Do you think it'll be a close general election?

[Mister Mets]

It's an interesting question and I'm not sure how to define it.

Polls were all over the place for the 1988 and 2008 elections a few months before the race, even though those did not end particularly close. But it wasn't like 1964 when LBJ was a heavy favorite.

2012 was fairly close, even if the expectation was that Obama would win reelection, so there wasn't a lot of suspense in those last few weeks (except for the Romney camp and certain conservative pollsters.)

When a party's been in power for two terms, they tend to lose. But it is often quite close. Nixon arguably won the popular vote in 1960, due to oddities of southern electoral votes. In 1968, he won big in the electoral college but he beat Humphrey by less than a percent in the popular vote. 1976 was close, even with the unpopularity of the Republicans. 2000 was obviously close.1988 and 2008 didn't end up close, but these seem to be atypical elections. So even if you include 1952, as the beginning of an era of parity, history indicates a close election is more likely than not.

[barfbag]

One thing only a few people are considering is how much of an impact Obama's approval rating is going to have. I'm hearing facts, stats, and demographics, but nothing of how an incumbent's performance can make or break it for their party. Even a popular incumbent like Eisenhower and Clinton didn't help carry their Vice-Presidents over the line. Numbers aren't going to mean much for Democrats if Obama is in George W. Bush territory in 2016. Have we forgotten Obama's biggest help in 2008? It was a person who went by the name of George W. Bush.

Nixon came close - close enough that if he looked better he would have won. Gore won the popular vote in the closest Presidential election ever. I'm not saying that the third time is the charm. 

Not to mention, Eisenhower and Clinton were very popular.

[Skill and Chance]

One thing only a few people are considering is how much of an impact Obama's approval rating is going to have. I'm hearing facts, stats, and demographics, but nothing of how an incumbent's performance can make or break it for their party. Even a popular incumbent like Eisenhower and Clinton didn't help carry their Vice-Presidents over the line. Numbers aren't going to mean much for Democrats if Obama is in George W. Bush territory in 2016. Have we forgotten Obama's biggest help in 2008? It was a person who went by the name of George W. Bush.

Clinton and Ike had higher approvals in 2000 and 1960 than Reagan did in 1988.  This strongly suggests that Reagan's approval isn't what elected Bush Sr.  Now of the incumbent falls below 30% approval like Truman and Bush Jr. that means an out-party landslide, but that's not specific to parties running for a 3rd term.  However, it's pointless to speculate whether Obama will have 35% or 65% approvals 3 years from now.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I only foresee a close election if it's Hillary vs. Christie. She would obliterate any of the other current potential Republicans/Tea Partiers like Paul, Rubio, Cruz, etc. If Hillary doesn't run, it will be anybody's game, although changing demographics and the Electoral College will surely give Democrats the edge.

I'm inclined to disagree about how Obama's potential lame-duck status would correlate to a GOP landslide. Obama was arguably just as weak and vulnerable (with a relatively high unemployment rate nationally) in 2012 as he could be in 2016 (barring any major political catastrophes) and the Republicans blew it when they nominated the wind vane Mitt Romney, not to mention the fact that Democrats expanded their majority in the Senate in an election where Republicans should have gained but lost seats in states they should not have due to the Tea Party's takeover of the GOP, which nominated extreme right-wing nuts like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin.

I think it will just come down to turnout. If Republicans choose to follow the advice of the Phyllis Schlafy/Pat Buchanan wing of the party (focus more on increasing white turnout among the working class while not making an effort to pander to Hispanics/Latinos and other minorities), they could possibly win some close elections depending upon minority turnout. I highly doubt African Americans will turn out in such large numbers as they did for Obama. Hillary could possibly shave off some of the GOP's margins with white working-class voters in Appalachia and the South to compensate for decreased African American turnout, I suppose. If she remains as popular among Hispanics/Latinos as she was in 2008, that could spell trouble for the Republicans, regardless if Ted Cruz is the nominee.

[barfbag]

One thing only a few people are considering is how much of an impact Obama's approval rating is going to have. I'm hearing facts, stats, and demographics, but nothing of how an incumbent's performance can make or break it for their party. Even a popular incumbent like Eisenhower and Clinton didn't help carry their Vice-Presidents over the line. Numbers aren't going to mean much for Democrats if Obama is in George W. Bush territory in 2016. Have we forgotten Obama's biggest help in 2008? It was a person who went by the name of George W. Bush.

Clinton and Ike had higher approvals in 2000 and 1960 than Reagan did in 1988.  This strongly suggests that Reagan's approval isn't what elected Bush Sr.  Now of the incumbent falls below 30% approval like Truman and Bush Jr. that means an out-party landslide, but that's not specific to parties running for a 3rd term.  However, it's pointless to speculate whether Obama will have 35% or 65% approvals 3 years from now.

No it wasn't what elected Bush Sr. but helped. What elected Bush Sr. the most was his opponent being a complete putts. I agree it's pointless now.

