Has any non-incum 3 years out ever been better set-up than Hillary?

[pbrower2a]

Bush and Gore

Excellent answer. The elder Bush was riding the successes of Ronald Reagan. Gore may have simply had too much trust in the integrity of the voting in a state governed by the brother of his opponent. He should have gone for New Hampshire -- maybe Ohio or Missouri. Or Tennessee?   

[Gustaf]

Nixon also doesn't count because there was Robert Kennedy in the wings as well. And a primary challenger in Rockefeller which, although he didn't go anywhere, certainly wasn't considered a nobody.

Eisenhower, as was said, is a bad choice because it wasn't clear that he was going to run and so on.

So I can't think of anyone really.

[Mister Mets]

The problem with Hillary is that the presidency doesn't usually go the obvious candidate three years earlier. Because the White House tends to switch parties when non-incumbents win.

Everyone wanted Eisenhower to run, and while it wasn't clear he was going to run, he did end up running, and we don't know that about Hillary.
Kennedy built his own campaign apparatus, upending politics as usual.
A 1965 Village Voice comic strip did have a liberal afraid of a Richard Nixon comeback, although this was before he took credit for the 1966 midterms, and turned his reputation around.
Jimmy Carter was an obscure Governor in 1973, who made an appearance in a game show where people had to guess who he was.
Reagan was a prominent critic of a Democrat who won a narrow election post-Watergate in 1977.
George HW Bush was Vice-President in 1985, and the President had just won 49 states. So he was fairly obvious.
Bill Clinton was an obscure small-state Governor in 1989, and it looked like Republicans had a lock on the White House.
George W Bush was the son of a former President turned big state Governor in 1997, with the bonus of being really religious in a party that depends on evangelicals. I'd say he's a fairly obvious President.
Obama was a prominent new Senator in 2005. His big book hadn't come out yet, Katrina hadn't happened as of July 2005 and there were more obvious contenders for his party's nomination.

Eisenhower and the Bushes are the three Presidents who were rather well set up 3 years out. Reagan also comes close.

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

[Link]

In 2008, she was in a better spot. She was only sixty-one, fresh off a Senate run, with people eager to kick the Republicans out of office.

Yet she lost to Obama.

Things are not so good right now. She's going to be sixty-nine in 2016. It's not too old, but it's darn close.

She got quite a bit of bad publicity because of those Bengazi hearings. Her whole Secretary of State tenure provides ammunition for her opponents.

Also, in 2016, there may be some slight Democratic fatigue.

I read an watch left wing media.  They tell me lies about Republican talking points.  I come here and find out those actually are the Republican talking points.

Life is no longer interesting.

[© tweed]

re Eisenhower: Truman could have run in 1952, but declined, no?

[bballrox4717]

re Eisenhower: Truman could have run in 1952, but declined, no?

He ran, but got hammered by Estes Kefauver in the primary and dropped out.

[Liberalrocks]

Re: Historical Terms

I think some of those can be thrown out after Obama won reelection with unemployment over 7% and a high national mysery index.

I do see similarities with Hillary and Eisenhower. While many think Hillary will run we simply will not know for sure for some time. The Ready for Hillary PAC and early endorsements mimic the push for Eisenhower before he announced.

[Ogre Mage]

I agree that Eisenhower (other than VPs) was the last non-incumbent to be in a stronger position.  Ike had more crossover appeal due to his war hero status and the country had a lot less partisan polarization back then.  Hillary would not win in that large of a landslide.  

But Clinton is certainly in a strong position:  100% name recognition, a worldwide political brand, a top-drawer Presidential resume and the history-making potential of the first female president.  Republican projections that Clinton will somehow be derailed within the context of a Democratic Primary suggest they either have no comprehension of the dynamics within our party or perhaps it is simply a sign of fear.  I am not yet 100% sure if Hillary will run.  But if she does, you will be facing her in the general election.  The signs from the invisible primary are clear.  

