Per Gallup, Hillary Clinton is the best known and liked potential candidate for President in 2016:
The ratings for potential Democratic candidats are pasted below:
…with Republicans here:
Please share widely!
Wonk Post: Best Known and Liked 2016 Potential Presidential Candidates
“Ready for Warren” launched this week, but according to this, she was wise to wait.
Hillary’s negatives are alarmingly high, but that won’t change.
Are far from “alarmingly high” but rather encouragingly low. And she benefits from huge name recognition too.
Doing the math, Hillary has a 40% negative rating (36%/91%).
By this calculation, Warren has a 45% negative rating with the other three Democrats at about 50%. The top Republicans are about in that range too with Huckabee at 39%, Paul at 42%, Rubio at 41% and Perry at 45%. Bush and Christie are worse off than Hillary too.
You appear to be assuming that the ratios will stay the same for the others, as name recognition grows. That will not be the case.
I am assuming that the ratios will stay the same as name recognition grows. Why wouldn’t they?
… and therefore affect the ratios.
They might move in synch, but I think it’s wiser to assume that they will change.
Of course, events will boost name recognition. But those events will be both positive and negative. For example, I’m sure Rand Paul will become more well known as he comments on foreign policy (likely a net positive) but also as his plans to privatize (destroy) Social Security and Medicare become more widely known (likely a net negative). The same is true for all the candidates (except Hillary who has a ridiculous 91% true name recognition).
It’s just silly to suggest that it is “wiser to assume that they will change”, especially when what you really mean here is “We should assume that, as a candidate gets better known, they will have relatively fewer people that view them negatively.”
I’d suggest it’s actually “wiser” to assume that the candidate’s favorability ratings will stay about the same (since nobody really knows whether a particular candidate’s increased name recognition will come from positive or negative publicity).
Rand Paul’s awful views will hurt his image, as they become more widely known.
I could say more, but I’ll spare you my nonsense. Please, opine without being questioned, and continue making assumptions about what I really mean.
This whole debate started when you suggested that Hilary’s negatives are “alarmingly high.” I then pointed out that (despite the “common knowledge” that Hillary is widely hated) her 40% negative rating is actually lower than almost all the other candidates. You said, yeah but favorability will change as name recognition increases. I replied that it seems likely to me that favorability will stay about the same (on average!) since name recognition increases based on both positive and negative publicity. To which you replied, Rand Paul’s favorability is likely to get even worse than the current 42% as he becomes better known.
So…. what’s your point about Hillary’s “alarmingly high” negatives again?
She’s been in the public eye for 23 years.
What exactly will move that number? Everyone else — including Biden — has room to move.
Damn near 40% of the electorate doesn’t like her. I’m glad you’re not alarmed, but I am.
She’s been in the public eye for 23 years yet only about 40% of the electorate doesn’t like her! And almost everyone knows enough about her to have an opinion. Very little is likely to move that number in a meaningful way.
Everyone else – including Biden – has more room to move (up or down!). And everyone else starts with “alarming” negative ratings that math or are lower than Hillary’s. History shows that it’s very rare for a candidate to greatly improve their favorability rating as name recognition increases. Obama got re-elected easily in 2012 with 40%-45% negative favorability ratings.
Seems like cold comfort to me, but vive la difference.
Just the same as her husband, both Bushes, and anyone who retires from public life. Fairly certain Colin Powell has good favorables again now that people have forgotten and to a lesser extent, forgiven the anthrax vial embarrassment at the UN. Having good approval numbers and winning a competitive partisan election are entirely different things. Fairly certain Joe Lieberman had insanely favorable numbers going into 2003 in the Democratic primary, and fairly certain he lost his own party’s nomination for re-election just three years later thanks to that national exposure to his idiocy. John McCain was still winning over 30-40% of Democrats at this time in the 2008 cycle.
It is early and premature to make grand predictions or promises. She is battle tested in a way no other major presidential prospect has been, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon in 1968, but her enemies list is as large as his, and includes many in both parties and across the ideological spectrum. While some neocons are getting ready for Hillary (which should trouble progressives), most Republicans are eager to defeat her and will relish the fight. They will put those numbers down, and they are already going down.
This is not to say she isn’t a formidable candidate or that the GOP is in any way shape or form capable of winning a national presidential campaign in 2016, but, her ceiling will likely be in the same 52-55 territory Obama got during his runs. We should not kid ourselves that she is going to be the next LBJ or that 2016 is the next 1964.
How the hell is it that 1 out of 11 people polled have never heard of Hillary Clinton? I guess people under 25 maybe? Does. Not. Compute.
