Enough with Invincible Hillary

[Free Bird]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

Thank you...  It's about time someone acknowledges the humanity and frailty of Hillary.  She is not and should never be considered a shoo-in.  There is a better chance that she will NOT be the 45th president of the United States than there is that she will be.

[Free Bird]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

Thank you...  It's about time someone acknowledges the humanity and frailty of Hillary.  She is not and should never be considered a shoo-in.  There is a better chance that she will NOT be the 45th president of the United States than there is that she will be.

Amazing! A Dem on this site that isn't obnoxious about their views or near-worshipping Hillary

[Fritz]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

[Free Bird]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

[HagridOfTheDeep]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Because Rand Paul Ted Cruz Rick Santorum Bobby Jindal Rick Perry Paul Ryan.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

The only competent competitors to her at this point is Scott Walker, and he still needs to win the upcoming governor election.
Oh, and there is Paul Ryan, but he probably won't run.
Imagine if Ted Cruz got the nomination...yikes.

But yeah, agreed, the chances of her becoming the next president are under 50%.

[Fritz]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I don't understand how she has a less than 50% chance of being the next President. She's basically guaranteed the nomination, and she starts off with a huge advantage against all Republicans in key swing states. If it's being implied there is an above 50% chance that she would lose the general election, people are just being delusional.

[Mr. Illini]

Her structure and image at this point are tough to beat. She's got a massive network already built from last time and now with Ready for Hillary. She's generally a uniting figure among Democrats and independents are attracted to her independent nature (a reputation carried over from her husband in part). She can do better in many areas that Obama couldn't (because he was seen as too northern and elitist).

Her floor: 247

Generic D floor: 188

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yeah, that's the thing... this "under 50% chance of winning"  thing doesn't make sense. If she runs, there's basically a 95% chance she's the Democratic nominee. If you give her a 65% chance of beating the Republican, she's the odds-on favourite.

[IceSpear]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

Thank you...  It's about time someone acknowledges the humanity and frailty of Hillary.  She is not and should never be considered a shoo-in.  There is a better chance that she will NOT be the 45th president of the United States than there is that she will be.

Amazing! A Dem on this site that isn't obnoxious about their views or near-worshipping Hillary

I can tell you're new here because you actually think he's a Democrat.

But as to your question, all empirical evidence currently shows Hillary as unbeatable in the Democratic primary if she runs, and the odds on favorite against any Republican in the general election. So assuming she chooses to run, her chances of becoming the next president are surely greater than 50%, and are leagues better than any other potential candidate.

[bedstuy]

It's a silly discussion to have at this point.  Think of the variables:

A.  Will she run?  Nobody here has a opinion worth a damn on this subject.  It seems like she wouldn't pass it up, but who really knows.

B.  Who will the Republicans nominate?  Nobody has any idea.  The polls keep changing and many of the national polls are like 15% for 4 candidates.  Clearly, it's uncertain and many of you have no idea whether these Republicans are good candidates. 

C.  What will happen from today to November 2016?   Nobody knows.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is not 100% going to win.  She could not run.  She could lose.  But, she could also decide to run, have a great campaign bolstered by events between now and 2016 and run against Ted Cruz.  We don't know, and that's not an interesting or compelling fact at all. 

My only advice as someone who paid attention in 2008 is this:  The quality of the candidate matters.  The character, experience, gravitas and excitement a candidate brings to the table matters.  If you're a Bill Richardson or Wes Clark, or Rick Perry or Fred Thompson, you always lose.  If you want to make a good point about 2016, research some of these candidates.  Look at the game tape, see them on Charlie Rose or the Harkin Steak Fry.  Hillary Clinton is a tested brand, with strength and weaknesses, but clearly the skills to win an election.  If you just want to say, I don't like Hillary Clinton so she's going to lose, you're just blowing smoke out your tuchus.

[Free Bird]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

[IceSpear]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Well at first you seemed to be arguing whether or not Hillary actually IS the frontrunner to be the next president, to which the answer is objectively yes she is (although that can obviously change). As to your second point about whether or not that's deserved, why she's so overwhelmingly the favorite among Democrats, or why she's ahead in the general election matchups, those are an entirely different set of questions.

Despite all the hand wringing from the right/left about how Hillary is a communist/warmonger, in reality she's a fairly generic Democrat with a bit of a hawkish streak. So why would typical Democrats NOT support her? I don't exactly see any of the GOP hopefuls putting forth any broad visions of change for the country either, just the same old failed Bush policies. Why is it only Hillary that has to "earn" support through bold and new ideas? Rarely do candidates from any major political party have those types of ideas in these times. And you forget, that Hillary has more experience than pretty much any GOP or Democratic hopeful does, spending 8 years as a politically active First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State. The fact that people (especially within the Democratic Party) have 90s/Clinton nostalgia and think it's time for a woman president certainly isn't hurting her either.

[Joe Biden 2020]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Well at first you seemed to be arguing whether or not Hillary actually IS the frontrunner to be the next president, to which the answer is objectively yes she is (although that can obviously change). As to your second point about whether or not that's deserved, why she's so overwhelmingly the favorite among Democrats, or why she's ahead in the general election matchups, those are an entirely different set of questions.