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19378848-former-top-obama-aides-join-pro-hillary-effort

Clinton is a very strong candidate but there certainly is a fair chance she could still lose the general election.  Much will be dependent on how Obama does.  If Obama collapses he might create an environment where it is almost impossible for any Democrat to win, kind of like what Bush II did to the GOP in 2008.

I believe that Obama would like Hillary to run.  All presidents are concerned about their legacy and laying the groundwork for a third White House term for his party and the first female president would be a huge legacy builder.  The joint 60 Minutes Obama-Hillary interview was a strong hint.  I have never heard of a President doing a major interview with a cabinet member.

[Reluctant Republican]

Going off what Ogre Mage said, one thing that Hillary has going for her that McCain didn't is the history making aspect. There are many people in this country who would love to see the glass ceiling in the oval office shattered, and I think Clinton will take advantage of that. Even if the economy is awful and Obama somehow reaches Bush levels of unpopularity, I expect she'd be able to keep the presidential race close. And let's be honest, she'd certainly have a friendlier media than McCain did, especially if she's up against a white guy whose candidacy could be portrayed as "nonhistoric."

As for the original question, Eisenhower seems correct in the sense that there was a wide outpouring of support for him to run. Though Ike did actuatly struggle a great deal to be nominated, and could have easily lost to Taft. I expect if Clinton runs she won't have nearly as hard a time securing it. Though different eras, and such.

[barfbag]

Bush and Gore

Excellent answer. The elder Bush was riding the successes of Ronald Reagan. Gore may have simply had too much trust in the integrity of the voting in a state governed by the brother of his opponent. He should have gone for New Hampshire -- maybe Ohio or Missouri. Or Tennessee?   

Ah nice topic to open up . I was actually referring to George W. Bush but for him we'd probably agree he was in great position 2 years prior to the election, not 3 years. The gun issue hurt Gore in Ohio, long time blue state of West Virginia, his home state of Tennessee, and Clinton's home state of Arkansas. He also pulled out of Ohio with roughly 6 weeks left before the election and was still within single digits. Polls had him losing by 10-12 and he just pulled out. Bush Sr. was in tremendous position as you said.

How about Richard Nixon in 1960?

[tpfkaw]

Basically speculation, since of course they didn't have opinion polls back in the day.

James Madison, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Stephen Douglas in 1853, William Seward in 1857, George McClellan, Ulysses S. Grant (Seymour was an incredibly strong candidate in his own right), Herbert Hoover, FDR (well, in a few months anyway), Colin Powell in 1993 (he didn't run obviously).

[Bull Moose Base]

I'm going to do a variation on this:

Since the nomination reforms of 1972, no candidate, incumbent or otherwise, with a bit less than 3 years to go before the next election, been in a better position than Hillary now is. W is arguably the exception.

[Mister Mets]

I'm going to do a variation on this:

Since the nomination reforms of 1972, no candidate, incumbent or otherwise, with a bit less than 3 years to go before the next election, been in a better position than Hillary now is. W is arguably the exception.

If you're counting incumbents, Reagan was in a better spot 32 years ago, having won the presidency with 44 states.

Some eventual losers were looking good.

Papa Bush won 40 states in 1992 and [ur=http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush+(G.H.W.)l]had an approval rating of 73% (with 16% disapproving) in February 1990. [/url]

An LA Times 2006 poll had McCain beating Hillary 50-36.

[Bull Moose Base]

I'm going to do a variation on this:

Since the nomination reforms of 1972, no candidate, incumbent or otherwise, with a bit less than 3 years to go before the next election, been in a better position than Hillary now is. W is arguably the exception.

If you're counting incumbents, Reagan was in a better spot 32 years ago, having won the presidency with 44 states.

Some eventual losers were looking good.

Papa Bush won 40 states in 1992 and [ur=http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush+(G.H.W.)l]had an approval rating of 73% (with 16% disapproving) in February 1990. [/url]

An LA Times 2006 poll had McCain beating Hillary 50-36.

