Think Hillary Clinton Is Likely To win? Think again. - NationalJounal

[WillyT]

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

PREDICTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Think Hillary Clinton is likely to win? Think again.
BY ALEX ROARTY - NationalJournal
2/14/15

<snip>

Ask around: Washington is pretty certain Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win the White House. Democrats have a natural turnout advantage in presidential years, seasoned political operatives reason. Five of the past six popular-vote tallies have gone to the Democratic candidate. And early polls that show Clinton sporting a big lead, especially among women, have strategists wondering how the Republican nominee could ever catch up.

But outside of the capital, from Georgia to New York to California, there's another set of political professionals watching this race: academics and model-makers. And based on the data they track, Democrats have little reason to be so bullish about Clinton's chances.

"Viewing her as a prohibitive favorite at this point is misplaced, definitely," says Alan Abramowitz.

Abramowitz isn't a Republican pollster or a professional Clinton-hater. He's a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. And he and his ilk—the wonky academics who research in anonymity while pundits predict races on TV—offer the most compelling case for reconsidering Clinton as the likely winner.

"I would feel comfortable saying that it's a 50-50 race right now," says Drew Linzer, a political scientist who is an independent analyst in Berkeley, California. "But I don't think anyone would be wise going far past 60-40 in either direction."

Veteran political operatives regard these predictions as nothing more than musings from the Ivory Tower. But political scientists who specialize in presidential-race forecasts aren't relying on their guts. They've built statistical models that draw on the history of modern presidential campaigns (since Harry Truman's reelection in 1948) to determine with startling accuracy the outcome of the next White House contest.

The best-known forecasting tool of the bunch—and one that plainly spells out Clinton's looming trouble—is Abramowitz's "Time for Change" model. He first built it before George H.W. Bush's 1988 election, and he has used it to predict the winner of the popular vote in the seven White House races since. (The model predicted that Al Gore would win the presidency in 2000, when he became the first person since Grover Cleveland to earn the majority of the popular vote nationally but lose the Electoral College.)

The model uses just three variables to determine the winner: the incumbent's approval rating, economic growth in the second quarter of the election year, and the number of terms the candidate's party has held the White House. Official forecasts aren't made until the summer before the presidential election. But reasonable estimates rooted in current political and economic conditions demonstrate Clinton's vulnerability.

Consider this scenario: President Obama retains equal levels of approval and disapproval, better than he has had most of his second term; and gross domestic product growth in the second quarter of 2016 holds at 2.4 percent, the same as last year's rate of growth. Under this scenario, the "Time for Change" model projects that Clinton will secure just 48.7 percent of the popular vote.

In other words, she loses...

<snip>

More: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/predictive-intelligence-20150213

[JaneyVee]

1. A 50/50 race. Gee, what an insight!

You mean in a race between 2 people each one has a 50% chance of winning? Brilliant!

[HERVEPA]

4. Silly post. Implyiny always 50-50 in a 2 person race.

If the race was between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, do you think it would still be 50-50?

[WillyT]

10. The Post Isn't Silly... The Math May Be... But That's Why We Post...

To let you argue against it.

[JaneyVee]

22. I was being silly, on purpose.

But seriously, 50/50 are pretty good odds.

[WillyT]

23. LOL !! - True...

But not inevitable.

[merrily]

78. LOL! She lost to Obama after her odds were 70-30

[QuestionAlways]

46. According to this model it would be

The candidate plays no role in it

[HERVEPA]

76. yup. Apparently. :-)

[msongs]

6. yes but be sure not to go past 60 -40 either way lol nt

[Chiyo-chichi]

73. Yes, the 60/40 thing is a truly ridiculous thing to say. nt

[merrily]

79. Perhaps ike losing a primary after a 30 point lead?

[Autumn]

2. Interesting article and theories. Gonna bookmark this.

[Thinkingabout]

3. I wonder why the National Review is worried about Hillary. Oh, I got it, if Hillary is the DNC

Nominee the GOP don't have an answer to run against her. Yep, this would be the RW magazine to try and discredit her.

[BlueCaliDem]

34. This analysis has a MAJOR flaw in it - in that it's using President Obama's flawed approval ratings.

According to Pew Research Center, intense Republican hatred for this president (and we all know why) is driving down President Obama's approval numbers in national polls - in an unprecedented, unAmerican way.