Despite all the hand wringing from the right/left about how Hillary is a communist/warmonger, in reality she's a fairly generic Democrat with a bit of a hawkish streak. So why would typical Democrats NOT support her? I don't exactly see any of the GOP hopefuls putting forth any broad visions of change for the country either, just the same old failed Bush policies. Why is it only Hillary that has to "earn" support through bold and new ideas? Rarely do candidates from any major political party have those types of ideas in these times. And you forget, that Hillary has more experience than pretty much any GOP or Democratic hopeful does, spending 8 years as a politically active First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State. The fact that people (especially within the Democratic Party) have 90s/Clinton nostalgia and think it's time for a woman president certainly isn't hurting her either.

Every candidate in either party has to earn the nomination and then earn the presidency in the eyes of the voters.  Yes, Hillary has the most experience and probably starts with a leg up on the other candidates in either party, but we should not be going so far as to crowning her president still 29 months before the general election and 19 months before Iowa.  A lot can change between now and then.

I personally think Hillary would be a decent president, and I might even vote for her depending on who she faces on the other side, but I am not going to crown her queen 5 months before the primary campaign officially begins.

Remember right now, at this early stage, as with every presidential cycle, it is mostly name recognition.  People know Hillary Clinton's name more than they know the names of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, etc.  People also know Clinton's name over Brain Schweitzer, Elizabeth Warren, etc.  So, it is natural she would be ahead in the polls at this early stage.  Point is, I would not place any stock in the polls at this juncture whether they show Clinton in the lead or trailing.

[Maxwell]

Personally, I've had enough with invisible Hillary. She just keeps haunting Invincible Hillary, and I say to the invisible - SHOW YOURSELF

[Mister Mets]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

It's an interesting rarely considered question.

Her qualifications are impressive at this point. Let's ignore the significance of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She was essentially a senior adviser to a President who went on to become a prominent Senator, and then served in a prominent cabinet post in a later presidential administration.

And after the election of the first African-American President, the first female President seems to be the milestone the country's waiting for. There just isn't anything else on that level. Women represent half the country, and it's about time to have one in the White House.

The primary opposition also isn't that impressive. The Veep, the former Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the most prominent Governor are in their 70s. Edwards had a career-ending scandal. There's no democratic member of Congress who gets as much attention as McCain did eight years ago. There's no executive who dealt with a national crisis with the coverage Giuliani had during the response to 9/11. Some prominent progressives were recently elected to significant office, but the one best able to run for President was elected to statewide office in her 60s (It's very rare for a presidential candidate to rise to prominence that late in their career.)

She polls very well in the General Election, so anyone inclined to support her has little strategic reason to do so.

But that's not the main reason. After a divisive primary, Hillary Clinton did the right thing (as far as the party is concerned) and served in the administration of the guy who beat her. Her previous supporters love her even more (She's now even more qualified), but this has also won over a lot of Obama fans, who see her as someone who helped a transformational figure.

Serving as Secretary of State was convenient. It kept her out of domestic controversies, allowing her a lot of latitude when it comes to deciding how much she should embrace Obama's policies. She's currently a blank slate. Supporters of Obama see her as someone who could continue his work. His critics (among the left and the center-left) see her as someone who can do a better job.

[Lief 🗽]

If Clinton runs, she will win be the nominee. Unless she's assassinated or something ridiculous. There's no way she loses the Democratic primary otherwise. You can say she was a frontrunner in 2008 and she lost, blah blah blah. No, the two situations are completely different. No one as good as Obama is there to challenge her this time. She is must more popular this time. She is polling much higher this time. She'll have the near unanimous support of black voters this time. She's not going to lose the Democratic primary if she runs.

Now she may lose the general, but saying she only has a 50-50 shot there is ridiculous.

[IceSpear]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

Just look at the polls.  She is, in fact, unbeatable in Democratic primaries, and polls show her as competitive against her potential Republican opponents.  She is the best hope the Democrats have of keeping the White House.  Why this is the case is a debatable question.

She is "invincible" BECAUSE of the two factors. Do people know of her POLICIES? Do they know of what she wants to actually DO? That's all I'm asking.

Well at first you seemed to be arguing whether or not Hillary actually IS the frontrunner to be the next president, to which the answer is objectively yes she is (although that can obviously change). As to your second point about whether or not that's deserved, why she's so overwhelmingly the favorite among Democrats, or why she's ahead in the general election matchups, those are an entirely different set of questions.

Despite all the hand wringing from the right/left about how Hillary is a communist/warmonger, in reality she's a fairly generic Democrat with a bit of a hawkish streak. So why would typical Democrats NOT support her? I don't exactly see any of the GOP hopefuls putting forth any broad visions of change for the country either, just the same old failed Bush policies. Why is it only Hillary that has to "earn" support through bold and new ideas? Rarely do candidates from any major political party have those types of ideas in these times. And you forget, that Hillary has more experience than pretty much any GOP or Democratic hopeful does, spending 8 years as a politically active First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State. The fact that people (especially within the Democratic Party) have 90s/Clinton nostalgia and think it's time for a woman president certainly isn't hurting her either.