Wow. I didn't realize Bush Sr's approvals were so high for so much of his presidency. I thought it was just a Gulf War rally effect. And Reagan's I thought had tanked into the 30s in year 2 but I see it was year 3.

I don't think McCain was anywhere close to Hillary. She's in a dominant position for the nomination and, even before the economy tanked, he wasn't going to get nominated without sacrificing his appeal to swingers.

[The Dowager Mod]

I like how republicans keep pointing out Hillarys age yet had no problem with reagan being 70ish.

[Mister Mets]

Regarding the comparison that it had been a long time since a sitting Veep was elected President when George HW Bush won, it's also been a long time since a former Cabinet member was elected President.

That's not a major knock against Hillary. Someone has to win, and there have been times in the past when it was clear that someone who didn't fit a conventional profile had a great shot at being President. But it's worth noting.

I like how republicans keep pointing out Hillarys age yet had no problem with reagan being 70ish.

Reagan won. On the other hand, Papa Bush lost reelection, and Gerald Ford lost his bid for a full term. Dole, McCain and Romney also lost.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

Your reasoning makes sense to me, but... who is she going to lose to? (Presuming she does get the Democratic nomination in the first place.) Christie seems to be out for the foreseeable future. Most of the nationally prominent Republicans are popular with their fans but seem to be unelectable nationally even if they don't self-destruct while campaigning, as seems all too likely. Who is left? An aging Jeb Bush (whose wife doesn't appear to want him to run)?  Or some competent and charismatic dark horse who's going to pull a Jimmy Carter? The last seems the most likely, but I'll be damned if I can see who that's going to be. XD

[pbrower2a]

Here's a good test. It has worked well for a very long time:


Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Hillary Clinton.

   1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.


We have nine months in which to see this question answered.

  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.


If it is Hillary Clinton, then there won't likely be a serious contest.

   3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.


Barack Obama can't run for re-election. This key works for the Republicans this time.

   4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge.

Does anyone see a current or potential rift in the Democratic Party? I don't.

   5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.


Far too early to tell. Economic recoveries lasting more than six years are rare.
 
   6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Barack Obama so far has given investors little cause for complaints with the valuation of their assets in the stock markets.  It's still too early to tell -- but we need to remember that real per-capita economic growth when Dubya was President went from near zero in 2007 to decidedly negative. The Obama administration has not pushed a speculative boom likely to go bust. 

   7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Obamacare is as big as it gets, like it or not.

   8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.


Unlikely to happen.

   9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

“This administration has been squeaky clean", said Lichtman before the 2012 election. It still is.  Scandals could include the bungling of natural disasters -- at that President Obama has a record of setting up relief efforts before the storm has hit.     

  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

President Obama has no Iranian hostage crisis, no Bay of Pigs. Benghazi? See #11.

  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Qaddafi is no more. Osama bin Laden is no more. This has been the strong point for President Obama, and it could remain so. Still undecided.

  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Does she or doesn't she? I don't see it yet. I didn't see it in 2008 and don't see it now. She has no war record. Probably the easiest key for the Republicans.

  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

What imaginable GOP nominee has charisma? Which Republican can tell Americans that they need to get pay cuts or tax increases?  The Republicans have no war hero in the wings, and it is far too late for the Republicans to have one in time for 2016.

Barack Obama had at least ten keys working for him in 2012, and he won -- decisively.

If the election were held today, then Hillary Clinton would have ten keys working for her. A caveat: in most two-term administrations, the last two years are troublesome. Incumbent fatigue usually sets in, and achievements are normally slight. When one considers how low the approval ratings are for President Obama, such is a legitimate concern.   

[pbrower2a]

A state-by-state map based on polls involving Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush may be the best that we can work with now. Jeb Bush was a competent Governor, and of a state much less one-sided in partisanship than Texas. Jeb Bush would almost certainly be a better President than his brother.

