How likely is a double digit win for Hillary?

[IceSpear]

lmao

You #ReadyforHillary guys are not so much jumping the shark as hurtling miles overhead at supersonic speeds.

Yes, because Hillary winning by double digits is such an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, that even suggesting it could be a possibility shows signs of delusion.

Indeed, anyone who thinks polls taken on 2016 in 2014 should be taken seriously does show signs of delusion

So when is your arbitrary cut off date for when polls magically begin to matter? January 1, 2016?

[Ashley Biden's Diary]

lmao

You #ReadyforHillary guys are not so much jumping the shark as hurtling miles overhead at supersonic speeds.

Yes, because Hillary winning by double digits is such an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, that even suggesting it could be a possibility shows signs of delusion.

Indeed, anyone who thinks polls taken on 2016 in 2014 should be taken seriously does show signs of delusion

So when is your arbitrary cut off date for when polls magically begin to matter? January 1, 2016?

Polls certainly do matter at this point. Of course they aren't necessarily the same as the end result, but about half of the time they are a good indicator. For example, from directly after Kasich's election to November 6,2012, Obama held the same narrow lead over Romney and other GOP candidates in OH in most polls. People dismissed them in November 2010, but they were a good indicator of what was to come.

 Hillary's solid leads in FL & OH aren't to be dismissed simply because we're 2 years out.

[eric82oslo]

Y'all are kidding yourselves if you think that a hypothetical Hillary Presidency would do anything to stop the Republican Party's inevitable comeback.

Who are kidding himself?

[pbrower2a]

lmao

You #ReadyforHillary guys are not so much jumping the shark as hurtling miles overhead at supersonic speeds.

Yes, because Hillary winning by double digits is such an outlandish and ridiculous scenario, that even suggesting it could be a possibility shows signs of delusion.

Indeed, anyone who thinks polls taken on 2016 in 2014 should be taken seriously does show signs of delusion

The polls so far as I can tell show the weaknesses of the Republican nominees than any strength of Hillary Clinton or the appeal of the likely Democratic agenda. They can contrast potential nominees and show where some pols have relative weaknesses in contrast to other nominees.

[henster]

Open races have rarely resulted in landslides unless you wanna call 1988 or 2008 landslides. Landslides usually occur when an incumbent in popular and running for re-election. And I think people are severely overestimating Hillary's abilities as a candidate by just looking at her performance in the 2008 primaries I don't she a candidate capable of producing a landslide win.

[Frodo]

Highly unlikely -I don't understand why everyone is putting so much credence on 2016 presidential polls this early in the cycle.  Don't get fooled by polling showing her with double-digit (or near double-digit) leads over her Republican opponents.  As the election gets closer, so will polling show closer (and more realistic) results, especially when she is placed against more mainstream opponents like Jeb Bush.   

[pbrower2a]

We have been looking at shifts in votes from Obama 2008. Hillary Clinton is not so polarizing as Barack Obama was. I doubt that she will win a huge number of states with 60-40 margins. That said, I doubt that she will lose so many states by 60-40 margins as did Barack Obama. The 60-40 margins for Barack Obama, whether wins or losses, result from his particular fits to the political culture of the states.

I suggest that we look at the 2000 election, as close an election as America has ever had, and one in which the polarization of the states was not so severe. To give some idea of how small the polarization was, Gore won two states (NY and RI) and DC by with a percentage of 60% or more -- but lost only seven states (ID, ND, OK, NE, SD, UT, and WY) with a percentage of 60% or more. Except for New York those were small states in electoral votes, and the edge in fact goes to Gore because of New York. To give some idea of how slight the polarization was, Gore could not crack 60% in Massachusetts or California, and Dubya did not crack 60% in Kansas or any Southern state.

A shift of 5% in vote share from 2000 gives a 10% nationwide margin.   Oddly, Hillary Clinton would still get about 350 electoral votes (Obama did better than that in 2008) based upon a shift of states from Dubya to a Democrat.   

[tarheel-leftist85]

The shifts won't be uniform (people seem to forget that shifts demonstrate more uniformity in incumbent elections).  Hillary will win a lot of states by more than five but less than twenty - including California.  When aggregated I see about a 12 point win.

[IceSpear]

A lot less likely than a double digit win for Ted Cruz.

Your username combined with your posts is the ultimate irony.

[pbrower2a]

Let's start with the last real 50-50 election.. when America was only beginning to become as polarized as it is today on regional lines.  2000, but with 2016 electoral votes.

Hillary Clinton (D) 254

An even shift of 4.48% of the popular vote based upon 2000 would give Hillary Clinton 55% of the popular vote. Anything more is superfluous, and anything less allows a 10% margin only if third-party candidates muck things up.   

So you don't believe that map? Neither do I. For one thing, just about any Republican nominee  is going to get more than 53% in Kansas, 51% in Alabama, and 55% in Oklahoma. That doesn't even show on the map. So let me do a little horse-trading of states. Hillary Clinton is much more likely to win  Virginia than Tennessee and much more likely to win Colorado than Missouri. Make those two shifts and the map looks so:

OK -- that map looks all too familiar. Barack Obama won that map with 51-47.  But Hillary Clinton is not as polarizing as Barack Obama, as shown in recent polls. I told you that I didn't think that Hillary was going to hold a Republican nominee to vote-counts under 55% in Alabama, Kansas, or Oklahoma. But to concede those votes 'back' to the Republican I must take them from somewhere. Hillary Clinton is not going to get 60% of the vote in Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin either.

I've seen plenty of polls for North Carolina, and so far Hillary wins every one of the matchups. The potential nominee who wins Arizona loses Arkansas -- and vice-versa. Georgia looks close enough in early polling. Missouri and Indiana just don't get polled much. Your guess is as good as mine on the states in white.

[morgieb]

A lot less likely than a double digit win for Ted Cruz.

Your username combined with your posts is the ultimate irony.

He's trying to troll the #ready4Hillary brigade.....I think.

[pbrower2a]

A lot less likely than a double digit win for Ted Cruz.

This is the wrong place for discussing the Chicago Cubs' chance of winning the 2014 World Series.