According to the OP's National Journal (hit?)piece:

The model uses just three variables to determine the winner: the incumbent's approval rating, economic growth in the second quarter of the election year, and the number of terms the candidate's party has held the White House. Official forecasts aren't made until the summer before the presidential election. But reasonable estimates rooted in current political and economic conditions demonstrate Clinton's vulnerability.

According to Pew Research (the same Pew that illustrated what M$M wouldn't in 2012 - that President Obama was getting the least favorable coverage, only second to Newt Gingrich, and that Rick Perry was getting the BEST coverage):

Views of the president among members of the opposing party have become steadily more negative over time. Our 2014 report on political polarization documented this dramatic growth in partisan divisions over views of presidential job performance. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, his average approval rating among Democrats has been 81%, compared with just 14% among Republicans.

During Eisenhower’s two terms, from 1953-1960, an average of 49% of Democrats said they approved of the job the Republican president was doing in office. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, an average of 31% of Democrats approved of his job performance. And just over a quarter (27%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of Clinton between 1993 and 2000. But the two most recent presidents – George W. Bush and Obama – have not received even this minimal level of support. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/16/presidential-job-approval-ratings-from-ike-to-obama/

[onenote]

75. National Journal. Not National Review.

[Thinkingabout]

80. OK, the National Journal goes both ways also, just according to who is writing.

The article is obviously not trying to show Hillary in a good light, as son say here its all just numbers.

[RiverLover]

5. Take "National Review" off title, HUGEly diff from wonderful National Journal.

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. 3-2 odds is huge

Barack Obama did worse than any Democratic presidential candidate among white voters since Walter Mondale who famously lost forty nine states, and still won an Electoral College landslide, such is the power of the Latino, Asian, and African American vote.


So Drew Linzer and Alan Abramowitz have PHDs in Political Science. That doesn't make them demigods or clairvoyant.

[Reter]

20. I read somewhere that an Electoral Landslide is 400 EV's or more

Not that it was close. Obama won big.

[Renew Deal]

8. Does it mention what the chances are for other candidates?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Those are largely deterministic models that use a generic candidate for both parties./NT

[Scuba]

11. Yeah, but if she does win ....

... the American people lose anyway.

[BlueCaliDem]

29. And if she loses...

...working American people, women's rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights, wage-earners, etc., will lose BIG TIME because the alternative is a Republican who just might choose the next three SCOTUS justices.

[Scuba]

32. The "lesser of evils" argument. Why do you believe we can't do better than that?

[BlueCaliDem]

36. One Democratic president in the White House is better than two Liberals in the bushes.

You call it the lesser of two evils. I call it American stupidity and American democracy! The majority wins, and unfortunately, the majority of Americans in this country fear liberal policies like they fear ISIS.

Yes, we certainly can do better than that - by FAR. But it ain't gonna help nobody if we hold to that purist rule and wait for the perfect candidate (does she even exist??) and another Republican slithers his way into the White House, does it? Even Teabaggers understand that rule since they'll vote Republican NO MATTER WHAT, no matter how much they "hate" Republicans like Mitch McConnell, because they HATE Democrats more than they do any RINO.

[Scuba]

40. Yes, but one good progressive in the White House would be better yet. You seem to think ...

... that we can't win with progressive ideas, yet the 2014 results of minimum wage referendums shows that we can.

I'm not willing to settle for Republican-lite, and those who are willing are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. It's not thinking on my part, Scuba. It's fact. A brief look into past elections is all the proof

we need that Americans are terrified of any positive (liberal) change - although they're enjoying the benefits of liberal policies today.

Progressive ideas is, imo, a misnomer. Liberal ideas is a better description for what you and I want for this country. Progressive policies infer any policy that brings this country forward, however small. I'd like to see BIGGER steps. It's high time. But we'll get NOWHERE with a Republican in the White House. We'll either slide backwards or remain stagnant. That's why I say, better one Democrat in the White House than two Liberals in the bushes.

[Scuba]

48. Americans are not terrified of liberal ideas. Obama won twice running on them for god's sake.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. If that's what you want to believe, go for it.

Love for liberal ideas would've gotten us President Kucinich in office in 2008, not Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

55. I don't get the pretense that the only or even the most dominant reason a candidate

wins is policy.

I think charisma, appearance, personality, dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, response to marketing, and all kinds of factors are at play.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. What wins is largely about getting folks...

What wins is largely about getting folks who are inclined to support you to vote and discouraging folks who are inclined to vote against you to stay home.


Very few minds are really changed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. Was opposing marriage equality a liberal idea?

