How can Secretary Clinton be such a heavy favorite?
Democrat Party 5/9
Republican Party 3/2
Any Other Political Party 50/1
Living abroad, I guess I don't get the entire picture of my country, but it just seems remarkable to me that Secretary Hillary Clinton is such a solid favorite to win the next presidential election. I guess what my friend says about FOX News is correct.....
"Among Florida Democrats, 34 percent of those polled support Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York for the Democratic presidential nomination. The senator from New York is far ahead of her rivals in the new survey by Quinnipiac University. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is in second place at 16 percent."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/07/
...but there was a contender moving up in the field challenging her within her party:
Hillary Clinton: 3-1 (Much has changed in the past 6 weeks since I last posted. The Clintons are scrambling to deal with an effective challenge from the left by Obama. But they are old pros and it'd be a mistake to count them out. She's still the favorite, but also is her own worst enemy.)
Barack Obama: 6-1 (Running a very solid campaign so far. Stealing a good amount of traditional Democratic money away from Hillary, while clinging to the (mis)perception of being an outsider. I still think he ends up as the veep choice, but he's definitely got a shot.)
http://politicalspectrum.blogspot.com/2007/03/big-daddys-presidential-odds-vol-2.html
She is pretty much all alone in the Democrat field, unlike 2007:
"Hillary Clinton dominates among Democratic voters nationwide, with 57 percent, compared to 60 percent April 23. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has 15 percent with Vice President Joseph Biden at 9 percent. No other candidate tops 1 percent with 14 percent undecided."
...and, as the only currently viable candidate, also wins head to head polls against the relatively unknown Republican field:
"In a general election matchup, Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio. She leads other top Republicans:
46 - 37 percent over Christie;
47 - 40 percent over Huckabee;
47 - 37 percent over Bush;
46 - 38 percent over Walker;
48 - 37 percent over Cruz;
50 - 32 percent over Trump."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228
Hillary Clinton has been the First lady, a Senator, and Secretary of State. Her husband was the President. There is no realistic way for any of the candidates to have much higher name recognition at this point in the campaign. Name recognition is more important that substance at this point; that comes later in the campaign.
She'll have a clear path to the nomination; I expect her to stay the favorite overall at least until the strongest candidates emerge on the other side. Once it narrows down and those folks go through the ups and downs of being rectally examined by the press and attacked by their supposed friends, we'll get to the substance of the election. We'll see what happens after that!
However, next year she will continue to be ahead because the country is becoming more socially liberal by the day and the Democratic base is growing. While the Republicans refuse to adapt and still only cater to their shrinking base of the three Rs: the super rich, racists, and religious people.
Quote: ams288The reason why she is ahead is because it's very very early and she has the most name recognition. It's as simple as that.
However, next year she will continue to be ahead because the country is becoming more socially liberal by the day and the Democratic base is growing. While the Republicans refuse to adapt and still only cater to their shrinking base of the three Rs: the super rich, racists, and religious people.
That is complete hogwash. Republicans wouldn't own the South if being rich was a prerequisite to voting Republican. The areas of this country that have the most money like New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago are all bastions of liberalism. I personally think the people who are economically comfortable tend to vote Republican, but numbers indicate that the super rich and super poor tend to vote liberal, the Republicans tend to own the people who are comfortable but not the kind that has generational wealth. Racism exists on both sides of the aisle, it's just applied differently. Personally, I think it is more racist to tell someone that the government needs to help you because you, as a(n) (insert race here) are incapable of helping yourself. The bigotry of low expectations is a very real thing in this country. Religious people is also another misnomer. Yes, evangelicals tend to vote Republican, but Catholics and Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly liberal. Everyone has heard the talking points of racist, rich and religious to describe Republicans and everyone has heard the term tax and spend democrat but IMO those stereotypes don't tend to have a lot of footing in reality
Quote: ams288The reason why she is ahead is because it's very very early and she has the most name recognition. It's as simple as that.
