If Hillary is the Democrats' nominee....

[Mister Mets]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

[Mister Mets]

I'd give a slight edge to Republicans.

Parties always lose support after enough time in the White House. Hillary will not be able to distance herself from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. Her decades in public life mean she has a fairly high floor, but that she is also a poor agent for change. Demographic trends favor Democrats in the long term, but not quickly enough to have an impact here.

She's likely to be the Democrat's McCain, a respected figure who polled well initially, but got the nomination in the wrong cycle.

The big unknown is the significance of the first female President. We just don't know if there are enough Republicans or conservative-leaning independents who believe that milestone is worth a third term of Democrats in the White House.

Despite Obama's current unpopularity, I'm sure it's going to be more like 1988. Hillary will probably win, but she'll be defeated in 2020 by a moderate republican.

Depends on what you mean by 1988.

George HW Bush lost about ten percent of the vote Reagan got in 1984.

A ten percent loss from Obama's 2012 numbers will probably result in a Republican President.

[Mister Mets]

Obama's at 43% right now on RCP average and fairly stable (he's been around 43-45 since last May). George W Bush was at 37% at this time in 2006 and tanking downward after starting 2006 in decent position. Completely different scenarios. Also, Americans still had faith in the opposition party. Neither party is well liked now.

The "Bush Sr lost 10% off Reagan" is not only poor logic but inaccurate. He lost 6 (59 to 53). Also, Bush was trailing Dukakis big in late 1987 and early 1988 as Reagan was around Obama's current 43%.  Bush was always 3-4 points behind Reagan's approvals. Hillary is running 7-8 points ahead of Obama's approvals.

I said Bush Senior lost ten percent of the vote Reagan got.

Reagan got 54,455,472 votes in 1984.
Bush got 48,886,097 votes in 1988.

Bush got just under 90 percent of Reagan's 1984 vote. And that was in a fantastic year electorally.

[Mister Mets]

I said Bush Senior lost ten percent of the vote Reagan got.

Reagan got 54,455,472 votes in 1984.
Bush got 48,886,097 votes in 1988.

Bush got just under 90 percent of Reagan's 1984 vote. And that was in a fantastic year electorally.

Ah, so your logic is even poorer than originally thought.

I don't believe I've said anything logically unsound in my follow-up posts.

Here's what happened.

President Johnson expressed his opinion that 2016 would be like 1988.

I suggested an alternate method someone could look at the results of 1988 in a way that would be a poor precedent for Hillary.

You misinterpreted what I said, and claimed my statement was inaccurate.

I showed how my statement was accurate.

I think you're assuming that I said something I haven't.