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

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

I understand the logic of saying polls this early are meaningless because two and a half years is plenty of time for things to change, but I don't see how they're evidence of Obama's approval rating tripping her up. Why do polls show her beating every Republican when his approvals are just off their record lows? Why shouldn't we expect the Hillary:Obama dynamic to be closer to Cuomo:Paterson than McCain:Bush?

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

But it's a sample size of one, no? Bush was the first unpopular president term-limited out. Even if you include unpopular presidents who opted out, Truman and LBJ, all 3 had approvals far lower than Obama's today. (20s or 30s vs low 40s). And Democrats faced a war hero in 1952 and their own bad divisions plus a split vote in 1968 (when they lost to Nixon by <1%). So those situations don't really match a Hillary 2016 run as far as I can see. 2008 doesn't really line up either. For one thing, Obamacare and the slow recovery with a divided congress are poor comparisons for the Iraq War and the recession-turned-Great Recession.

I also don't see Hillary comparing with McCain ahead of 2008. She didn't just complete a term as Secretary of State. She left over a year ago and has been attacked relentlessly by Republicans since. I'd guess her support now is way more polarized than that of McCain in 2006 when he wasn't even the frontrunner. The fact that McCain led polls in 2006 doesn't seem here nor there.