Is Hillary gonna win this time?

Politico is out with a piece that questions the feeling among political junkies that Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next US President….

It points to several predictive methods that say….

Well, maybe….

Statistical models are based to different things….Past elections, incumbent’s approval ratings, economic growth…..Others use campaign strategy and tactics….And some just use daily polling period….

These model’s are just projections…..

Very few get it right this far out….

But the pieces seem to back up my feeling that the two people running WILL BE from the ‘mainstream’ of the party….I use the words establishment favored….

The bottom line of the piece is that Hillary Clinton may not in fact be the favorite even of we political junkies and the media seem to THINK she is….

The biggest assumption that all the models make is that Republicans and Democrats will nominate someone from the mainstream of their party—and that might amount to a fatal flaw in predicting 2016, when the GOP could pick a candidate, such as Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, who’s not favored by the establishment.

And other potential problems lurk: Models that suggest Clinton would earn 49 percent of the vote come with a margin of error that might make the difference; [Alan] Abramowitz worries that because there have been only six modern-day presidential elections in which no incumbent from either party is running, his model’s sample size might be too small; and in a race between Clinton and an equally talented, outsized personality, such as Jeb Bush, the qualities of the individual candidates might matter more.

But conceding that the models aren’t perfect isn’t the same as saying they’re not effective. When I talked with [Drew] Linzer, I argued that Clinton has an advantage. It comes down to women, I said, especially educated white women who, early polling shows, have a special affinity for the former senator and first lady. How can the GOP hope to persuade enough members of this group to break away to win swing states such as Colorado and Pennsylvania?

“It’s just way more complicated than that,” Linzer said. “For every argument that you can pick out of the cross-tabs, I can pick a counterargument. Off the top of my head: She’s not going to earn the same enthusiasm that Obama did among nonwhite voters.”

As he put it, our brains trick us into believing things that seem plausible but don’t hold up to scrutiny. It might seem plausible that Clinton is a favorite, but the historical record simply says otherwise.

“I’m sorry,” Linzer said, “to rain on your thought parade.”

Because, yes, to the scientists, it’s not our thoughts about this election that count. It’s the data.

More….

Note….

Alan Abramowitz…a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta…

Drew Linzer….. a political scientist who is an independent analyst in Berkeley, California.

image….ibtimes.com

Share on Facebook

26 thoughts on “Is Hillary gonna win this time?”

  1. Who do you mean by WE?

    As a political junkie, I am more apt to also look at the sort of “predictive intelligence” that the article references, rather than just be a cheerleader.

    The bottom line is that it is very hard for a party to win three Presidential elections in a row, the incumbent is still far away from being popular enough for voters to want to see a virtual third term, and Hillary is just not that good of a politician in her own right. Her husband and Obama were far stronger candidates in their times.

    Obviously, a lot is going to happen in this Presidential race, and it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. I think there is a reason though why Hillary and her handlers want her as far out of the public eye for as long as possible.

  2. The piece ACTUALLY isn’t a cheerleader one at all…

    It CLEARLY says that Hillary is at best 50/50…at worst up to lose….

    Yes it HAS been very hard to win a 3rd election by the sme party..
    But then we NEVER had a mixed race President either…
    My feeling is that in th end Hillary will try to gather votes by running as the first WOMAN President…
    There is NO statistic for that which could cut across party lines….

    I tend to agree that Hillary as a politician does NOT run all that good…
    But she KNOWS that..
    If she can get herself back to where she was at the end of the 2008 Democratic primary season though?
    She’ll be fine…
    Her OVERALL ptoblem is actually connecting with people..
    But that’s also Jeb’s problem…

    Barack Obama IS good in front of crowds , but Hillary beat him in EVERY debate…
    She needs to briung THAT game also to campiagn 2016…

    I also agree that Bill Clinton….Unlike his wife…
    Has that ability to walk into a room and ‘show the love’ much better that either his wife, Barack, or for sure Jeb…

    I don’t know why she is holding back…
    I don’t agree with it…
    But her husband did…
    And got away with it…
    Right now she has NO real worries about the nomination
    And…
    As I have pointed out here (Others are joining me)
    That isn’t so good ….

    We’ll see…
    But I want make sure that the Warren thing is put to rest…
    O’Mally, Sanders and other unnamed’s are dipping their toes…Biden is a stand in…
    But the spot IS her’s…

    Winning?
    Could be…
    But it’s just a COULD…
    That’s all…

  3. I was pointing out that the piece makes more sense than the attitude expressed by Democrats that she is a lock just because she is Hillary.

    I don’t know what you mean about Bill Clinton holding back.. because he did not announce formally until October? Well, he was still Governor at the time and definitely was not in hiding.