Barack Obama opposed it during his 08 campaign.

I don't cite that fact to denigrate Barack Obama who I admire but to point that successful politicians eschew ideological purity in favor of a more pragmatic approach which allows him or her to attain a plurality or majority of voters, without whom he or she can not get the opportunity to govern in the first place.

[Scuba]

88. Are you suggesting that Obama did NOT run on a progressive platform?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I am suggesting he trimmed some of his positions and kept to himself what he really believed

I am suggesting he trimmed some of his positions and kept to himself what he really believed in order to attract as many voters as possible. In light of his marriage equality epiphany I don't see how any rational person can logically dispute that.


Almost all politicians are trimmers, there are very few "conviction" politicians, and every successful politician has trimmed his or her positions at one time or another.

[Scuba]

94. OK. The sub-thread you joined was focused on the popularity of progressive positions, so ...

... please pardon my confusion about your point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Bobby Kennedy is my hero...

At the end of his life he was as close to a "conviction politician" as one can be. He literally broke bread with Cesar Chavez, toured Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Rio Grandee. He had a true empathy for poor folks despite being raised with a silver spoon but even he wasn't above trimming his positions out of electoral necessity.

[brooklynite]

74. So, do you have a progressive who can win?

Warren won't run, and I've never seen an explanation of how Sanders isnationally competetive.

[Katashi_itto]

51. I am not voting for her.

Happy to stay home and let the chips fall where they may.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. Get that out of your system now. Because IF she announces, and you claim

decisively that you won't vote for here in any post after that here, you'll be in violation of DU ToS.

[font color="red"]Vote for Democrats.[/font]

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Just thought you needed a reminder.

And yes. I've read your previous posts. I know you don't intend to vote for her should she run. Good thing I will, huh?

[Katashi_itto]

59. No problem with that. It won't change what I will be doing.

Once she announces I will not say what I did here until after the election.

[Bobbie Jo]

68. Principle before posting privileges!

Have the courage of your convictions!

Why should timing have anything to do with truth-telling?

Sheesh.

heh, your "principles" seem sort of arbitrary.

[Katashi_itto]

103. So Impoverished with the Illusion of Social Justice or Impoverished with no Illusion of social

Justice.

Yes, very important distinction.

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. The National Review is William F. Buckley's love child with the Conservative movement.

It is the intellectual center of the Republican Party and Conservatism.

Why would you accept that they will publish anything that is accurate?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The OP made a labeling mistake-it's the Nat'l Journal.

That being said I am not in the thrall of the deterministic models the author relied on to make his conclusions.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. Thanks for the clarificaiton.

[WillyT]

14. Because... Like All Mags... Right Or Left... They Might Produce A Kernel Of Truth...

And truth is what I'm seeking...

NOT political back-slapping propaganda...

[RiverLover]

16. Jeesh, Willy, you didn't post an article from National Review. National Review is TRASH.

ie, they advocate abolishing the EPA, they put down Progressives for advocating SCIENCE, and they truly adore Scott Walker.

Please remove the mistake in your title, pretty please??

[WillyT]

19. Done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Willy- it doesn't matter. You mislabeled it.

The National Journal and The National Review are two separate and distinct entities.

That being said, pardner, I have two questions.

Why did you post it and what did you infer from the article?

Those models aren't based on Hillary Clinton, per se, but of a generic Democratic and Republican candidate running in a predetermined political and economic environment, i.e. it doesn't specifically speak to Hillary's chances but to any Democrat's chances.

Again. the political scientists who built those models are neither demigods or clairvoyants.

[WillyT]

18. Fixed..

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. Posted to for later to find out who HRC could lose to. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. They are based on generic candidates. The dumbing down of DU continues.

Voting has become so demographically driven that if you tell me a person's race, age,gender, religion, income, region sexual orientation, et cetera I can predict with a reasonable amount of certainty how he or she will vote.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. I think you need to change you next to the last word to "might"...

You assume the percentage who WILL vote, and that is not certain. It's less likely to be certain by the end of this year, let alone next year…

If you control the demographics, you control everything. Not only shaping campaign propaganda, but supressing how they vote is part of this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I left open room for uncertainty.

I do personally know African American, Puerto Rican, and Mexican Republicans but they are the exceptions and not the rule.

Putting voter suppression aside for the moment I am not nearly as concerned as some about how much of a challenge it will be for HRC to turn out our base.