Because Chris Christie has lost whatever crossover support he may have had from Democrats, and that was his strong point, Jeb Bush becomes a good analogue for any Republican nominee that one can imagine in 2016. I pick him over Cruz and Paul because he does consistently better than Cruz and over Ryan because polls involving Ryan tend to be obsolete. Jeb Bush is a reasonably-good proxy for someone like Scott Walker (who would be the hero of anti-union, anti-environmentalist, anti-government-employee, anti-education, and tax-cut interests who have deep pockets for supporting such a candidate in the primaries) and I can't see Bush or Walker getting votes that the other wouldn't get.   

blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush (polls to 2/14)

H. Clinton 144
J. Bush 68
tied    24

Should the Republican nominee be in a virtual tie in Georgia, let alone Louisiana, then the Republican is in deep trouble. Hillary Clinton has a distinct edge every imaginable swing state (Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) that I can easily 'concede' Georgia and Louisiana to a Republican and figure that Hillary Clinton will win at least as strongly as Obama in 2008. Know well: Hillary Clinton is not getting credit for such states with monstrous EV totals as California and New York, let alone some others similarly predictable wins for a Democrat in Presidential elections. 'Giving' Hillary Clinton every state not polled that has never voted for a Republican nominee for President beginning in 1992 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, OR, RI,  VT, and WA) and two that now seem lost to the GOP, one gets this map (the reliably D states not yet polled in pale orange) and those that have not voted for any Democratic nominee beginning in 1984 in light green, one gets:   

Sure things and documented leads:

H. Clinton 358
J. Bush 119
everything else 61

[Mister Mets]

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

Your reasoning makes sense to me, but... who is she going to lose to? (Presuming she does get the Democratic nomination in the first place.) Christie seems to be out for the foreseeable future. Most of the nationally prominent Republicans are popular with their fans but seem to be unelectable nationally even if they don't self-destruct while campaigning, as seems all too likely. Who is left? An aging Jeb Bush (whose wife doesn't appear to want him to run)?  Or some competent and charismatic dark horse who's going to pull a Jimmy Carter? The last seems the most likely, but I'll be damned if I can see who that's going to be. XD

Good argument.

One of the things that could make 2016 have a break with precedent would be Republicans choosing a historically bad nominee.

That said, the field isn't quite that bad. Walker and Kasich are purple state Governors. Paul Ryan is a young congressional leader from a politically useful state, who differs from previous prominent Republicans by not being really old and not having a reputation for being an idiot. Marco Rubio's in a similar boat.

Here's a good test. It has worked well for a very long time:


Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Hillary Clinton.

   1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.


We have nine months in which to see this question answered.

  2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.


If it is Hillary Clinton, then there won't likely be a serious contest.

   3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.


Barack Obama can't run for re-election. This key works for the Republicans this time.

   4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge.

Does anyone see a current or potential rift in the Democratic Party? I don't.

   5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.


Far too early to tell. Economic recoveries lasting more than six years are rare.
 
   6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Barack Obama so far has given investors little cause for complaints with the valuation of their assets in the stock markets.  It's still too early to tell -- but we need to remember that real per-capita economic growth when Dubya was President went from near zero in 2007 to decidedly negative. The Obama administration has not pushed a speculative boom likely to go bust. 

   7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Obamacare is as big as it gets, like it or not.

   8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.


Unlikely to happen.

   9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

“This administration has been squeaky clean", said Lichtman before the 2012 election. It still is.  Scandals could include the bungling of natural disasters -- at that President Obama has a record of setting up relief efforts before the storm has hit.     

  10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

President Obama has no Iranian hostage crisis, no Bay of Pigs. Benghazi? See #11.

  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Qaddafi is no more. Osama bin Laden is no more. This has been the strong point for President Obama, and it could remain so. Still undecided.

