Can Hillary turn more states blue?

[Rochester]

I know, I know, it's too early to talk about 2016, now is the time to focus on the midterms. But still...

I was reading about how although Obama is disliked in the state of Kentucky, Bill Clinton remains popular enough there to stump for Allison Grimes for Senate. Kentucky, like West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana, are states that Bill Clinton won twice, but have been red ever since. Could Hillary recapture any of those states, if she ends up being the nominee?

Demographics have made the region a lot redder than it was 20 years ago, so I'd think some of them are probably out of reach, Tennessee and Louisiana especially. But my gut feeling is that Kentucky and her former home state of Arkansas could be competitive, and Missouri and West Virginia would be long shots but not impossible.

At the very least, Hillary might force the Republicans to spend more of their finite resources defending those states, which makes it easier for us to keep states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohio.

What do you guys (and gals) think?

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. She's still white, right?

[Proud Public Servant]

2. Wishful thinking

Hillary might take Arkansas, but that will be an anomaly based on her personal ties, not a matter of "turning it blue." Grimes mojo in Ky is more about McConnell fatigue than anything else, though KY's success with Obamacare may create a few more Dems there. Missouri has been teetering on the brink for a while, but I don't see any special reason Hillary would push it over faster than another candidate.

Then there's this fun fact, from this thread: In a state that's gone blue in the last two elections and has just elected Dems to all its top offices Hillary Clinton --the most popular Democrat in the country, including the president -- is only leading a scandal-mired Chris Christie by 2%, which is within the poll's margin of error. That's very worrisome, even if it's early days.

Personally, I think a Clinton victory would at best reproduce the Obama map in 2012, plus maybe Arkansas; I think Ohio will be harder for her, but Florida will be easier, and I think having a friend of the family in the Virginia governor's mansion will save VA for her. But I don't see her moving the needle on a Democratic majority. That would take a fresher and more inspiring candidate than she will be.

[LonePirate]

3. She starts with Obama's 2008 map and adds AZ and GA at a minimum.

MT also seems likely. MO is possibility as is KY. She even makes the Repubs sweat a little in TX.

Of course she also puts an end to all of this battleground talk in FL, OH and VA while racking up wins north of 25 maybe 30 points in Dem strongholds. I think she even flips the House back for Speaker Pelosi.

Clinton is definitely too corporate and centrist for me but she flirts with 400 EVs and a popular vote win by at least 10 or more points.

[Proud Public Servant]

5. Sure, if she's running against Cruz

Otherwise, I'd like some of what you're smoking. She might pick up MT with Schweitzer on the bottom of the ticket, but that's about it. Meanwhile, I'd say her losing Ohio and Iowa are distinct possibilities. Which means she still wins, of course, but predicting a bigger win than Obama '08 isn't forecasting, it's fantasizing.

[LonePirate]

9. There is no way she loses any state Obama won twice. She will not lose IA and OH.

[Proud Public Servant]

14. Of course there is

Ford lost states that Nixon won twice.
Bush I lost states that Reagan won twice.
Gore lost states that Clinton won twice.
McCain lost states that Bush II won twice.

You're discounting how tough it is for a party to pull out that third term. You're also forgetting how badly Hillary did in Iowa -- those are not her people. Ohio is a real toss-up; I'm not saying she will lose it, but I' am saying that anyone who thinks it's blue is kidding himself, especially once the auto industry bailout (which was a huge part of Obama's 2012 victory) fades into history.

On top of all that, remember the central fact here: Hillary has already been the inevitable candidate, with all the money and the backing of the party stalwarts -- and yet, not even the nominee. Her capacity to lose -- by being too polarizing, by seeming grossly inauthentic, by surrounding herself with arrogant yes-men and yes-women, by valuing loyalty above acumen -- is already a matter of record; her electability nationally, not so much.

[Dawgs]

8. Sorry. Georgia is still solid red. n/t

[LonePirate]

11. People forget Obama lost GA by only 5 points in 2008. Clinton adds at least 6 points to that count.

Obama in 2008 instead of Obama in 2012 is the measuring stick to use when estimating Clinton's potential in 2016.

Clinton is not my ideal candidate by a mile but she mops the floor with any Republican no matter what the naysayers believe.

[Dawgs]

12. I live here. I didn't forget.

Clinton won't win in Georgia for various reasons, and she won't come close to gettin the kind of support that Obama has gotten here. I hope I don't have to explain why.

[spin]

4. Hillary does not have Bill's charisma and she lacks his warmth. ...

If it were not for the fact that Bill was once President I doubt that her record as a senator and as Secretary of State would make her a leading contender to run in the 2016 election. If elected she would be the second-oldest president in history.

Still the fact remains that she is a powerful candidate and her election would be the first time our nation had a woman president. Many Republican women might cross over to vote for her. She has paid her dues as a member of the Democratic Party and it is, or should be, her turn to run. She also has a strong and experienced organization to help her win the nomination and the election.

The Republicans at this time do not really seem to have any strong candidates who could take her on and win. They likely will chose a ultraconservative candidate to pacify the Tea Party segment of their party who may prove unappealing to the average voter in the general election.

Of course the success or failure of the next couple of years of the Obama presidency will have some impact on the 2016 election. If by the election the economy is well on the way to recovery Hillary's chances of gaining office will be far higher than if it is not.

I personally am opposed to any more Clintons or Bushes in office. To me we should be able to find many well qualified people to run for the highest office in our land and should have no reason to have to keep electing member of the same families to this powerful position. Is it really a good idea to have Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger and then Jeb in the White House or BIll, Hillary and then Chelsea?

However Hillary may have the best chance of winning of any Democrat in sight today and it is most important to have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. wont matter that much if we lose the senate in 2014. nt

[nyquil_man]

7. It depends on whether Obama's performance was an outlier or the new norm,

particularly in that string of states from West Virginia to Arkansas where the trend in favor of the Republicans has been enormous. A very strong electoral performance (I'm talking landslide) might be enough to halt the trend for a while, but I'm inclined to think that these states are well on their way to turning deep red.

[bigwillq]

10. I hope we don't find out.

Say NO to Hillary in 2016!!!

[cthulu2016]

13. I think she might put IN or AZ or GA in play. Missouri.

If she had the year she could have it would be impressive, but we have no idea what the Democratic brand will be like in 2016.

If Obama is at 20% and people want a huge change any Dem is probably in trouble.

If things are okay for Dems in general, she could have a real landslide.