re: #80 HappyWarrior

Yeah I’d like to see how she does compared with people that she you know may be running against.

As of the last poll I saw (about a month ago) she leads. She leads everyone: Democratic or Republican, by margins large enough that the phrase “de facto incumbent” comes to mind.

The incumbent effect is why so many Democrats will have difficulty getting traction against her. It is not impossible, it’s just difficult. Because the first hurdle is name recognition expect a LOT of noise after November this year. Anybody who hasn’t at least placed a marker by March is pretty much a non-issue. And of course once they make name recognition they have to out-campaign her.

It is worth reminding everyone that she did very well in 2008; Obama was just better.

In contrast the Republicans suffer from the problem of base or general. The more popular they are with the base the worse they stand in the general population’s eye. Now this is a good part of why it was Romney who won last year, and it’s worth keeping in mind for 2016 as well. It’s why Christie (who like Romney pretends to be moderate) can’t be written off. Christie, on the other hand, exemplifies the Republican problem - in the process of getting the nomination their cover will get stripped. And the less extreme Republican candidates with enough name recognition to be considered right now have issues. Personalities and track records and other things that when brought up cause people to wince and change the subject.

2016’s presidency is not a Democratic lock, much less a Clinton lock. But I wouldn’t put anything I couldn’t afford to lose against that bet..