Although I am in the "demography is destiny" camp I am not naive enough to believe demographic voting patterns can't change. They just rarely change dramatically in one election cycle.

[MrMickeysMom]

60. Well, even I would admit to continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils...

I guess this is the no-brainer about HRC being the lesser of two evils.

I don't think people are as concerned (not purposely including you) as to how important it is prior to that choice to massively demonstrate as activists so that the concerns OF the base be actively engaged in the news every day. HRC is so caught up in who she has to please to get funding. This is our current disgusting state of never having moved the conversation because we have little of any campaign reform.

The people have to show up in protest before it ever gets to who wins the primary. When we keep being given "choice" this way, it BEGS for some major pushback from those who MIGHT vote to be lead by those who WILL vote. I no longer wish to be left with the lesser of two, as it has been demonstrated to have the same outcome.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. It's how you look at it.

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Putting aside the fact I don't believe Hillary is evil. IMHO, she's just another politician, albeit a successful one, who trims his or her positions to raise enough money to get the maximum number of votes while having some kind of ideological core.

You can look at that as the "lesser of two evils" is still evil or the "lesser of two evils" is less evil. My girlfriend is from the Philippines and lived under Ferdinand Marcos' martial law. That must have sucked but not nearly, nearly, ... nearly as much as living in Cambodia under Pol Pot or Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe would have.

Having a Republican in the White House when they already control the House, the Senate, the majority of state legislatures and governorships strikes me as unfathomably awful.

[MrMickeysMom]

66. It strikes me as awful, too...

But, go here and read what happens when you promise transparency, only to indict whistleblowers while allowing unbelievable things to happen on your watch - http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/17/kira-f17.html

… and tell me if you think this is a much better outcome?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. No answer yet

I'd bet my liver that most of the people didn't read the article or read the article and didn't understand it.



on edit- I was willing to wager another body party but decided not to write it down as it was too crude.

[randome]

31. 'Liver' is pretty impressive, though!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. If you accept the models at face value it is more likely than not we lose...

If you accept the models at face value it is more likely than not we lose regardless of who we run.

According to those models we could run someone with Eisenhower's war record, John Kennedy's charisma, and Franklin Roosevelt's political acumen and still lose.

[randome]

41. I know, models are only a starting point, nothing more.

Reality is that we could run a ham sandwich and likely beat the GOP in 2016. Too bad the office of President is the weakest branch of our government and all this hand-wringing is for naught!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. According to Drew Linzer he said he wouldn't go much north of 60-40 odds

If you go a little more north you find yourself you find yourself at 3-1 odds and that's huge.

In theory the executive branch was designed to be the weakest branch of all...After all, all the president is supposed to do is execute (carry out) the laws others have made but in real life he or she has much more power than that. But that's a discussion for another day.

[MisterP]

25. pssh, pollsters said the Dems'd lose both houses in 2014--who can trust 'em?!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. The models aren't based on polls

The models are based on how a generic Democratic candidate would fare against a generic Republican candidate based on a fixed set of conditions such as the GDP, the party that controls the White House and for how long, and how popular the person that occupies the White House is.

As I have said , ad infinitum and ad nauseum , Drew Linzer, Alan Abramowitz, and Allan Lichtman and those that create these models, while smart men and women all, are not infallible, demigods, or clairvoyant.

Their models are right until they are wrong.

[fredamae]

28. How Insightful

My, my, my--such a prediction when it's ONLY 633 days away...lol
I've been burned out on the 2016 election since 8:01PM PST Nov 6, 2012.
The Minute the polls closed "they" started talking 2016.

[randome]

30. Incredible, isn't it? {Yawn}.

The world continues to revolve for the rest of us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[RedstDem]

35. this hilliary juggernaut has to run its course

The only thing that will open hilliary supporters eyes will be four years of Jeb bush.

And it looks like that's where we're headed.

[BlueCaliDem]

37. BULL. With President Obama's campaign masterminds behind her and with him

having her back, and should Hillary Clinton decide to run, she will be our next president.

In order for Republicans to win the White House, they'll need 40% of the Latino vote. With the latest stunt by a G.W. Bush's appointed judge in Texas blocking President Obama's E.O. on immigration, do you think this will endear them to vote Republican in 2016? Really?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. A fifty dollar donation to DU says those that are recommending the article neither read ...

A fifty dollar donation to DU says those that are recommending the article neither read nor understand it.


