The 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be another close race, just like the last four. From 2000 to 2012, candidates from both major parties received between 45 and 53 percent of the vote.
Historically, this is a narrow range, not seen since 1880-1892. This suggests something close to parity between two highly competitive parties.
Polls for the 2016 race, however, suggest strikingly different results. One of them would be a nightmare for Republicans. The second would be a nightmare for Democrats.
This column discusses the Republican nightmare (the following section discusses the Democrat nightmare). In this scenario, the Democratic nominee is, as widely expected, Hillary Clinton.
This assumes she hasn’t faced any significant turbulence in winning the nomination – a plausible extrapolation from current polls that show her having a much larger lead over other Democrats.
A plain extrapolation from current election polls also looks very good for her.
Compared to various possible Republican opponents – in alphabetical order: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan – Clinton averages between 50 and 52 percent of the vote Real clear policy averages in recent polls, while the Republican average is 38 to 42 percent.
It is significant to take into account that neither of these Republicans is well known across the country. It is reasonable to expect that the Republican candidate will perform better if he runs a competent campaign.
But Clinton is doing something in these polls that she can’t do to Democratic House candidates and, to a lesser extent, Democratic Senate candidates: She’s outpacing President Obama’s job approval rating.
That rating is currently at 44 percent, well below Clinton’s average of 51 percent in national polls.
Clinton overtook Obama, although she should also be considered a supporter of the unpopular Obamacare program. His current negative assessments of foreign policy do not appear to be hurting her, perhaps because he received positive ratings on the issue during his first term, when she was secretary of state.
Clinton’s standing appears to reflect less current assessments of Obama and more rosy retrospective assessments of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Voters may not want a third Obama term, but they may want a third Clinton term.
When you look at the relatively diminutive number of 2016 statewide polls, you’ll find Clinton leading Republicans by double digits in the three states of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18) and Pennsylvania (20). , each of whom voted for Obama only by a diminutive number in 2012.
One reason may be that she has a greater advantage among older voters because these states have relatively immense elderly populations. These numbers suggest Clinton could win these states by a larger margin.
It would be a nightmare for Republicans if voters continued to vote for straight seats, as they increasingly did in recent elections. That’s because Republicans currently hold 17 House seats in Florida, 12 in Ohio and 13 in Pennsylvania.
Many of these Republicans could be in danger if Clinton leads Democrats who received fewer votes to victory. Democrats currently need just 17 seats to gain a majority in the House of Representatives.
Moreover, it seems likely that Clinton would be stronger than Obama in the Jackson belt stretching from West Virginia southwest to Bill Clinton’s hometown of Arkansas. It could also threaten some House seats that currently look quite sheltered.
Then there are the Senate contests. The 2016 lineup, which includes many officials elected in the largely Republican 2010s, gives Democrats many real goals. Even if Republicans win the Senate majority this year, they could lose it in 2016.
You don’t have to agree with Democratic analyst Brent Budowsky’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton could win 45 states (Bill Clinton never won more than 32) to see the potential: a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives.
Republicans’ hopes for repealing and replacing Obamacare would be permanently dashed. The left wing of the Democratic Party could go further than it dared to do under Obama.
Of course, none of this is inevitable. Hillary Clinton may face headwinds in the primary, and her past as secretary of state may be more of a liability than an asset. The Republican candidate could easily run better than Republicans currently do. Events can change attitudes.
I think such a scenario is unlikely. However, this is a plausible extrapolation from current polls.
