Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin 2016

[Stranger in a strange land]

Palin's likely to have little establishment support. So her choices will be among wingnuts and/ or politicians who think it'll help their reputations to be losing contenders for national office. She may have a McGovern in 1972 type situation as everyone she asks turns her down.
Jeff Flake- Allows her to mention the connections to McCain. Legislators often benefit from increased name recognition than comes from failed national bids.
Mike Pence- Very conservative. Qualified. May want to make sure he has more name recognition than Scott Walker.
Scott Walker- Allows her to make an argument on the benefits of Republican executives.
Mike Huckabee- It's one way to stay in the news.
Rand Paul- Allows Palin to make a libertarian appeal.

Neither Pence nor Paul would want to be associated with the disaster that a Palin run would undoubtedly be.

[Donerail]

Hillary Clinton selects Julian Castro as her running mate, and Sarah Palin picks John Boehner.  It is quite ugly for Republicans.

I don't see why: A.) Clinton would pick a random big-city mayor, especially with so many other Dems clamoring for a spot on the winning ticket, or B.) Why Palin would pick Boehner.

[TDAS04]

Hillary Clinton selects Julian Castro as her running mate, and Sarah Palin picks John Boehner.  It is quite ugly for Republicans.

I don't see why: A.) Clinton would pick a random big-city mayor, especially with so many other Dems clamoring for a spot on the winning ticket, or B.) Why Palin would pick Boehner.

Castro would be a good pick for Clinton.  He is a young rising star from the Hispanic community.  People may be critical of putting "just" a mayor on the ticket, but San Antonio has more than one million people.  That gives Castro a larger constituency than some governors, including Montana's Brian Schweitzer.  Not to mention that the excitement of electing a female POTUS and a Hispanic VP would be overwhelming.

As for Boehner, Palin would need someone with solid Washington experience to balance out the ticket.  Palin would need someone like the Speaker of the House.  On Boehner's part, however, he would probably very foolish if he accepted, so I see why someone would question the ticket.  Playing second fiddle to a disastrous candidate such as Palin would make the Speaker look quite small, and his powerful job would be abruptly finished.  It would really shrink Boehner.

[Liberalrocks]

Hillary Clinton selects Julian Castro as her running mate, and Sarah Palin picks John Boehner.  It is quite ugly for Republicans.

I don't see why: A.) Clinton would pick a random big-city mayor, especially with so many other Dems clamoring for a spot on the winning ticket, or B.) Why Palin would pick Boehner.

Castro would be a good pick for Clinton.  He is a young rising star from the Hispanic community.  People may be critical of putting "just" a mayor on the ticket, but San Antonio has more than one million people.  That gives Castro a larger constituency than some governors, including Montana's Brian Schweitzer.  Not to mention that the excitement of electing a female POTUS and a Hispanic VP would be overwhelming.

As for Boehner, Palin would need someone with solid Washington experience to balance out the ticket.  Palin would need someone like the Speaker of the House.  On Boehner's part, however, he would probably very foolish if he accepted, so I see why someone would question the ticket.  Playing second fiddle to a disastrous candidate such as Palin would make the Speaker look quite small, and his powerful job would be abruptly finished.  It would really shrink Boehner.

Boehner represents everything Palin is currently against. If she somehow snagged the nomination she would be running as an outsider against the establishment which is Boehner. Boehner would also not want to associate with the Titanic nor does desire a future beyond his current position...IMO

[TDAS04]

Hillary Clinton selects Julian Castro as her running mate, and Sarah Palin picks John Boehner.  It is quite ugly for Republicans.

I don't see why: A.) Clinton would pick a random big-city mayor, especially with so many other Dems clamoring for a spot on the winning ticket, or B.) Why Palin would pick Boehner.

Castro would be a good pick for Clinton.  He is a young rising star from the Hispanic community.  People may be critical of putting "just" a mayor on the ticket, but San Antonio has more than one million people.  That gives Castro a larger constituency than some governors, including Montana's Brian Schweitzer.  Not to mention that the excitement of electing a female POTUS and a Hispanic VP would be overwhelming.

As for Boehner, Palin would need someone with solid Washington experience to balance out the ticket.  Palin would need someone like the Speaker of the House.  On Boehner's part, however, he would probably very foolish if he accepted, so I see why someone would question the ticket.  Playing second fiddle to a disastrous candidate such as Palin would make the Speaker look quite small, and his powerful job would be abruptly finished.  It would really shrink Boehner.

Boehner represents everything Palin is currently against. If she somehow snagged the nomination she would be running as an outsider against the establishment which is Boehner. Boehner would also not want to associate with the Titanic nor does desire a future beyond his current position...IMO

Yes, I acknowledged that Boehner would be very stupid to accept, but anyone would be, and Palin would need someone a little bit serious.  Still, I suppose, Palin would not be able to find anyone who could deliver her victory.  I do think that Boehner wants to be Speaker as long as he can, and he probably is smart enough to understand that being Palin's running mate would just cause problems for him.

[Mr. Illini]

Bringing this back. Probably not as extreme as some of you guys predicted, but still a blow out.