As to Latinos I like you live in CA. The only woman more popular among Latinos than Hillary is Mary.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Exactly. There's going to be a huge backlash from the Latino community after this Texas judge,

a Republican and G.W. Bush appointee, decided to make a political statement against President Obama, and blocked his E.O. on immigration.

This xenophobic, racist judge is going to cost the Republican candidate - which everyone is already assuming is going to be Jeb Bush precisely because he speaks Spanish fluently and has a Mexican-American wife - and they won't get the 40% Latino vote they need in order to win in 2016.

My hope is that IF Hillary Clinton runs, she'll choose Mexican-American Julian Castro as her VP running mate. This move just might bring Texas' 38 electoral votes into the Democratic fold, considering that, according to the 2010 census, Mexican-Americans make up 38.1% of Texas' demographics with 40% being White. I'm certain the margin will be higher in 2016.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I forgot the exact line but it's the line that goes from downtown to Montebello.

I was discussing politics with this Mexican American woman. I mentioned Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and U S Ambassador. She had him confused for a moment with Jan Brewer and said how much she doesn't like him.

Republicans in CA really shot themselves in the foot with Prop 187 and now national Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with their opposition to amnesty.

I suspect there are a lot of Latinos who have relatives that are affected by immigration laws and I also suspect a lot of Latinos realize the immigration issue is just a proxy issue for how folks feel about them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I'm not being snarky but did you actually read the article and understand it?

The author of the article is basing his conclusions on the models of political scientists that suggest that it is more likely than not the Democrats lose the White House regardless of who the candidate is. And according to the models it doesn't matter who the Republicans run either.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. This analysis is flawed. They're using flawed polling on President Obama's approval ratings

to come to their conclusion.

When the variables are flawed, the outcome will be, too. It's simple mathematics, Willy.

President Obama's approval ratings are being negatively skewed by intense hatred from Republican ObamaHaters, according to the latest Pew Research analysis. And we ALL know why that is.

See my post here for further explanation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. These models are right until they are wrong.

It's based on the

-health of the economy
-the popularity of the president of the party that the current candidate represents in the election
-how long the party in office has held it.

It ignores demographic shifts to its peril.

[Motown_Johnny]

50. She was a terrible candidate in '08 and had to carpetbag her Senate seat.

Why anyone thinks she is a strong candidate for '16 is beyond me.

She already proved that her time as First Lady isn't enough to run on. If it was then Snipergate never would have happened.

She didn't spend that much time in The Senate and her time there is dominated by her leadership on the Iraq war. Again, something that can't really be run on.

Being Sec. of State is actually a negative (not that any Hillarybot will see it that way). We have not elected a former SOS to the White House since Buchanan and he was quite possibly the worst ever. Besides that, people simply do not see being our chief diplomat as a reason for becoming our Commander In Chief.

I see here crashing and burning, hard. I just hope it happens before the primaries are over.

[MrMickeysMom]

62. I listened to Daily Kos radio yesterday, and they agreed...

However, some politico weighed in on her odds. This tells me that it's all about raising money and having shittier people than you are to run against.

What has she ever done to guarantee those odds? I mean, really?

[Motown_Johnny]

96. The same holds true for the (R)s

It is all about raising money and having a shittier candidate to run against.

If HRC implodes after the primary, there is a strong possibility that she will be the shittier candidate (not that she is a shitty person by any measure).

[Android3.14]

56. Pay attention

Anyone with a lick of sense knows she probably cannot win, and if she does, she will do nothing substantive to promote Democratic ideals.

Ignoring evidence disputing her inevitable election is as stupid as ignoring her 1-percenter origins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Did you even bother to read the article?

The models are based on how a generic Democratic candidate would fare against a generic Republican candidate based on a fixed set of conditions such as the GDP, the party that controls the White House and for how long, and how popular the person that occupies the White House is.

According to some of those models we could run a candidate with the military exploits of Dwight Eisenhower, the charisma of John Kennedy, and the political acumen of Franklin Roosevelt and still lose.

As I have said , ad infinitum and ad nauseum , Drew Linzer, Alan Abramowitz, and Allan Lichtman and those that create these models, while smart men and women all, are not infallible, demigods, or clairvoyant.

Their models are right until they are wrong.

(REDUX)

[Android3.14]

98. My post was about ignoring data

What you are saying, essentially, is that because these smart men and women, who have created these models that have been accurate for most elections, are fallible, we should act as if they are always wrong.

By golly, because they predict a much closer race with HRC losing, this obviously means that she will win. Not.