    Goodnight.

  4. Yup…
    That IS what I meant….
    Rememeber all those stories about Hillary NOT wanting a long campaign?
    I guess they where true…
    Anyways… As soon as she annouces this stuff WILL go away….

    With Obama and Bill?
    It was both guys FIRST go around…
    And BOTH probabaly enjoyed the campiagn much better than Hillary will…

  5. Of course Hillary isn’t SURE to win.

    Then again ,maybe she will.

    I don’t even get the “point” of this piece.

    Politico often post articles that are sort of self evident.

  6. Also all this talk about it being hard for a party to win three straight elections?

    True.

    Then again,No family has EVER had two sons of a former President win.

    There’s NEVER been a woman President or even a Woman nominee of a major party.

    There’s NEVER been a wife of a former President nominated or elected.

    Hell there’s never been a President from Florida!

    My point is just throwing out this historical stuff as matters of interest is fine,but attaching a great deal of significance to it as an “indicator” of anything is of no significance in my view.

  7. I’m willing to call Hillary the favorite based on the early polling, which has her throwing almost all of the Republicans (save Rand Paul, oddly) vicious beatings in the battleground states.

  8. Again, any Republican considering a run would LOVE to have Hillary’s poll numbers.

    Any of them who claim they’d rather be the underdog are lying.

    Sure she could stumble and lose. But anyone counting on that as some sort of fate is really being stupid.

    Simple as that.

  9. Is Hillary ever going to leave her the safety of her house again?

    Every sports team always starts the season undefeated and many often look like potential champions. Then, they actually have to play the game.

    Hillary’s past times around the track, including her 2014 book tour and campaign swing on behalf of several Democrats, were not encouraging for her.

  10. Big day for Governor Rauner here in Illinois. I have a feeling the vile directed at Scott Walker is going to look like child’s play when the Democrats start to ramp up their counterattacks here in Illinois.

  11. If she were a basketball team, her strategy would be to hold on to the ball for the entirety of the shot clock and somehow hope that whomever the other side nominates is bad enough to miss every lay-up.

    Not an inspiring game plan, to say the least.

  12. Well folks?
    Hillary is in a much better place than she was last time …
    She has no real opposition…
    Corey?
    You seem to want to run the general election already
    No can do
    The GOPer’s have another Bush running
    The other GOP guys will be doing there own political knife fights BEFORE they get to Hillary
    Me?
    I think Jeb will have to come off his high horse and get his hands dirty like Romney before he eventually gets the nomination

  13. Last time Hillary Clinton was running for President, there was an unpopular lame duck Republican in office. This time, there is a lame duck Democrat incumbent in office to whom she can be tied.

    I would not say she is “better off.”

  14. Corey?
    You should be worried about Rand Paul’s ground game…..
    I’ m sure you won’t want a Libertarian stealing the GOP nomination, do you?

  15. Ok, lest I be accused of wanting to run the general election too early, I should point out that Hillary may not be nominated. Heck, she might not even run or stay in the race.

  16. I do believe that 2008 was Hillary’s best chance. She had every reason to be nominated that year and blew it.

    This time, people want her to run, because after eight years of the Obama Cult of Personality thing, and the utter electoral devestation visited upon other Democrats across the board since his election, the party thinks they have nobody else out there, so they might as well try to make a play for the past.

    Typically, it is Republicans who are derided for just going for the “next guy in line”, but that seems to be what the Democrats are attempting. If the incumbent were popular and if the frontrunner were a political All-Star, it might work of course, but it does seem like Republicans will probably be able to grab ahold of the “future” thing this time.

  17. I think all this talk of a HIllary Clinton run is premature, not to mention very probably moot, seeing as how she probably defers to Trump when he jumps into the race.

    He and the Clinton’s are VERY close.

  18. Typically, it is Republicans who are derided for just going for the “next guy in line”, but that seems to be what the Democrats are attempting.

    Well, the role reversal is happening in more ways than one. The Democrats used to be the Congressional Party, while the Republicans were the Executive Party. Everything seems to be flipped on its head these days.

  19. Yes indeed…..

    It seems to be driving the GOPer’s a little crzay…..
    Being the majority isn’t that simple for either party’s leadership….

  20. Sort of left unsaid about the days of Democratic Congressional control in the 50s-80s is that it was somewhat illusory.

    Oh the Democrats had the numbers alright,but their majority depended on Southern Democrats,many of whom were MORE conservative than the Republicans of that era.

    There was little straight party voting back then and there were often shifting bipartisan alliances.

    It was TOTALLY different from the situation existing today.

  21. Good point on the Democratic majority which DOES have similarities in that majorities are seldom united all the time…

Comments are closed.