren, and any other actual liberal, supposedly not being electable for the presidency of the United States.

If it's a year where the Republicans will win the presidency, and the Democrats nominate an actual liberal, the party will say, "See! You nominate a liberal and you're going to lose." If it's a year where the Democrats win the presidency, and the winning Democrat is an actual liberal who actually leads like a liberal, that kills the theory by the craven and sycophantic Democrats who, in reality, do not want a real liberal president of the United States.

The Republicans have seen 18 states, plus there is District of Columbia, not carry once for their party since after the 1980s. Those add up to 242 electoral votes. These are states which historically have a better performance record in carrying in prevailing presidential elections than a great amount of the now-recognized Republican base states. Yet, somehow, everyone who prefers voting for Democrats for president are supposed to believe that a liberal (with this thread's example of Elizabeth Warren) cannot possibly win election to the presidency of the United States.

Does the Democratic voters (and sycophants) seriously think that an actual liberal nominee from their party is going to make the party lose California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont and, for the hell of it, District of Columbia? And if the Democratic Party were to nominate a real liberal, and in an election year that will be won by the party, do they seriously believe that New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. may not get carried?

There are too many people whose minds are stuck in the past. (And they embrace that.)

To act as if Hillary is not stronger than a typical Democrat is to ignore all empirical data. You're entitled to your opinion, but all evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

Even if another Democrat COULD win (they very well could, especially if the GOP nominee is lackluster), Hillary is the only one that could potentially win big enough in order to drag in a Democratic House with her as well. If that doesn't happen, well good luck getting President Warren's or President Sanders' agenda through a Republican House.