However, next year she will continue to be ahead because the country is becoming more socially liberal by the day and the Democratic base is growing. While the Republicans refuse to adapt and still only cater to their shrinking base of the three Rs: the super rich, racists, and religious people.
Well, the GOP base is shrinking I agree. Fewer and fewer people want to work for a living.
Quote: AZDuffmanShe is already losing ground to some GOP frontrunners.
Other than gambling markets what criteria could we use to possibly know that anyone is either gaining or losing ground?
Quote: Gabes22Personally, I think it is more racist to tell someone that the government needs to help you because you, as a(n) (insert race here) are incapable of helping yourself.
No. Just no.
ACTUAL racism is more racist.
It was very telling this week when multiple Republican candidates were unwilling to say that the Charleston church shooter's motivation was pure racism and hatred. They were afraid to upset a key portion of their base.
Quote: TomGOther than gambling markets what criteria could we use to possibly know that anyone is either gaining or losing ground?
Various polls. There have been a few.
Quote: AZDuffmanShe is already losing ground to some GOP frontrunners. She will continue to do so, her trustworthy and likability numbers are horrible.
It's a well known and proven fact, known to
everybody who pays attention, that the more
you see of Hillary, the more her numbers go
down. It's why she lost in 08. She's not likable
or personable. She's a terrible speaker and is
especially bad at thinking on her feet. Her
husband is very good at all of it, that's what
people see in Hillary. They see Bill.
Quote: EvenBobIt's a well known and proven fact, known to
everybody who pays attention, that the more
you see of Hillary, the more her numbers go
down. It's why she lost in 08. She's not likable
or personable. She's a terrible speaker and is
especially bad at thinking on her feet. Her
husband is very good at all of it, that's what
people see in Hillary. They see Bill.
She is like when you work for a small company and like the owner, but his wife sticks her nose into everything while not having a clue what is going on. I never like Bill, he is not trustworthy and has extremely low morals. Kind of a liberal version of Don Draper. But like Draper, at least he is good at his job. Hillary is the kind of boss who you know is incompetent, hardly anybody likes working for. I mean, she is such a twit that she thinks businesses do not create jobs for crying out loud! Yet she has frozen the primary of her party so that nobody will move. Amazing.
Quote: AZDuffmanVarious polls. There have been a few.
You definitely will be earning a lot of money on all elections betting based on these polls that the gambling markets don't give much credit to
Unless, of course, these poll results really don't mean anyone has gained or lost ground
Quote: AZDuffmanYet she has frozen the primary of her party so that nobody will move. Amazing.
They have been running the party for 23
years. They have so much influence and
power, everybody is terrified of them.
Nobody likes Hill, except to her face. She's
like the Mafia don that everybody despises
behind his back. You hate him, you don't
want him there, but you have no choice.
Quote: Dicenor33Don't matter much of what you say, as long as unions and minorities back you up you got a real chance.
Do you think unions have that much power anymore?
Do you think all minorities will back one party or another or is it just "some" minorities? You paint a lot of people with a pretty broad brush, IMO.
"What?! Everyone doesn't hate Hillary?"
"The polls weren't skewed?!"
Quote: ams288
"What?! Everyone doesn't hate Hillary?"
"The polls weren't skewed?!"
You mean like in 08 when she won the
nomination? Oh, wait...
Quote: petroglyphDo you think unions have that much power anymore?
Unions hold a lot of sway. Still about 8-9% of the workforce plus their retired guys still often support them. And do not forget about the money they steal from their membership. Always a huge help.
Quote: EvenBobYou mean like in 08 when she won the nomination? Oh, wait...
I've said it everywhere else, so I'll say it here..."the polls" didn't take the superdelegates, most of whom voted for Obama, into account.
As to why she's a favorite to win, in my opinion, she's not as far to the left as, say, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, so more Republicans in "swing states" are likely to vote for her over a "far right" Republican candidate - and "moderate" Republicans tend to get swept aside in the primaries.