  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Does she or doesn't she? I don't see it yet. I didn't see it in 2008 and don't see it now. She has no war record. Probably the easiest key for the Republicans.

  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

What imaginable GOP nominee has charisma? Which Republican can tell Americans that they need to get pay cuts or tax increases?  The Republicans have no war hero in the wings, and it is far too late for the Republicans to have one in time for 2016.

Barack Obama had at least ten keys working for him in 2012, and he won -- decisively.

If the election were held today, then Hillary Clinton would have ten keys working for her. A caveat: in most two-term administrations, the last two years are troublesome. Incumbent fatigue usually sets in, and achievements are normally slight. When one considers how low the approval ratings are for President Obama, such is a legitimate concern.   

Good job on the application of the keys.

Regarding Point #2, does that mean that Hillary runs with the nomination? Or will it be an even higher standard that no conventionally qualified Democrat runs against her? If she clobbers Schweitzer and O'Malley by a 2 to 1 margin in their best states, does it count as opposition?

With Point #4, there is the rise of new progressive leaders, so that could be the cause of a rift. Democrats also have to serve multiple constituencies, so there could always be a conflict between groups.

Regarding Policy Change, does it mean in the incumbent President's tenure, or just the current term? Although the major aspects of the Health Care reform law are passed in the second term.

With Point #9, do the Obamacare website problems represent a scandal?

With Point #11, do Obama victories in his first term count for Hillary? This one could be unusual for her, because of her role is in his administration at the time. So even if it wouldn't count for Cuomo, it might for her.

With Points #12 and #13, I wonder how much charisma is decided by how well someone does. If it's October 2016 and Jeb Bush leads polls by five points, will it be decided that he's charismatic and Hillary isn't?

[pbrower2a]

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

Your reasoning makes sense to me, but... who is she going to lose to? (Presuming she does get the Democratic nomination in the first place.) Christie seems to be out for the foreseeable future. Most of the nationally prominent Republicans are popular with their fans but seem to be unelectable nationally even if they don't self-destruct while campaigning, as seems all too likely. Who is left? An aging Jeb Bush (whose wife doesn't appear to want him to run)?  Or some competent and charismatic dark horse who's going to pull a Jimmy Carter? The last seems the most likely, but I'll be damned if I can see who that's going to be. XD

Good argument.

One of the things that could make 2016 have a break with precedent would be Republicans choosing a historically bad nominee.

Eminently possible. In many respects, Richard M. Nixon was tailor-made to win in 1960. He was smart, ruthless, and conventional. He was simply... ugly. Physically ugly. He might have been seen as a fine President, except in the South after raking the segregationist Democrats over the coals. JFK offered much the same, and was a more convincing speaker -- and he looked more like a movie star than like a mobster.

Had the Democrats nominated some politician with big flaws in 1960, then Nixon would have followed Eisenhower.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans so far have a 'quarterback controversy'. The Democrats have none. I'm not saying that the Republican nominee will be a compromise candidate who successfully unites factions of the GOP at the convention while offending too many non-Republicans soon afterward. Maybe the Republican nominee will offer some "(insert state name) Miracle", only for the "miracle" to have some huge faults. That's how Dukakis failed.


As for Paul Ryan -- he proved himself as a campaigner in 2012: he was awful. For good reason the House of Representatives is not the springboard to the Presidency. Except for those Congressional Representatives who represent at-large districts, they often show that they can't run good campaigns. That is why most Presidents and Vice-Presidents are recent Senators or Governors.

Gerald Ford illustrates the weaknesses of someone who had not been either a Senator or Governor -- someone who wins a statewide election. Had Ford ever been a Senator or Governor he would have shown that he could win statewide in a politically-diverse state. He never did.  He made huge mistakes running for his first election campaign for President.  He figured out how to campaign, but too late.

