Will Hillary win by a smaller or greater margin than Obama-2012?

[RFayette]

It would be interesting to see the results of this one.

I vote "Smaller Margin" though by just slightly (as in, less than .3%)

[NHI]

It all depends on the candidate and circumstances.
Against Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee or Paul she'll win by a greater margin. Against, Bush, Walker, Rubio potentially smaller.

I honestly could see the '16 election be a 50-48 (Clinton) win.

[RFayette]

Here's how I see it:

Greater margin significantly (>1%):  Huckabee, Santorum, Trump, Carson, joke candidates
Roughly same margin:  Paul (crossover appeal cancels out base problems, if he can manage to win the nomination), Walker, Bush, Christie
Lesser margin significantly (>1%):  Rubio, Kasich

[ElectionsGuy]

Historically if a party wins 3 terms in the white house in a row that third election is always closer than the 2nd one.  The only example I can find otherwise is 1904. Plus, I'm really having doubts about Hillary exciting anyone to vote, this may be similar to 1988 in that sense.

[IceSpear]

Historically if a party wins 3 terms in the white house in a row that third election is always closer than the 2nd one.  The only example I can find otherwise is 1904. Plus, I'm really having doubts about Hillary exciting anyone to vote, this may be similar to 1988 in that sense.

Based on? Most polls show Dems are enthusiastic for Hillary.

I'll say slightly greater.

[MT Treasurer]

She will lose, so smaller margin, I guess LOL.

[RFayette]

She will lose, so smaller margin, I guess LOL.

I wish were the case, but you and I both know that is very wishful thinking.

[WVdemocrat]

I'd say greater. In 2012, Obama wasn't interested in expanding the map or putting up a fight in states which he could have won. Hillary is a fighter. She will try to expand the map, even if only by one or two states.

[ElectionsGuy]

Historically if a party wins 3 terms in the white house in a row that third election is always closer than the 2nd one.  The only example I can find otherwise is 1904. Plus, I'm really having doubts about Hillary exciting anyone to vote, this may be similar to 1988 in that sense.

Based on? Most polls show Dems are enthusiastic for Hillary.

I'll say slightly greater.

The majority of Democrats approve of Hillary, and she wins overwhelmingly in the primary. That is not equal with excitement. Do you think she would've turned out an equal amount of votes that Obama did in 2008 and 2012? She represents an establishment figure, in bed with big money, and her speeches are boring and uninteresting. Now that's not a fact, but I think we can agree Obama is a much more dynamic speaker than Hillary. Elizabeth Warren, even if she's less known and 'electable', would excite more people.

And besides, throughout the last year polls have failed spectacularly at predicting stuff worldwide.

[henster]

Judging by the PA & WA polls I've seen she will do much worse than Obama, she's trailing his 2012 numbers in blue states.

[TDAS04]

Not sure.  I think it will be close, though.  I'm guessing by about 5 points, so slightly greater.  I'm also predicting that she'll carry all the Obama-2012 states plus maybe North Carolina.

The country is so polarized now, that the election should be close, with Hillary getting much of the Obama coalition while losing those not in the Obama coalition.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Smaller; 272-290 electors; Va and OH as well as CO and Pa are tipping pts.

[TomC]

Walker will win the popular vote and Hillary will win electoral. Closer.

[IceSpear]

Judging by the PA & WA polls I've seen she will do much worse than Obama, she's trailing his 2012 numbers in blue states.

Cherrypicking. The entirety of all the polling data shows her winning by more than Obama.

[SteveRogers]

Smaller. At the very least Florida flips.

[Free Bird]

She'll lose soooooo

[Skye]

Voted smaller, but I want to know who the GOP nominee is first.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Here's how I see it:

Greater margin significantly (>1%):  Huckabee, Santorum, Trump, Carson, joke candidates
Roughly same margin:  Paul (crossover appeal cancels out base problems, if he can manage to win the nomination), Walker, Bush, Christie
Lesser margin significantly (>1%):  Rubio, Kasich

Greater: Santorum, Trump, Carson, Bush, Perry, Fiorina, Cruz, Graham, Pataki
Roughly the Same: Huckabee, Walker, Christie, Kasich
Lesser: Rubio, Paul

Jindal is somewhere between the first two since its tough to read what his campaign would be, but its virtually non-existent so why both thinking about it.

Paul would realistically win. Rubio would be a narrow loss. Kasich is Generic R and the map is badly tilted. Christie seems to somehow still do well across party lines (outside NJ), but it's not like he will be the nominee anyway because of his own party struggles. Walker continues to struggle. Though I won't count a victory outside the realm of possibilities, I don't like his chances at the moment Huckabee is vastly underrated as he has a high floor so long as he doesn't royally mess up which is still within the realm of possibility, but his low ceiling in swing states prevents a win.

Some of the Greater Than candidates (Bush for example) might not do too badly, but I don't consider a win to be likely at any point. (I certainly never did for Romney either, but some of the About the Same might be slightly better.) Bush doing worse than Romney is actually very likely.

[RFayette]

^I agree, but Paul's problem is that even a slight increase in GOP defection, coupled with a large # of solid Hillary voters, will make it hard for him to win.  He's going to need to stop trying to re-litigate Iraq (or do so treading very carefully) at least until the primary is over. 

[RFayette]

I also think Kasich is more than just a generic R.

Yeah, Kasich has a few things that help him:
-Successful governorship (assuming this legislative session goes well w/ the deficit)
-GOP director of '90s Congressional budgets........could help offset Clinton's economic argument (look at how great things were when my husband was in power) w/ Kasich pointing out that he helped write those policies

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2016 wont be a landslide.

It is a difficult election for Dems given it is a 3rd term.

I am confident Hilary can overcome that, though, the election will be close.

[The Other Castro]

There should be an option for the same margin, which I would pick.

[DS0816]

2016 wont be a landslide.

It is a difficult election for Dems given it is a 3rd term.

I am confident Hilary can overcome that, though, the election will be close.

A realigning election results, at least at some point, of the dominant party winning a third consecutive election cycle. The Democratic-Republican (1800 to 1824), Democratic (1828 to 1856), Republican (1860 to 1892), Republican (1896 to 1928), Democratic (1932 to 1964), and Republican (1968 to 2004) parties were not prevented from the opposition parties in having the experience of winning a third consecutive election cycle.

Perhaps you aren't aware that 2008 was a realigning election for the Democrats.

[Cryptic]

I'll say greater. Could totally be wrong, but we'll see.

[DS0816]

I'll say greater. Could totally be wrong, but we'll see.

You will likely be totally correct and not totally wrong.