Hillary Clinton vs Mitt Romney

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out. If or when an alternative emerges those numbers will collapse just as much as they already have among non-Democrats. Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out.

No, that's not a valid comparison at all. Hillary wasn't even polling 50% back then.

Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

LOL seriously?

I'm not a Benghazi truther myself of course, but the fact remains that Clinton's alleged complicity - one of the few charges against Hillary Clinton that I think she's probably innocent of - is quite likely to be incredibly damaging to a lot of low-information voters. The kind of people who, in other words, are currently jumping on the Hillary bandwagon for lack of a purportedly viable alternative.

[Oakvale]

What would turnout be in this election? 25%? Democrats and Republicans alike utterly unenthused with two candidates lukewarmly popular with their parties (at best) would presumably mean Romney would have a better chance than you'd think.

You must have quite a strange definition of lukewarm. Among Democrats, CNN puts Hillary's favorability rating at 93-6. Quinnipiac puts her at 92-4. The Democrats who dislike Hillary are as small as they are vocal. It's not 2007 anymore, no matter how badly some people wish it was.

That's just name recognition combined with the sense that she's "inevitable" and thus practically already the nominee. Again, Hillary was similarly "inevitable" six years ago. We saw how that turned out. If or when an alternative emerges those numbers will collapse just as much as they already have among non-Democrats. Benghazi alone will sink her numbers into the red after the Republicans (and hopefully her challengers in the primary) spend months talking about it.

What? The name recognition argument doesn't even make sense in this context. That could potentially be used as a factor in the primary/GE polls, but when it's a favorability rating, the fact that she's in the 90s among Democrats shows they know AND like her. Her being "similarly inevitable" in January 2007 is just objectively false. In January 2007 she led Obama by 17 points nationally and trailed Edwards in Iowa. Now she leads by 50 points both nationally and in Iowa. A pretty huge difference.

Anyway, the last line of your post leads me to believe you're actually trolling, in which case well done. But I like to debunk the 2008 redux narrative regardless, so it's no skin off my back.

Again, this is solely because there is no alternative. What would those numbers look like if Warren were to run? Or even if people start paying attention to Jim Webb. As Beet correctly points out, when people are forced to develop a semi-coherent opinion of Hillary Clinton as opposed to "uh she is a Democrat and is married to Bill Clinton and ran before" they're almost always negative. She is a paper tiger that would put Ed Muskie to shame.

If the hashtag Democrats want to dismiss anyone raising Benghazi (pseudo)scandal concerns as "trolling" that's fine, but don't come crying when Hillary's numbers start plummeting down to the ground. She's still as polarising and disliked a figure as she was in '08, and yet another scandal won't help. Again, I actually don't think Hillary Clinton is complicit in what happened but that's not really that important, or important at all, in narrative terms.

[Oakvale]

If there really is this deep seated dislike of Clinton in the Democratic party, then why did get 48% of the vote in the Democratic primary? (beating Obama's 47%)

I'll address the rest of this spiel later but I'd just like to point out that this is intellectually bankrupt nonsense that could have come straight from Hillaryis44 since it neither includes caucus numbers (states where Obama performed very strongly) and includes the sham Florida and Michigan primaries.