Sitting and recent Congressional Representatives have fared badly as VP nominees. Bill Miller (1964) and Geraldine Ferraro (1984) went down with politicians running incredibly-bad campaigns. Jack Kemp would have probably been as good a President as anyone since FDR... but he could not rescue Bob Dole. He had never been a Governor or Senator.  Paul Ryan... he's either cabinet material or a potential Speaker of the House.  

Here's a good test. It has worked well for a very long time:

(The Lichtman test, deleted for brevity)
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. They could still fail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless something happens to her... or if Barack Obama. In the first case the democratic field is wide open. Robert Kennedy seemed to have the 1968 Democratic nomination wrapped up -- until he was assassinated. In the second case we have Joe Biden as President, and he gets to stumble around and becomes the default nominee if he chooses to run.

What seems to matter is that the Presidential nominee have the nomination as a certainty before the Convention. Barack Obama solved that problem well before the 2008 Convention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Possible. More likely, Hillary Clinton could co-opt them.  She has nothing to lose by attracting young, promising Democrats to her cause.

Hillary Clinton can run an aggressive campaign against poverty as Barack Obama dared not. Republicans could have easily cast a new War on Poverty by Barack Obama as a spoils for African-American and Hispanic voters ("You can vote for Obama and a bigger welfare check for lazy slobs -- or you can get tax cuts from the Republican nominee for yourself and more jobs"). Barack Obama wisely chose to appeal to middle-class members of minority groups who can influence the poor of their own group.

Some of the biggest concentrations of poverty in America are among white people in Appalachia and the Ozarks. Those poor white folks could never vote for the exotic egghead Barack Obama.

She already has the Obama apparatus intact. That will be a huge political asset.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Enacted in the first term, implemented in the second. At that, Lichtman seems ambiguous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A scandal would be that cronies of the Obama Administration built corruption into the program and derived a profit from it, or that large donors got lucrative contracts in a thinly-hidden quid pro quo. Scandals implode after considerable time.          

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The two strongest areas for Barack Obama have been economic stewardship and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton gets no credit for the economy, but she gets it for foreign policy. Such would be extremely strong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Charisma counts for at most two of the keys.  If Jeb Bush should be up by 5% in October, then the answers to the keys are not what they are now. Maybe the economy is in a meltdown. Maybe Barack Obama has become a sudden failure as President.  

[eric82oslo]

I don't see what charisma has to do with percentage points up or down. Charisma is a personality trait, not a statistical feature.

Take the presidential debates between Romney and Obama as an example, especially the second one. If you watch the Mitt documentary - which I did last night - you can see that Romney just keeps on stammering, endlessly, and thus appears very uncertain with himself - while Obama is very confident, knows how to answer each question and of course never stammers. It's very obvious from the clips that Obama had/has charisma, while Romney wasn't even close.

[m4567]

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

Your reasoning makes sense to me, but... who is she going to lose to? (Presuming she does get the Democratic nomination in the first place.) Christie seems to be out for the foreseeable future. Most of the nationally prominent Republicans are popular with their fans but seem to be unelectable nationally even if they don't self-destruct while campaigning, as seems all too likely. Who is left? An aging Jeb Bush (whose wife doesn't appear to want him to run)?  Or some competent and charismatic dark horse who's going to pull a Jimmy Carter? The last seems the most likely, but I'll be damned if I can see who that's going to be. XD

When was the last time the republicans had a Carter/Clinton type candidate who came out of nowhere to win?

[m4567]

The problem with Hillary is that the presidency doesn't usually go the obvious candidate three years earlier. Because the White House tends to switch parties when non-incumbents win.