This poll only shows that 1 out of 11 refused to say whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion. Based on the question, those were supposed to be people who have “never heard of” Hillary.
But, the historical record shows that 9% is indeed a relatively high and confusing number. The last Gallup poll (from early June) showed Hillary at 54%-43% with only 3% offering no opinion!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/173591/favorability-potential-presidential-candidates.aspxs_140717%20.pdf
I’m not sure why the number is so much higher a month later (2-5% seems like the usual number going back many years). Ironically, it seems like that as she gets back in to the public eye about twice as many respondents prefer to offer “no opinion” and/or claim they “never heard of” Hillary Clinton?
You have any insights in to this phenomenon?
Warren isn’t running, Jim. She has a job.
As in, waiting for another cycle. Which is not to say she’ll ever run; I have no idea.
I’m dubious she wants to do it.
…shows Hillary within 1 point of all the leading Republicans except Christie – she’s beating him by 4! Someone over at DKos ran the numbers: if she carries every state that was carried at least once by Bill Clinton or Obama, the electoral college goes to her by 434 to 108.
434 to 104, that is
That’s four elections we’re talking about. Virigina, for example … Obama took in 2008, but did not take in 2012, if memory serves. Assuming she can do that is a large assumption.
Christie is really problematic, because he makes deep blue New Jersey competitive and might even take it. If she has to campaign to hold New York, that’s bad. (That said I don’t think Christie can nominate.)
With all due respect, LA, MO, WV, MT, GA, TN, AR, and KY are not voting Democratic at the Presidential level for quite sometime. These are states no Democrat will have won in 20 years by the time of the next election, and the majority of those states were lost by Gore, Kerry, or Obama by margins of over 5%.
Maybe AR because of the Bill effect, and possibly GA which actually will turn blue before Texas does if demographics are to be believed. And I am confident that VA and NC will be blue in 2016, even though Clinton never carried them. Indiana, which went Obama’s way but never Bill’s, goes Democratic only in landslides, and it had it’s turn in 2008.
Realistically, I see Hillary carrying the same states Obama did in 2008 on a good day, and I might see AZ or MT added to that column, but that’s about it. We are living in a very polarized time, the Democrats could nominate Stalin and the GOP could nominate Pol Pot, and West Coast, Northeast, New England, and IL will vote for Uncle Joe, and the Deep South, Plains States, and TX would vote for Mr. Pot.
There were all kinds of analyses that showed the Appalachia just couldn’t get behind Obama, but loved them some Clinton. That’s the whole run — Georgia to Maine.
I think that Clinton will outperform Obama in Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It won’t matter for Mississippi or Alabama, but it will force Republicans to play defense in Georgia and Tennessee, and I do think that Kentucky and West Virginia will be in play for Mrs. Clinton. Virginia and Pennsylvania — she’ll be favored.
And, I think that she’ll be within striking distance in Louisiana, and could easily take Arkansas.
My map: here. Clinton 332, GOP 171, undecided 35.
Undecided: Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, and one CD of Nebraska. Clinton doesn’t lose anything Obama won in 2012.
If I heart Huckabee runs, I suspect that he’ll win Arkansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina, but won’t get any traction in the Great Lakes and has no winning map.
Between a white Democrat and a black Democrat, as opposed to a general election between a white liberal and a white conservative. I suspect her lifelong advocacy for anortion rights, newfound love of gay rights, and long time support for greater gun controls will lose her the states Billy won and Obama lost.
It definitely is clear that Obama isn’t popular in Appalachia. Even Kerry outperformed him there. Those counties were the only ones in the nation where the Democratic vote share went down from 2004 to 2008.
But black turnout for Obama was very high in states like Georgia. I’m not sure I see Hillary Clinton inspiring that turnout and, at the same time, peeling off enough previously Republican voters to tip the state. Even more so in Tennessee, which Obama lost by more than 15 points in 2008 and more than 20 in 2012. Al Gore lost Tennessee and it wasn’t that close. She might make them play defense a little in those states but not all that much. I also don’t see Hillary taking Louisiana in the end.
Happily, none of those states are needed to rack up more than 300 EV. At this point I’d expect her to win, and that I’ll spend the next few years as frustrated with the Democratic president as I’ve been the past five and a half years.
Bill Clinton took Georgia in 1992 by 13,000 votes, and Ross Perot got 310,000 votes in the state. In 1996 Bill Clinton lost Georgia. He did take Tennessee but Perot’s vote count again exceeded his margin (though not as dramatically).
