Likely Hillary Clinton popular vote margin and why?

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm guessing it will be about 54%.

[Meursault]

A plurality victory. Something like 48.50%.

[Non Swing Voter]

A plurality victory. Something like 48.50%.

Are you assuming a third party from the left will syphon 2-3% (greens)?

[Meursault]

Yes, coupled to a turnout rate comparable to 1996 and mass apathy.

[Maistre]

0%, she won't be the nominee because obviously she'll be primaried by the invincible Schweitzer juggernaut.

[Non Swing Voter]

0%, she won't be the nominee because obviously she'll be primaried by the invincible Schweitzer juggernaut.

When did the Schweitzer shtick start? 

[Mr. Morden]

There's no remotely reliable way to predict national popular vote margins this far out.

[Non Swing Voter]

There's no remotely reliable way to predict national popular vote margins this far out.

If scientists can predict global warming decades out then people can guess on an election between 2 main parties 2 years out.

[Consciously Unconscious]

A Hillary Clinton win in the popular vote will probably be between 50% and 52%. 

[Mister Mets]

Two flaws with the poll. There's no option for 49-50%, which seems possible in a close election. And I'm guessing "Under 55 percent" is supposed to be "Under 45 percent."

I'll go with under 49 percent. It would be historically unusual for Hillary to build on Obama's reelection numbers, but she is a reasonably strong candidate and does have a few advantages.

Technically Under 45 percent may be the likeliest as it covers two possibilities: a landslide Republican win, and a strong third party campaign (which could have Hillary kicking the Republican's ass 44 to 30.)

[DS0816]

I'm guessing it will be about 54%.

It's going to depend on the direction of the shift.

It's hard for the D+3.85 margin, by which Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote for his 2012 re-election, to be expected to shift Republican without the Republican Party and their nominee also winning over the U.S. Popular Vote (and, along with that, the Electoral College).

It's likely, if the Democrats win a third consecutive cycle (with or without the party nod going to Hillary Clinton), the popular-vote margin would become an increase.

One way you can tell this is with my favorite of all demographics: the gender votes. But cross-reference to all of one's delight and, aside from Hispanics and African-Americans and Asians and Others, one may want to ask if he thinks the Republican nominee (if that party loses a third straight election) will reach Mitt Romney's 59 percent of the White vote nationwide. (A 20-point margin of national carriage of Whites.)

As usual, much answering is the same: it depends on the national conditions. But with realigning presidential periods, it has not yet happened (when the in-party won seven of nine or ten election cycles) for the out-party to stop the in-party from having at least one occurrence of winning beyond two consecutive presidential election cycles. (From 1860 to 1892, Republicans won six in a row. From 1896 to 1928, Republicans won four in a row and, in the 1920s, three in a row. From 1932 to 1948, Democrats won all five cycles of the 1930s and 1940s. From 1968 to 2004, Republicans won all three from the 1980s.)

[tarheel-leftist85]

White (68.5% - 36% women, 32.5% men): 46% (Women - 49%; men - 38%)
Black (13%): 92%
Hispanic (11.5%): 74%
Asian (4%): 68%
Other (3%): 65%
______________________________________________
TOTAL - 55.13%

[DS0816]

White (68.5% - 36% women, 32.5% men): 46% (Women - 49%; men - 38%)
Black (13%): 92%
Hispanic (11.5%): 74%
Asian (4%): 68%
Other (3%): 65%
______________________________________________
TOTAL - 55.13%

According to CNN, Election 2012 results for re-election of Democratic president Barack Obama were:

WHITE (72): 39%
AFRICAN-AMERICAN (13): 93%
HISPANIC (10): 71%
ASIAN (03): 73%
OTHER (02): 58%


If Hillary would be increasing among almost all groups, I don't think Asians would reduce their support as you suggest. (Neither would African-Americans.)

[IceSpear]

Yes, coupled to a turnout rate comparable to 1996 and mass apathy.

Who's apathetic? Hillary may poll horribly among sage scholars, but most Democrats are enthusiastic for her potential run.

Oh, and to answer the question: between 52% and 55%.

[eric82oslo]

I'm guessing it will be about 54%.

Agreed.

[pbrower2a]

Around 55%, Hillary Clinton losing only states that have never voted for a Democratic nominee for President after 1996, and picking up Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri.

[Mister Mets]

I'm guessing it will be about 54%.

It's going to depend on the direction of the shift.

It's hard for the D+3.85 margin, by which Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote for his 2012 re-election, to be expected to shift Republican without the Republican Party and their nominee also winning over the U.S. Popular Vote (and, along with that, the Electoral College).

It's likely, if the Democrats win a third consecutive cycle (with or without the party nod going to Hillary Clinton), the popular-vote margin would become an increase.

One way you can tell this is with my favorite of all demographics: the gender votes. But cross-reference to all of one's delight and, aside from Hispanics and African-Americans and Asians and Others, one may want to ask if he thinks the Republican nominee (if that party loses a third straight election) will reach Mitt Romney's 59 percent of the White vote nationwide. (A 20-point margin of national carriage of Whites.)