Clinton/Warner 469 / Palin/Pence 69

Nebraska and Kansas are the swing states.

[Inmate Trump]

A big landslide win for Hillary, of course.  Palin is a trainwreck of lipstick.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

By 2016, it could be a 50-state blowout.

[Mr. Illini]

By 2016, it could be a 50-state blowout.

That's a little far-off, IMO. Remember that just under 46% voted for Palin on the ticket with the top of the ticket being quite old and the previous 8 years being the Bush years. There are a lot of people who will vote Republican no matter who is on the ticket, and there's a good chance that they make up a majority in states like Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc.

[pbrower2a]

Mississippi, Wyoming and Utah would be the only GOP states. (and maybe Louisiana)

You realize Mississippi was the 17th most Republican state in 2012?

Some alternative right-winger would cause a 40-35-15 split in the popular vote in Mississippi, and Hillary Clinton would get the "40".

[henster]

McCain/Palin got 46% of the vote in 2008 even with the economic collapse and wars with Bush blowouts just don't happen in this day and age. Palin is the perfect kind of candidate to play well in the Deep South and Mountain West, evangelicals and conservatives love her and would reliably turn out for her. She'd probably get 40-45% of the PV aswell with a ceiling of at least 200 EV. There would also be a big third party vote.

407 - 131 Clinton win. She wins between 53-55% of the PV with at least 5-9% of the vote going to third party candidates, Palin between 40-45%.

[HAnnA MArin County]

As crazy as the Republicans are, I really doubt she would ever get the nomination. Sure, *some* conservatives in the grassroots/Tea Party fringe love her, but economic/business/fiscal conservatives are not as thrilled about her since after 2008 proved that she doesn't understand how the economy works. All she does is dish out pathetic jabs at anyone who's not a WASP conservative non-establishment Republican and repeat right-wing talking points and platitudes, as was the case in 2008 when she just recited what her speechwriters told her. Sarah Palin has already been defined as an inexperienced, uneducated, and unprepared presidential candidate who bailed on her constituents once she saw the dollar signs. I would

But to answer the question, Hillary would annihilate her in a major landslide. It'd be like a rocket scientist running against a preschooler.

[SWE]

By 2016, it could be a 50-state blowout.

No

[Mister Mets]

Hillary Clinton selects Julian Castro as her running mate, and Sarah Palin picks John Boehner.  It is quite ugly for Republicans.

I don't see why: A.) Clinton would pick a random big-city mayor, especially with so many other Dems clamoring for a spot on the winning ticket, or B.) Why Palin would pick Boehner.

Against Palin, Clinton would have a lot of latitude in her selection of Veep. It's not as if she'll have to worry about five points in a swing state.

Castro would have a few advantages, providing the ticket with youth and a top Hispanic surrogate. VP Castro could be politically helpful in 2020 against tougher opposition.

Palin seems like she could be easily manipulated, but on paper, Boehner is a good match. He comes from a key state, and is very familiar with Washington. He also doesn't have any later aspirations so he has little to lose. He could be a good Jack Kemp, the guy you pick for a doomed ticket.

[7,052,770]

I don't think this question is really answerable without stating how in the world Palin got the nomination.  If she were all of a sudden taken seriously enough to get the Republican nomination (or even win a single primary), surely something game-changing much have happened that would make her at least an OK general election candidate.

[IceSpear]

I don't think this question is really answerable without stating how in the world Palin got the nomination.  If she were all of a sudden taken seriously enough to get the Republican nomination (or even win a single primary), surely something game-changing much have happened that would make her at least an OK general election candidate.

Christine O'Donnell won a Republican primary in Delaware. Against a long time popular Republican incumbent. It's not like you actually need wide appeal to win a GOP primary.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think this question is really answerable without stating how in the world Palin got the nomination.  If she were all of a sudden taken seriously enough to get the Republican nomination (or even win a single primary), surely something game-changing much have happened that would make her at least an OK general election candidate.

Christine O'Donnell won a Republican primary in Delaware. Against a long time popular Republican incumbent. It's not like you actually need wide appeal to win a GOP primary.

I'm of two minds here.

There's a difference between winning one primary and winning enough to get a presidential nomination.

But it should also be possible for a poor candidate to win the nomination, even if it's not very likely.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Floor:

Ceiling:

Kentucky and Tennessee could probably go either way for the ceiling, but today's political environment is far too polarizing for either party not to have an automatic 5-10 states in its column no matter how things look.  I think the days of '64/'72-style landslides are over.

[doktorb]

Surely a third party (reasonable republican) candidate would step in at this stage.

Even in those circumstances, i thought America just doesn't *do* third parties...

[Vega]

Surely a third party (reasonable republican) candidate would step in at this stage.

Even in those circumstances, i thought America just doesn't *do* third parties...

Nope, we don't... sadly.

[MadmanMotley]

SoS Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) 361EV
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK)/Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) 177EV

There is a floor for Republicans, and this is basically it. Conservatives hate Clinton, so odds are there is high turnout in conservative states for conservatives.