The question is, does she have a better shot at gaining states he didn’t? I say the answer is a no. I think whether the right nominates Cruz or Christie, they carry the Romney states, and I think whether we nominate Hillary or Bernie, we carry the Obama states. Demographics is destiny. Which is why it’s important we get the right Democrat to represent our values, instead of giving Hillary a free pass.
It sounds like you’ve just called the 2016 race for the Dem nominee regardless of whom either party nominates. Not that I’d complain, but this is hardly a done deal.
I am simply stating that Hillary is not significantly more competitive than any other Democrat at this point, Obama’s 2012 states are her ceiling not her floor, and the states Romney won are their floor, regardless of whom they nominate. So let’s stop fantasizing about West Virginia or assume a Paul or Cruz will be another Goldwater. With the exception of NC or AZ, I can’t think of any other red state that would be realistically flippable in the span of the next two years. So let’s stop pretending we are ensured of a significantly better outcome with Hillary than we had with Obama, or a significantly worse outcome for the GOP than we had with Romney,
You said “Cruz or Christie” which I interpreted as standins for rightie or relative moderate and by implication anything in between. You said “Hillary or Bernie” which likewise I interpreted as standins for relative moderate or leftie and by implication anything in between. You then said they will carry the Romney states regardless and we carry the Obama states regardless. Since every state was either a Romney or Obama state in 2012 every state is spoken for and we get the exact same outcome. Since there is no reapportionment between these two elections the electoral count will be the same as well. What did I miss?
Bernie or Hillary (left or centrist) will win at most the Obama states, and Cruz or Christie (certified rightie, ‘media anointed moderate’ rightie) will win at least the Romney states. Fairly certain my second post clarified my intentions.
My point is, some here, like stomv, are arguing Hillary will run the table, I am saying, she can do as well as Obama or worse-same as any other Democratic candidate. Similarly, some are pining for a Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, Santorum-you name them nutjob to get nominated, and I am arguing they will do at least as well as Romney did, because that is just the nature of our polarized electorate.
The constituencies willing to vote for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter before him, in the Deep South, have long been lost to the GOP. And I certainly don’t expect an abortion and lesbian loving, gun hating, socialized medicine supporting librul Democrat like Hillary to win over Hazard County anytime soon. She can’t play Bubba as well as the original Bubba, whenever she tries to sound a little Little Rock, Park Ridge clearly comes out.
…though on the substance I do think HRC has a shot at a couple of states not won my Obama.
She will be tied to the hip to this administration, and the only way she can significantly differentiate herself (being more hawkish for instance on Foreign Policy), will force her to his right rather than to his left, and I don’t see that winning over significantly more independents or swing voters.
I will say, a Rand Paul/HRC battle would potentially be hard to predict. Assuming he maintains his heterodox worldview on questions of foreign policy and civil liberties, it will be quite interesting how that plays out. Already some neocons like Bob Kagan, are flocking to HRC, and her old drinking buddy McCain may back her over a ‘wacko bird’, particularly since he is in is ‘doesn’t give a shit’ phase of his career. I don’t know how that would swing the electoral maps significantly. Most Democrats would blindly sign onto the neocon vision, and frankly a lot of grassroots Republicans just have a hard on for the Pauls, so it’s unclear in that case.
I could see potential surprises in GA, KY, and WV, possibly IN and AR.
GA, AR, and KY all nominated Democrats who are children of beloved statewide political figures, who all governed as more conservative Southern Democrats than the Party of Obama and Hillary is known for. They all endorse Keystone, all endorse gun rights, and all have taken great pains to paint themselves as ‘post-partisan’. Don’t get me wrong, I want Pryor, Nunn, and Grimes to win, but can you honestly picture Hillary in this kind of ad?
GA and KY were both won by Mitt by over 10 points. Dubya won them easily against another Southern Democrat associated with Bill Clinton.
I am not saying it won’t happen, I am saying it’s absurd to say that we should tolerate Clinton as a more conservative nominee because she will win areas Barack didn’t.
You don’t think Clinton could win Arkansas?
Of your choice if she carries Arkansas in 2016.
Arkansas has gone hard anti-Obama and she’s been gone too long. It’s hard to keep your Arkansas bona fides when you buy a house in Westchester County and serve in the Senate from New York and then, after four years as Secretary of State, do not return to Arkansas or anyplace like it. Bill might help somewhat but no Democratic nominee since Bill has topped 45%. Obama didn’t reach 40%.
It’s not obvious to me that any Democratic candidate* would win Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, or Michigan. I’m not claiming that Clinton is the only one who can win them, or that they all go Dem or GOP together… just that I have no reason to thing that any Dem POTUS candidate can win them.