"Their models are right until they are wrong" is a null statement. It's like planning a baseball game on a day with a significant chance of rain, because, after all, weather reports are right until they are wrong.

One of the obvious conclusions we should take away from these models is that if the Democrats do not satisfy the "need for change", they have a higher probability of losing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. The models were based on a generic Republican running against a generic Democrat.

If you believe those model were based on something else there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. I'm glad you actually got around to reading the article though.

[Android3.14]

100. Willful ignorance only results in disaster

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I understand the data

Oh, if you think those political forecasting models have the same accuracy as a weather report, especially a twenty four hour weather report, there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion either.

Barack Obama won the White House in a virtual Electoral College landslide while receiving a smaller share of the white vote than any Democratic candidate since Walter Mondale, who famously lost forty nine states and only garnered 41% of the popular vote in which was an essentially two man race, on the backs of Latino, African American, and Asian voters.

I don't see those voting patterns changing because the Democrats are trying onto hold the White House for three consecutive terms.


Also, in the article Drew Linzer said he wouldn't go much further than 60-40 on Hillary's chances. Three to two odds is substantial in betting parlors.

[L0oniX]

58. K & R

[Orsino]

61. She will win. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

63. Why? eom

[Orsino]

67. Because at several points before Election Day...

...the Republican nominee is going to have to open his mouth and speak. Sometimes Clinton will be there to make him look even stupider and meaner.

More seriously, Citizens United isn't yet able to install a Koch puppet when a rock star like Clinton is running. What it can and does do is ensure that a real progressive doesn't even dare try.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. I agree with the oddsmakers

All the evidence suggests that it's more likely than not she will win but it's by no means a sure thing.

[Albertoo]

65. Maybe too far to call.

Choppy international scene: Ukraine, ISIS
Choppy business scene: Grexit, barrel price,..
Name of opponent still unknown

She has some things to ride on: woman, experienced, ObamaCare

But far too many variables at the present point to run any model.

[Orangepeel]

69. According to the model, EVERY democrat loses

It doesn't factor in individual candidates at all.

[wyldwolf]

71. which explains the 13 recs (so far) and the OP's happy donkey kick

[wyldwolf]

70. Using his model, doesn't this mean ANY Democrat loses?

And is that why you put in the happy donkey kick?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. The level of political sophistication here is, often, not of a order higher than Free Republic,

The level of political sophistication here is not of a order higher than Free Republic, albeit from the opposite direction.


I am loling at the posters who are using the article to justify their cockamamie notion that only Hillary Clinton can't win when the article suggests any Democrat is going to have a hard time winning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. I predict that if Hillary loses the Left will be blamed.

[MrMickeysMom]

97. ^^^ Here^^^

No crystal ball needed, indeed.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. The methods used are generic, not Clinton specific. It is a negative view of Democratic chances at

retaining the White House, which apparently amuses the OP.

[libdem4life]

81. And make no mistake, the VP candidate counts, especially if it's Julian Castro. Hispanics are

under-represented and unappreciated...especially with this immigration nonsense by the R's, and he'll appeal to the Left. I predict that these three issues will turn the tide, no matter who is the Democratic nominee for President.

Plus Hispanics will see him as potentially the first Mexican-American President.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. Plus it will provoke the GOP to be even more xenophobic...

Plus it will provoke the GOP to be even more xenophobic, not only alienating Latinos, but centrist folks who don't like to feel they are part of a party that supports bigotry.

[libdem4life]

89. Very true, and often the small difference in the General Election is those Undecided Centrists who

do not declare allegiance to either party. By definition, they are not radical.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I am so interested to see how Jeb Bush navigates the Republican primaries...

I am so interested to see how Jeb Bush navigates the Republican primaries with his nominally pro immigration position.

[libdem4life]

93. They may give him a pass because of his wife. Not entirely, but the Bushes have a way with

not talking about unpleasant or inconvenient issues, and the press somewhat going along. He's likely the only Republican who can compete, so it probably ends up how party-suicidal the wingnuts are.

Also, he is frighteningly gifted with charm and words and the appearance of being moderate and thoughtful. I think they'll back off shortly before the Primary, already having appeased the wing nuts and looking toward the Nomination.

[Dawson Leery]

92. This model is utter nonsense.

Ted Cruz has little chance to defeat Hillary (or O'Malley/Webb/Warren/Sanders, etc......)

[SidDithers]

102. Bookmarking...nt

Sid