As usual, much answering is the same: it depends on the national conditions. But with realigning presidential periods, it has not yet happened (when the in-party won seven of nine or ten election cycles) for the out-party to stop the in-party from having at least one occurrence of winning beyond two consecutive presidential election cycles. (From 1860 to 1892, Republicans won six in a row. From 1896 to 1928, Republicans won four in a row and, in the 1920s, three in a row. From 1932 to 1948, Democrats won all five cycles of the 1930s and 1940s. From 1968 to 2004, Republicans won all three from the 1980s.)

It would be unprecedented for the margin to shift towards Democrats in 2016.

It's possible, but it hasn't happen.

Since 1932, the margin has always declined for the party that wins a second term, even if the decline isn't all that bad (IE- as it was from 1936 to 1940 or 1984 to 1988.)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I'm thinking it will be somewhere in the low 60s.  Obviously I'm being generous to the GOP here.  Hillary could win up to 70% of the vote!  That's how inevitable it is.

[IceSpear]

I'm guessing it will be about 54%.

It's going to depend on the direction of the shift.

It's hard for the D+3.85 margin, by which Barack Obama won the U.S. Popular Vote for his 2012 re-election, to be expected to shift Republican without the Republican Party and their nominee also winning over the U.S. Popular Vote (and, along with that, the Electoral College).

It's likely, if the Democrats win a third consecutive cycle (with or without the party nod going to Hillary Clinton), the popular-vote margin would become an increase.

One way you can tell this is with my favorite of all demographics: the gender votes. But cross-reference to all of one's delight and, aside from Hispanics and African-Americans and Asians and Others, one may want to ask if he thinks the Republican nominee (if that party loses a third straight election) will reach Mitt Romney's 59 percent of the White vote nationwide. (A 20-point margin of national carriage of Whites.)

As usual, much answering is the same: it depends on the national conditions. But with realigning presidential periods, it has not yet happened (when the in-party won seven of nine or ten election cycles) for the out-party to stop the in-party from having at least one occurrence of winning beyond two consecutive presidential election cycles. (From 1860 to 1892, Republicans won six in a row. From 1896 to 1928, Republicans won four in a row and, in the 1920s, three in a row. From 1932 to 1948, Democrats won all five cycles of the 1930s and 1940s. From 1968 to 2004, Republicans won all three from the 1980s.)

It would be unprecedented for the margin to shift towards Democrats in 2016.

It's possible, but it hasn't happen.

Since 1932, the margin has always declined for the party that wins a second term, even if the decline isn't all that bad (IE- as it was from 1936 to 1940 or 1984 to 1988.)

http://xkcd.com/1122/

Not directly comparable, but illustrates pretty well why trends of this nature are overstated.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm thinking it will be somewhere in the low 60s.  Obviously I'm being generous to the GOP here.  Hillary could win up to 70% of the vote!  That's how inevitable it is.

LOL. Clinton winning 70% in MS, 80% in West Virginia, 90% in Arkansas, 70% in Alabama, 80% in Tennessee and Kentucky, but only 50% in NV, OH, and CO.....

Chance of the above map happening: 0%

[IceSpear]

I'm thinking it will be somewhere in the low 60s.  Obviously I'm being generous to the GOP here.  Hillary could win up to 70% of the vote!  That's how inevitable it is.

LOL. Clinton winning 70% in MS, 80% in West Virginia, 90% in Arkansas, 70% in Alabama, 80% in Tennessee and Kentucky, but only 50% in NV, OH, and CO.....

Chance of the above map happening: 0%

He was obviously trolling. Many Republicans think that being excessively hyperbolic will somehow cover up Hillary's very real strength as a candidate and her large lead in the polls. Think of it as a "reverse unskewing".

They also talk about how current polls mean nothing, but cheer every time a poll shows Hillary's ratings dropping. Go figure.

[Simfan34]

52-54%

[RR1997]

52%-53%

I just don't see her doing better than Obama in 08'.

[henster]

If she wins slightly better than Obama's 2012 PV around 52% and if she's losing she ends up around 48% which seems to be the Dems floor. The country is just too polarized for her to be winning in a landslide and with Obama's JA underwater there will definitely be Obama fatigue dragging her down.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

LOL. Clinton winning 70% in MS, 80% in West Virginia, 90% in Arkansas, 70% in Alabama, 80% in Tennessee and Kentucky, but only 50% in NV, OH, and CO.....

Chance of the above map happening: 0%

He was obviously trolling. Many Republicans think that being excessively hyperbolic will somehow cover up Hillary's very real strength as a candidate and her large lead in the polls. Think of it as a "reverse unskewing".

They also talk about how current polls mean nothing, but cheer every time a poll shows Hillary's ratings dropping. Go figure.
[/quote]

I was being sarcastic.  I was making fun of the idea that Hillary is literally unstoppable and that millions of Southern Republicans who hated Obama will suddenly jump ship for Clinton.

Hillary will probably beat most Republicans, but it won't likely be a landslide.