* To be clear, I’m talking about the one who makes it out of the Dem POTUS primary, not a fringe Dem POTUS candidate.
always flirts with Republican Presidential candidates but in the end it’s not that close.
By the media, to make Republicans look more competitive. SC and GA weren’t considered ‘swing states’, but they went to Romney by the same margins Obama comfortably won perennial ‘swing states’ Michigan and Pennsylvania. Hey, the media is doing us a favor, since both the McCain and Romney campaigns wasted a ton of money there.
PA hasn’t voted for a Republican since 1988, ditto Michigan, I put them in the Dem column permanently. MN, by virtue of voting for Mondale, actually has the longest Democratic streak going back to 1972, but it always gets bandied about as a swing state. I’d almost add Wisconsin, but it is sort of like NH, very unpredictable with a stark rural/urban divide. There are a lot of people I’ve encountered there who vote Democratic at the presidential level, and back tea party types at home, reverse Reagan Democrats if you will. Most polls show Scott Walker and Paul Ryan comfortably getting re-elected, while also easily losing their homestate in a presidential contest were they the nominees.
Clinton’s upper ceiling is Obama 2008, GA or SC might go blue by 2020 (and a lot sooner than Texas), and maybe AZ by 2016 if the GOP nominates someone totally tone deaf on immigration. But that’s about it. AR has gone to the GOP by over 10% in the last four presidential elections, so has WV. It’d be nice to win those areas back, I long for the New Deal coalition as well, but the future is winning over former moderate Republicans out West, while running the table with latinos and blacks. Southern whites will be lost to us for a little bit longer than LBJ predicted.
about her ceiling, or any other Democrat’s, as long as the floor puts them at or highly likely to get to 270. I particularly don’t care about Southern whites except insofar as they annoy me when they keep @!$%#ing up Congress.
That said, I do think at some point we should try to start persuading more people on the issues. We need to win the economic argument. Perhaps another crappy decade or two of austerity-land will get it through people’s (very) thick skulls. Perhaps not. My concern is that, with someone calling him- or herself a “Democrat” in the White House, the default assumption for lousy economic policies is that they’re failing because they’re too far to the left, not because they’re too far to the right.
And is one my conservative or libertarian leaning friends on Facebook keep harping on, same with the foreign policy questions (wasn’t hawkish enough). And what troubles me about that dichotomy is, it forces our party to the center-right on more and more issues, and the spectre of Nader compels the liberal left to just shut up and accept that. This center can’t hold for long, it’s why the buzz about Warren is so palpable, even though I have no doubts that she will be a candidate, and significant doubts about her qualifications if she does (sorry folks, she’s got zero foreign policy experience or even an interest in that subject). It’s why we are seeing people wanting Russ, Brian, or Bernie to run as well.
Martin O’Malley and John Hickenlooper aren’t the giant slayers we need, those other names likely won’t be either, for the straight fact that they are far too principled to compromise their positions for the beltway types who buy our elections. Obama went to Goldman Sachs and the Prtizkers early, arguing to some degree, that he would be more centrist than Hillary and more electable. It was a successful strategy. The cave ins on FISA and public financing, as a candidate, should’ve been my hint he wasn’t serious. But Thomas Frank was right, and I was wrong. And I am not ready for Hillary, since I am not ready to be fooled again.
Which is awesome, but also pisses me off since at the wedding of my conservative Republican college radio co-host, I shocked his guests at my table by predicting Obama would carry every 2008 state save for IN and NC. Had I stuck with that a week before, I’d have matched Nate Silver. Instead, I foolishly put VA in the red column for my work poll. I was still the closest and won the pot, but boy did I regret changing my mind since I would’ve had a perfect score.
The potential Republican field is so terrible, that it is incumbent on progressives to actually fight Hillary, precisely because she should coast regardless. But I want a Bernie or a Brian hammering her non-stop for her neoliberal economic policies, hawkish foreign policies, and downright draconian civil liberties record. Conor Friedersdorf makes an excellent point in this Atlantic article
And yet that depiction fits Hillary to a T, he goes on to contrast her to Russ Feingold’s record on these issues (to which I say Run Russ, Run!), and by simply bragging that she will win and giving her no big challenge, we allow her to run as a center-right candidate from day 1, and push the party further and further to the right.
I would rather we push the party to the left, and one, or even several, formidable and aggressive progressive primary challengers can at the very least force her to move leftward on key issues and hone her abilities to take the heat and fight back. And best case scenario-they can dethrone Hillary a second time, and we will get a more progressive President. With the field the right is primed to elect, we are getting a Democrat either way, let’s make sure that this Democrat is a good one.