Maybe not "all minorities." But some of them are relied on for 60, 70, 80 and even 90 percent loyal bloc voting, as we have all witnessed in the last few national elections.Quote: petroglyphDo you think all minorities will back one party or another or is it just "some" minorities? You paint a lot of people with a pretty broad brush, IMO.
To begin with, the OP gave the odds that a particular party is favored to win the White House. Then the OP asked why Secretary Clinton is a heavy favorite, which is a different question. (If you'd like to know why Clinton beats Sanders, Chafee, and O'Malley, you could do worse than reading this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/27/hillary_clintons_grip_on_the_invisible_primary.html .)
The Democratic Party may or may not be favored because of economic and political fundamentals. Retrospective evaluations of how the economy is doing, plus voter demographics and support for the incumbent, will matter.
Here's a pessimistic take for the Dems: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/18/the-democratic-partys-uphill-battle-to-270-electoral-votes-in-2016/
Here's an optimistic take for the Dems: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/28/a-big-electoral-college-advantage-for-the-democrats-is-looming/
Both articles are from people who get paid to study presidential elections.
We'll have to wait and see how the economy does in early 2016 to see if the party currently holding the White House holds onto it.
Commenters' opinions about Hillary's likeability, racism, and jobs/handouts is just so much hot air and the stuff that comes out of the back end of the horse.
Quote: harvson3
Commenters' opinions about Hillary's likeability, racism, and jobs/handouts is just so much hot air and the stuff that comes out of the back end of the horse.
And your opinion is what, golden? Why is
it more valuable than anybody else's. Just
a different horse is all..
Quote: EvenBobAnd your opinion is what, golden? Why is
it more valuable than anybody else's. Just
a different horse is all..
Oi, Boboso, gracias por la respuesta. I subscribe to a view that models based on economic and political fundamentals can help us predict presidential elections. Michael Lewis-Beck taught me that. There are numerous studies out there that support this view; there are competing views that poll aggregation provides better predictions, but we don't have the poll data yet. I wouldn't say that this view is golden, but it's certainly more empirically grounded than are claims that people are lazier now, or that unions will tip the outcome, or that Hillary will lose because everyone dislikes her. Have a good night.
Quote: harvson3
To begin with, the OP gave the odds that a particular party is favored to win the White House. Then the OP asked why Secretary Clinton is a heavy favorite, which is a different question.
I assumed Secretary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democratic party, therefore asked why she was such a heavy favorite. You are correct but I think my assumption is well founded.
Getting 3 for 2 on the Republican nominee seems like a very good wager and a bit off to me. That's why I asked. Certainly the odds will change the closer we get to said election.
That said, again, I should post the disclaimer the only American TV news I get in my area is FOX News Channel. I don't watch it, but I do listen to it. BBC is very boring and Aljeezar(spelling) isn't much better, so I'm left with FOX and do like American based news vs "international".
ps: Some of you Americans would be amazed at how large the "illegal immigration" problem is outside the US vs. Mexican situation. It, said Mexican problem, pales in comparison to other parts of the world.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-23/obama-faces-union-anger-ahead-corporate-coup-detat-trade-deal-fast-track-vote#comments
This is way beyond NAFTA in the harm it does to working class Americans. Third world, this way comes.
afraid, like she just saw herself in the
mirror. Somebody should get her
Botox as a gift.
Quote: EvenBobYou mean like in 08 when she won the
nomination? Oh, wait...
You mean like in 2012, when Romney won in a landslide?
Rand Paul is much closer to a Liberatarian than a social-demo. And if wishes were horses, I'd bet Paul v. Trump.
But wait, both of those have the job of Ross Perot. Get that 3rd party in there to steal votes. Now if you REALLY wanna mess up the election have a Trump/Paul ticket against the Donks and the Reps.
Now, we hear how she could not figure out how to use a fax machine!