[Downnice]

Very Close. The GOP can not do worse with Blacks and Latinos. I think Obama burning bridges with his base and moderates I think gives the GOP a advantage going into 2016

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think Obama burning bridges with his base and moderates I think gives the GOP a advantage going into 2016

  He's done neither of those things.

[barfbag]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

You know I never realized this.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

Actually, this has happened a few times, but it's been a while.  Hoover got 58% to Coolidge's 54% when winning a 3rd R term in 1928.  Teddy Roosevelt got 56% in 1904, which bested both of McKinley's near 52% wins.  And this is getting down in the weeds, but the biggest win of the post-Civil War Republican streak was the 4th election of the 6, Grant's re-election.

A lot of people see in Hillary the star power of a Grant or Hoover or T. Roosevelt.

[milhouse24]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

I also think its odd that people are saying the REpublicans are dead, but discounting that Romney did really well against Obama, even though Romney had some big gaffes.  The Hispanic advantage is the biggest thing going against the GOP. 

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

Actually, this has happened a few times, but it's been a while.  Hoover got 58% to Coolidge's 54% when winning a 3rd R term in 1928.  Teddy Roosevelt got 56% in 1904, which bested both of McKinley's near 52% wins.  And this is getting down in the weeds, but the biggest win of the post-Civil War Republican streak was the 4th election of the 6, Grant's re-election.

A lot of people see in Hillary the star power of a Grant or Hoover or T. Roosevelt.

Ah yeah, didn't go that far back. Politics was much different. I think Hillary was at her strongest in 2008. Not to say she can't win in 2016 or be a great President, but 2008 was unique for both Obama and Clinton. For the Dems in general.

[Devils30]

It could be close, all depends on who the candidates are. However, the GOP is in much more of a demographic bind than 2000. It is tough to see Hillary getting less than 37% of the white vote and the GOP has made little effort to compensate with minority voters.

Consider this.
Dem gets:
37% of whites: probably about even odds
41% of whites (same as Kerry 04): D wins popular vote probably by about 5-6%
42% whites (Gore 2000), D wins by about same margin as Obama in 2008 at 7%
43% whites: D +8%
45% whites: D wins by about 9-11%, if Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee this is more likely than you think. Hillary probably would have received this number in 2008 vs McCain.

[barfbag]

It could be close, all depends on who the candidates are. However, the GOP is in much more of a demographic bind than 2000. It is tough to see Hillary getting less than 37% of the white vote and the GOP has made little effort to compensate with minority voters.

Consider this.
Dem gets:
37% of whites: probably about even odds
41% of whites (same as Kerry 04): D wins popular vote probably by about 5-6%
42% whites (Gore 2000), D wins by about same margin as Obama in 2008 at 7%
43% whites: D +8%
45% whites: D wins by about 9-11%, if Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee this is more likely than you think. Hillary probably would have received this number in 2008 vs McCain.

Did you realize this?

2008 Obama 53%
2012 Obama 51%
2016 ? 49%

[pbrower2a]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

Extrapolation is a high-risk style of prediction, especially in politics. Barack Obama faced a well-heeled opposition willing to do anything to win; he made a very narrowly-focused campaign in several critical states (CO, FL, NC, OH, and VA) but won four of the five at the expense of allowing Republicans to get large margins in some states (GA, IN, MO) that were close in 2008 and failing to run up huge numbers in some that he won by huge margins in 2008. He responded ably, swiftly, and competently to a natural disaster instead of campaigning in some late weeks. (Such was the right thing to do; he is the President, and his responsibilities to the American People are more important than political advantage).

I predict that Hillary Clinton will run a campaign much more like that of Barack Obama in 2008 than like Barack Obama in 2012 -- and she will exploit any R weakness to the fullest.

We do not know whether Barack Obama will get a House majority in 2014 with which he can have a highly-successful latter half of his second term in getting much of a legislative agenda... but if he doesn't, then Hillary Clinton can run on completing the agenda. 

Demographic factors bode ill for any Republican in 2016 except in ultra-safe districts. The GOP base is getting older and of course shrinking, and young voters are not flocking toward the GOP.   

[hopper]

I don't understand why Democrats think Hillary will be a cakewalk in 2016.

I do not know of any parties nominee that won their initial election by a larger margin than the same-party incumbent President the last cycle(how do I make that sentence less awkward?). Reagan won 51%, 59%, and the GHWB won 53.8%. Clinton did 43%, 49%, then Gore came in at under 49%. They always underperform, simply because they aren't the incumbent President.

Obama won 53% in 2008, 51% in 2012, and I can't see how she does better than him in 2016.  If she wins, she'll barely break 50%, but probably not come near 51%. IF she wins.

I also think its odd that people are saying the REpublicans are dead, but discounting that Romney did really well against Obama, even though Romney had some big gaffes.  The Hispanics  advantage is the biggest thing going against the GOP. 