Every candidate in either party has to earn the nomination and then earn the presidency in the eyes of the voters.  Yes, Hillary has the most experience and probably starts with a leg up on the other candidates in either party, but we should not be going so far as to crowning her president still 29 months before the general election and 19 months before Iowa.  A lot can change between now and then.

I personally think Hillary would be a decent president, and I might even vote for her depending on who she faces on the other side, but I am not going to crown her queen 5 months before the primary campaign officially begins.

Remember right now, at this early stage, as with every presidential cycle, it is mostly name recognition.  People know Hillary Clinton's name more than they know the names of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, etc.  People also know Clinton's name over Brain Schweitzer, Elizabeth Warren, etc.  So, it is natural she would be ahead in the polls at this early stage.  Point is, I would not place any stock in the polls at this juncture whether they show Clinton in the lead or trailing.

Well, just as many people know Biden as know Hillary, and he still trails her by 40-50 points in nearly every poll. And Hillary also usually gets ~60% in a generic "Hillary vs. somebody else" question.

[OkThen]

Everyone seems to think that Clinton will run. That's fine to speculate, even if I personally don't think she will, but I just don't get why everyone who thinks that also thinks she is this unbeatable champion. Tons of topics are dedicated to her and how much she would slaughter every republican. What qualifies her of this treatment besides Clinton-era nostalgia and the fact that she is a woman, making people want to be "part of the tolerant ones" like Obama in 2008 because he was black ? What would she DO besides have different organs and have a certain last name?

Are you... serious? Wow.

[Free Bird]

While it may be true that her chances of being the next POTUS are less than 50%, she still has better odds than anyone else.  I would say right now, there is about an 85% chance she will be the nominee, and an even 50-50 chance that she will win if nominated.

But why? What are her qualifications besides the two I mentioned? Why is she treated like this political god-among-(wo)men

It's an interesting rarely considered question.

Her qualifications are impressive at this point. Let's ignore the significance of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She was essentially a senior adviser to a President who went on to become a prominent Senator, and then served in a prominent cabinet post in a later presidential administration.

And after the election of the first African-American President, the first female President seems to be the milestone the country's waiting for. There just isn't anything else on that level. Women represent half the country, and it's about time to have one in the White House.

The primary opposition also isn't that impressive. The Veep, the former Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader and the most prominent Governor are in their 70s. Edwards had a career-ending scandal. There's no democratic member of Congress who gets as much attention as McCain did eight years ago. There's no executive who dealt with a national crisis with the coverage Giuliani had during the response to 9/11. Some prominent progressives were recently elected to significant office, but the one best able to run for President was elected to statewide office in her 60s (It's very rare for a presidential candidate to rise to prominence that late in their career.)

She polls very well in the General Election, so anyone inclined to support her has little strategic reason to do so.

But that's not the main reason. After a divisive primary, Hillary Clinton did the right thing (as far as the party is concerned) and served in the administration of the guy who beat her. Her previous supporters love her even more (She's now even more qualified), but this has also won over a lot of Obama fans, who see her as someone who helped a transformational figure.

Serving as Secretary of State was convenient. It kept her out of domestic controversies, allowing her a lot of latitude when it comes to deciding how much she should embrace Obama's policies. She's currently a blank slate. Supporters of Obama see her as someone who could continue his work. His critics (among the left and the center-left) see her as someone who can do a better job.

That's my biggest concern with her. Quit being delusional and partisan, Obama hasn't been that good. I don't care what party is in charge. If she wins, Republicans still aren't going anywhere (but if they win Democrats will just be "the underdogs." God I hate this double standard whenever a party loses). I am concerned more if we will get 4, possibly 8 more years of the same garbage policies.

[RTX]

I think the biggest reason she is seen as invincible at this point is she has had the highest and longest name recognition of anybody else who is seen as a potential candidate. Regardless of one's political persuasions, this early on, someone who the general public has seen going from positions like first lady, to Senator, to candidate, to Secretary of State, is probably going to be the comfortable pick for someone being polled who isn't a political junkie.

I hadn't really heard much from Jeb Bush in between the 2000 election and more recently. I think hardly anybody outside of the Midwest or the habitual Fox, MSNBC or CNN viewer have heard of Scott Walker. The generic voter's exposure to the GOP candidates hasn't been more than a soundbite or two on the radio or an interview on late night TV at this point. That's true also for all the Democratic candidates, other than Clinton and Biden.

If these polls were showing this in June 2016, yes I think that she would be near-invinsible at that point. Now, I think it's more of a "who do I know and perceive is possibly somewhat like me" poll.

[NewYorkExpress]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

[IceSpear]

I still think that if Progressives could someone who is at least competitive in a Iowa Caucus, that invincibility goes out the window, just like 2008. As for the General Election... She's the underdog against Ryan (who almost certainly isn't running) and Walker (who probably is), it's a coin toss against Bush, Rubio, and Portman, she'd be the favorite against Cruz and Paul, and a mortal lock against Perry. (Am I missing anybody?)

If Ryan was such a great candidate, he would've been able to carry his home state in 2012.