It is not like fax machines had not been around 25 years when she was SoS.
Now, remember when Bush41 marveled at a new scanning cash register at a trade show and the media made it out like he never saw one at all? He was just marveling at how far they had come. Will Hillary get the same treatment? Will our lamestream media cover this at all?
45 million dollars and the election is way off in the future.
Big money always follows the obvious winner
Quote: terapinedHer campaign picked up 45 million last quarter
45 million dollars and the election is way off in the future.
Big money always follows the obvious winner
Like it did at this point in 2007?
Quote: AZDuffmanLike it did at this point in 2007?
Educate me, how much did her campaign rake in that quarter 8 years ago?
Was it 45 mil? or a lot less.
Gotta tell you, 45 million is a lot of money, a tremendous amount this early. Besides Trump, is any other Repub candidate raising this much coin last quarter?
Quote: terapinedEducate me, how much did her campaign rake in that quarter 8 years ago?
Was it 45 mil? or a lot less.
Gotta tell you, 45 million is a lot of money, a tremendous amount this early. Besides Trump, is any other Repub candidate raising this much coin last quarter?
Not "a lot less" when you consider fundraising trends.
Quote: Wikipedia
On April 1, 2007, Clinton announced she had raised $26 million during the preceding three months, along with an additional transfer of $10 million from her Senate campaign account to her presidential account.
For the second quarter of 2007, Clinton raised about $27 million, less than Obama's newly set records for the quarter of $32.5 million in donations from 258,000 contributors but more than all other candidates.
I haven't heard of Trump raising any money. The GOP has more candidates and does not have the wealthy donor base Hillary has.
Maybe she can use some of that cash to actually pay her interns?
Quote: AZDuffman
Now, remember when Bush41 marveled at a new scanning cash register at a trade show and the media made it out like he never saw one at all?
He didn't have to shop then, most likely had never been in a supermarket or any other retail outlet. I recall it as being just a fact, he'd never seen one. No big deal. A lot of rich people don't mix with rest of the people. They don't have to and don't want to, plus, it isn't safe to.
Quote: NokTangHe didn't have to shop then, most likely had never been in a supermarket or any other retail outlet. I recall it as being just a fact, he'd never seen one. No big deal. A lot of rich people don't mix with rest of the people. They don't have to and don't want to, plus, it isn't safe to.
He had seen and understood scanners. He was looking at an upgraded model that had yet to hit the stores. Chances are he would have shopped pre-VP and even as VP he probably at the least did some photo-ops. It was a hit piece. MSNBC tried the same nonsense with Romney when he said how great the automated ordering at a C-Store was to compare it to government services.
Quote: 98ClubsName another Democratic Party Candidate that COULD win the election. I think there's no other choice for the socialists nee Demo's.
Rand Paul is much closer to a Liberatarian than a social-demo. And if wishes were horses, I'd bet Paul v. Trump.
But wait, both of those have the job of Ross Perot. Get that 3rd party in there to steal votes. Now if you REALLY wanna mess up the election have a Trump/Paul ticket against the Donks and the Reps.
I think a Paul/Sanders ticket would be fun. They're ideologically opposed on economic issues, but could say "we need to come together and fix..." then have a list of stuff, like ending the drug war, breaking up the military industrial complex, restoring the 4th ammendment, etc. It would put a lot of heat on the mainstream candidates, who would have to explain why they would oppose such measures.
But most of all, I think there needs to be a narrative for the media and at least some kind of show challenge, if not a real one. It's just hard for me to see a non-incumbent cruising through as an 84% favorite the entire time.
In a way it is no surprise, her supporters fall into the category of "people want to be told what to do so bad they will listen to anything" so they will lap up and repeat the talking points. I kind of think this will be the usual Hillary, trying to be so "smart" about something she ends up being too smart by half and it backfires in her face. When all supporters say the same thing the media will quickly get bored as will the public.