True the Hispanic demographic is a huge obstacle for the GOP but they lost in 2012 because of moderates and women voting for the Obama by margins of 15 points and by 11 points respectively.

[hopper]

It could be close, all depends on who the candidates are. However, the GOP is in much more of a demographic bind than 2000. It is tough to see Hillary getting less than 37% of the white vote and the GOP has made little effort to compensate with minority voters.

Consider this.
Dem gets:
37% of whites: probably about even odds
41% of whites (same as Kerry 04): D wins popular vote probably by about 5-6%
42% whites (Gore 2000), D wins by about same margin as Obama in 2008 at 7%
43% whites: D +8%
45% whites: D wins by about 9-11%, if Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee this is more likely than you think. Hillary probably would have received this number in 2008 vs McCain.

I know older Republicans like Cruz but I don't see him winning the GOP nomination I mean he's like Bachmann to me and even the GOP Base rejected her in 2012.

[hopper]

I only foresee a close election if it's Hillary vs. Christie. She would obliterate any of the other current potential Republicans/Tea Partiers like Paul, Rubio, Cruz, etc. If Hillary doesn't run, it will be anybody's game, although changing demographics and the Electoral College will surely give Democrats the edge.

I'm inclined to disagree about how Obama's potential lame-duck status would correlate to a GOP landslide. Obama was arguably just as weak and vulnerable (with a relatively high unemployment rate nationally) in 2012 as he could be in 2016 (barring any major political catastrophes) and the Republicans blew it when they nominated the wind vane Mitt Romney, not to mention the fact that Democrats expanded their majority in the Senate in an election where Republicans should have gained but lost seats in states they should not have due to the Tea Party's takeover of the GOP, which nominated extreme right-wing nuts like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin.

I think it will just come down to turnout. If Republicans choose to follow the advice of the Phyllis Schlafy/Pat Buchanan wing of the party (focus more on increasing white turnout among the working class while not making an effort to pander to Hispanics/Latinos and other minorities), they could possibly win some close elections depending upon minority turnout. I highly doubt African Americans will turn out in such large numbers as they did for Obama. Hillary could possibly shave off some of the GOP's margins with white working-class voters in Appalachia and the South to compensate for decreased African American turnout, I suppose. If she remains as popular among Hispanics/Latinos as she was in 2008, that could spell trouble for the Republicans, regardless if Ted Cruz is the nominee.

Yeah but even establishment Republicans like Rehberg(MT) and Wilson(NM) lost their respective races. Rehberg should have won but Wilson I don't know how to explain how she lost. Akin and Murdick just made stupid comments that lead to their election losses.

I don't know if the Scalfy/Buchanan model will work. I agree black turnout will be down in 2016 because Obama will not be in the ballot but by how much is the question. I don't see Hillary doing doing well in the Deep South. Maybe she will make NC close but I don't see her winning NC unless Cruz is the GOP Nominee.

[TarHeelDem]

I agree black turnout will be down in 2016 because Obama will not be in the ballot but by how much is the question. I don't see Hillary doing doing well in the Deep South. Maybe she will make NC close but I don't see her winning NC unless Cruz is the GOP Nominee.

According to CNN exit polling, women were 56% of the 2012 presidential electorate in NC. You want to talk about turnout, I imagine women will only turn out in higher numbers come 2016 if a woman is heading the ballot. They won't go for Hillary like African-Americans went for Obama, but they will definitely be a factor and I would not be surprised if they secured Hillary the Tar Heel State. The 2012 vote was 50%-48%, less than 100000 votes apart - and this is after four years of Democratic failure in the state (see the Perdue administration and the scandals of the state party). Besides this, some North Carolinians just do not like having a black president, sad as that is. Hillary can win some of these white voters back, as well as exciting the female vote. I don't find it hard to believe at all that she can win NC. With any other Democrat it probably leans Republican, but in the scenario of a Hillary candidacy I have it leaning Democrat.

[milhouse24]

I predict that Hillary Clinton will run a campaign much more like that of Barack Obama in 2008 than like Barack Obama in 2012 -- and she will exploit any R weakness to the fullest.

Wait, so Hillary will run on "Hope AND Change" - what needs "Changing" if Obama is in the White House?  Is that racist code word - "change from Obama"?

[© tweed]

close means some genuine doubt lingering into election night on who will win.  2004 qualifies, 2008 and 2012 don't.  I'll say no.

[barfbag]

close means some genuine doubt lingering into election night on who will win.  2004 qualifies, 2008 and 2012 don't.  I'll say no.

Closeness has nothing to do with whose winning polls going into the election. Real votes are more important than polls. Close means the election will be within 5 points. 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004, and 2012 were close. I think it will be a close election between Christie and Clinton.

[© tweed]

Real votes are more important than polls.

piercing insight.

[barfbag]

Real votes are more important than polls.

piercing insight.

Yes no better way than to keep it simple instead of over analyzing things like a lot of people.