Everyone wanted Eisenhower to run, and while it wasn't clear he was going to run, he did end up running, and we don't know that about Hillary.
Kennedy built his own campaign apparatus, upending politics as usual.
A 1965 Village Voice comic strip did have a liberal afraid of a Richard Nixon comeback, although this was before he took credit for the 1966 midterms, and turned his reputation around.
Jimmy Carter was an obscure Governor in 1973, who made an appearance in a game show where people had to guess who he was.
Reagan was a prominent critic of a Democrat who won a narrow election post-Watergate in 1977.
George HW Bush was Vice-President in 1985, and the President had just won 49 states. So he was fairly obvious.
Bill Clinton was an obscure small-state Governor in 1989, and it looked like Republicans had a lock on the White House.
George W Bush was the son of a former President turned big state Governor in 1997, with the bonus of being really religious in a party that depends on evangelicals. I'd say he's a fairly obvious President.
Obama was a prominent new Senator in 2005. His big book hadn't come out yet, Katrina hadn't happened as of July 2005 and there were more obvious contenders for his party's nomination.

Eisenhower and the Bushes are the three Presidents who were rather well set up 3 years out. Reagan also comes close.

I don't know if Hillary's on that level. Historical trends suggest that a party does worse in the third term seeking the White House than in the second term. Even Papa Bush's 40 state win with a national margin of 7.8% paled in comparison to Reagan's 18.2% in 1984. Plus, it isn't clear that Democrats can be as effective without Obama on the ballot. It would be in keeping in historical trends for Hillary to lose the General Election by about five points.

If Hillary Clinton runs, and the With the curent the electoral college trends, I can't see her losing by more than 3 points to anyone.

[pbrower2a]

The problem with Hillary is that the presidency doesn't usually go the obvious candidate three years earlier. Because the White House tends to switch parties when non-incumbents win.

Such is the tendency. "Non-incumbents winning" applies of course to single-term Presidencies that end in electoral defeat -- Taft, Hoover, Ford, and Carter. Those are irrelevant to 2016 unless Joe Biden becomes the 45th President of the United States to complete an Obama term that ends in tragedy or shame.

The others since 1900 are:

1920 -- Wilson to Harding
1928 -- Coolidge to Hoover
1952 -- Truman to Eisenhower
1960 -- Eisenhower to Kennedy 
1968 -- Johnson to Nixon
1988 -- Reagan to GHW Bush
2000 -- Clinton to G W Bush
2008 -- G W Bush to Obama

That is six changes to two retentions. That is three to one but in eight samples. Two of those elections were very close, and both could have easily gone the other way -- in case of both going the other way we would have a 50-50 split and no tendency. It is possible for the Presidential nominee of the Incumbent's Party to win if the nominee of the challenger  has serious weaknesses as campaigner. If Nixon weren't so ugly, and if Al Gore had picked a better VP nominee or used a different strategy...

None of the above cases is an obvious analogue.  Barack Obama is the first black President and likely the last one for a very long time. Hillary Clinton looks like the first Presidential nominee of a major Party.

Wilson tried to force many changes upon America that America did not want and Harding promised 'normalcy', whatever that was. Hoover seemed to offer whatever was going right in America in 1928, only with a more technocratic feel. Truman had a troubled Presidency due to all the loose threads of the postwar settlement, and Eisenhower was a war hero. Eisenhower expected his VP to win and so did Clinton -- which isn't going to happen this time.

It's hard to see how Barack Obama will get caught in a war spiraling into a Vietnam or Iraq -- or have a speculative boom touted as the start of an eternal prosperity. He has never Even one of his sharpest critics (Karl Rove) calls him "cautious". He is definitely not George W. Bush.

If Democrats win big in 2016 it will be over disdain for the GOP.     

 

................

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Barack Obama is seen as an unmitigated disaster as President, then the Republicans can get a complete lock on American politics for decades. I see this pattern: that eighteen states and DC have not voted for any Republican nominee since at least 1988 and that thirteen states have not voted for any Democratic nominee since at least 1984. Hillary Clinton starts the 2016 election with the Obama coalition intact -- and the electoral machinery of Barack Obama. America seems as polarized now as it was in 2008 with Barack Obama winning by a landslide in roughly two-thirds of America and losing by a landslide in the other third.