Quote: pewI find it interesting that other than H. C. the dems have so few people who could seriously run. Like them or not the repubs have a huge number of rising stars with many different views. I like it.
I don't see rising stars on the republican side in relation to leading the entire country. I believe many of those candidates agree with the American people regarding gay marriage. The problem is that they have to disagree with the majority of people and cater to the haters on the far right determined to fight gay marriage. Its the only way to get the nomination. I would like to see a strong republican candidate agree with the people regarding gay marriage , a strong candidate that ignores the small minority of haters. They are all weak, they all cater to the small old minority of gay marriage haters. Majority of young conservatives support gay marriage, the next great republican leader will come out of that group. The current crop, weak , cant agree with the people, cant beat Clinton.
That's why so many are running on the right, all weak, no strong candidate. Its wide open. If there were strong candidates, fewer would run.
Quote: NokTangSo, explain gay divorce to us. (off topic allowed by the OP)
??, divorce is divorce, happens regardless if gay or hetro. It is considered a sin by ultra conservatives but regardless, whats there to explain?
A friend in the deep south was a batterred woman by her husband. She went to her deeply religious mother for help. The Mom's stance, you married him, you stick with him. We convinced her to leave and divorce. Religious mother will have nothing to do with her divorced daughter, she sinned.
Quote: terapined??, divorce is divorce, happens regardless if gay or hetro. It is considered a sin by ultra conservatives but regardless, whats there to explain?
A friend in the deep south was a batterred woman by her husband. She went to her deeply religious mother for help. The Mom's stance, you married him, you stick with him. We convinced her to leave and divorce. Religious mother will have nothing to do with her divorced daughter, she sinned.
If a mother won't talk to her own daughter because she sinned that on the mother. Every major Christian denomination teaches us from early on that we are all sinners and none of us are perfect human beings. The life of Jesus Christ gives us a template of how to act, but there is also a realization that we will never reach the standard he set
Quote: terapinedI don't see rising stars on the republican side in relation to leading the entire country. I believe many of those candidates agree with the American people regarding gay marriage. The problem is that they have to disagree with the majority of people and cater to the haters on the far right determined to fight gay marriage. Its the only way to get the nomination. I would like to see a strong republican candidate agree with the people regarding gay marriage , a strong candidate that ignores the small minority of haters. They are all weak, they all cater to the small old minority of gay marriage haters. Majority of young conservatives support gay marriage, the next great republican leader will come out of that group. The current crop, weak , cant agree with the people, cant beat Clinton.
That's why so many are running on the right, all weak, no strong candidate. Its wide open. If there were strong candidates, fewer would run.
What difference does it make? America lost on the gay marriage issue and it will not be changed. Liberals need to quit dragging out the social issues and talk about what America cares about.
Currently it might be liberal support of illegal imigration. As the media reports more crime by illegals not deported people will understand what is going on.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat difference does it make? America lost on the gay marriage issue and it will not be changed. Liberals need to quit dragging out the social issues and talk about what America cares about.
Currently it might be liberal support of illegal imigration. As the media reports more crime by illegals not deported people will understand what is going on.
You are putting too much faith in the voting public. Sadly many don't care about issues and details. It's only about handouts and being victims. Unless the GOP gets off the hard work and personal responsibility bandwagon and starts talking how unfair this country is, they have little chance of winning. The truth hurts but that is America 2015. But we can't give up, you just have to believe common sense will eventually win out.
Quote: AZDuffman
Currently it might be liberal support of illegal imigration. As the media reports more crime by illegals not deported people will understand what is going on.
While that may sadly work because people are swayed by the optics of an illegal immigrant commiting a violent crime and feel something needs to be done the fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and go to prison than their natural born peers. http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/07/criminal-immigrants or http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0 . Foreign born people are significantly less likely to be in prison then natural born citizens and deportation doesn't explain the discrepancy. You are free to trot out rhetoric about how all illegal immigrants are violent thugs and rapist, but you should know you will not be borne out with facts.
