2016: Rick Scott/Rob Portman Vs Hillary Clinton/John Hickenlooper

[You kip if you want to...]

How would this play out, assuming President Obama is re-elected in 2012 and he has 50/50 approvals in November 2016?

Governor Rick Scott (R-FL)/Senator Rob Portman (R-OH)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO)

[Niemeyerite]

add florida to clinton haha

[Mr. Taft Republican]

I can't see anyone with that last name getting into any position of power.

[You kip if you want to...]

I can't see anyone with that last name getting into any position of power.

Governor of Colorado is not a position of power?

[Mr. Taft Republican]

I can't see anyone with that last name getting into any position of power.

Governor of Colorado is not a position of power?

Colorado? Haha, not really

[Liberalrocks]

I doubt Hickenlooper would be a great running mate on a national ticket...very blah.
I think Clinton would have a fair chance at Nevada and New Mexico with or without a western running mate. Colorado is changing demographically and is currently a permanent swing state. His presence may help a democrat hold that state, however VP coattails are so overrated its sick ! Arizona...no way would still go to the republicans. My view of that states electorate is seriously tarnished in the wake of Brewers re-election despite her false claims of "headless bodies in the Arizona desert" A state that would re-elect her after that is simply voting out of party preference...ie: Republican strength in the state. Scott would carry it by a few points...imo.
Montana would not vote for Clinton...Wisconsin would narrowly and Arkansas would be solidly in her column with possibly West Virginia where her husband is extremely popular and where she trounced Obama overwhelmingly.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Isn't Rick Scott basically a criminal though?

Clinton landslide.

[Miles]

Easy Clinton win. Rick Scott has a ton of baggage and is starting out his term as one of the most unpopular governors in the county. I'd say he'd carry Florida just because its his homestate. Other than that, Clinton landslide.

Clinton/Hickenlooper-342
Scott/Portman-196

[albaleman]

Scott would be a terrible candidate, and I doubt the Republicans would nominate him.

[Niemeyerite]

People, with scott as the nominee, clinton carries florida. it wouldn't be even close.

[feeblepizza]

Scott is even more of a criminal than Hillary's husband. Clinton wins.

[Miles]

Scott is even more of a criminal than Hillary's husband. Clinton wins.

I'm not sure Hillary would carry TN, KY and GA. Bill Clinton carried them because the Dixiecrats still had a lot of power in those states back in the '90s. Still, a pretty plausible map.

[DS0816]

ELECTION 2012

Bomb (R-Alaska)
* Barack Obama (D-Illinois)

ELECTION 2016

Fraud (R-Florida)
Hillary Clinton (D-New York)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still wonder how this guy was even elected Governor.

[Person Man]

Fraud is a candidate from Florida? Governor Fraud. lol

[feeblepizza]

Scott is even more of a criminal than Hillary's husband. Clinton wins.

I'm not sure Hillary would carry TN, KY and GA. Bill Clinton carried them because the Dixiecrats still had a lot of power in those states back in the '90s. Still, a pretty plausible map.

I think that she would. In early polls against John McCain, she led in TN and KY a few times, and GA was of course a swing state even when Obama ran. I think she could win them, but it would of course be close.

[DS0816]

I still wonder how this guy was even elected Governor.

2-0-1-0. Highly common after a party-pickup presidential victory [2008] to reap, two years later, revenge for the party that flipped out of the White House. So, there was little in the way of standards. In some states you couldn't get away with it [U.S. Senate races in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada]. In others [like this one], it wasn't a problem. (The more you consider it, Republicans were able to run big time on racism — even though it wasn't necessary — because it was their year. But let's see them try that again in 2012.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still wonder how this guy was even elected Governor.

2-0-1-0. Highly common after a party-pickup presidential victory [2008] to reap, two years later, revenge for the party that flipped out of the White House. So, there was little in the way of standards. In some states you couldn't get away with it [U.S. Senate races in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada]. In others [like this one], it wasn't a problem. (The more you consider it, Republicans were able to run big time on racism — even though it wasn't necessary — because it was their year. But let's see them try that again in 2012.)

But still, gubernatorial elections aren't as partisan as Senate ones and Florida is to some extent a swing State. With such a joke as a GOP candidate, I don't see how he managed to do so well. Maybe Rubio's coattails, but is that enough to explain ?

[Person Man]

Rubio could explain it but the biggest issue is that the Democratic Party is simply that bad in Florida and isn't getting any better and not to mention that the Democratic Vote is very suppressed in Florida. Remember, 9-11% of the Florida Adult population have been disenfranchised by a felony conviction. Chances are, those voters are poor or/and minorities and would probably swing 2:1 for most Democrats against most Republicans.  That would be enough to turn the 48-49 race for the Governor's mansion in 2010 into a 50-48 race and perhaps enough in 2004 to turn the 48-52 race into a 50-50 race and would cause Gore to get over 50% in 2000, even with Nader on the ballot. Then again, other low PVI (3 or lower) states probably do disenfranchise thier citizens, but probably at rates a third as high as Florida's. Beyond the disenfranchisements, there's the shameless gerrymandering that lowers the voting power of many democrats to the point that they simply don't vote. Basically, Florida was flipped the same way DeLay flipped Texas around the same time.

[DS0816]

But still, gubernatorial elections aren't as partisan as Senate ones and Florida is to some extent a swing State. With such a joke as a GOP candidate, I don't see how he managed to do so well. Maybe Rubio's coattails, but is that enough to explain?

Historical context of a midterm, after a party-pickup president wins the White House two years earlier, is frequently the pattern of the party that lost the White House comes back for revenge in the midterms. They don't stop with the congressionals. Governorships are included.

Consider the following states: Pennsylvania (since 1938, except for 1982), Wyoming (1958, except 1978), Michigan (1978, except 1990), Tennessee (1986), and each of Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (1990). What do they have in common? They've been routinely electing governors from the party opposite to that of the White House, with no more than one break in pattern. Though their gubernatorial elections are held in odd-numbered years, following leap years, Virginia (1977) and New Jersey (1989) also apply. New York had been on a roll: since 1982 they did the same thing, but recently established two breaks with 2002 and 2010. Arizona hasn't been doing it a minimum of 20 years, but the state is on a roll since 1994. How is this possible? It is partisan, in terms of turnout. And it was no coincidence all these states (except N.Y.) kept up with the pattern.

[Its Evolution Baby]

Clinton/Hickenlooper.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Scott is even more of a criminal than Hillary's husband. Clinton wins.

I'm not sure Hillary would carry TN, KY and GA. Bill Clinton carried them because the Dixiecrats still had a lot of power in those states back in the '90s. Still, a pretty plausible map.

I think that she would. In early polls against John McCain, she led in TN and KY a few times, and GA was of course a swing state even when Obama ran. I think she could win them, but it would of course be close.

Mostly because of a Black turnout Obama generated.