Hillary Clinton Crushes All Republicans As Ohio Swings Towards Solid Blue...Today in Politicususa.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Hillary Clinton Crushes All Republicans As Ohio Swings Towards Solid Blue was written by Keith Brekhus for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Aug. 25th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

A poll released August 23rd by Public Policy Polling reveals just how formidable a presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is and just how bad the GOP brand has become in the Buckeye State. Ohio, the quintessential swing state that went for George W Bush twice and then delivered narrow margins of victory for Barack Obama twice, is poised to become solid blue in 2016. If an election were held today in Ohio, Hillary Clinton would trounce Rand Paul 51-36 and crush Paul Ryan 52-36. Even Chris Christie would have trouble keeping from losing by double digits managing to lose to Clinton by a still decisive 45-36 margin. In fact, not a single GOP presidential hopeful polls better than 36 percent versus Clinton in Ohio, the ultimate must win state in presidential contests. Most amusingly, the Buckeye State’s Governor, John Kasich fares worst of all, losing by an epic 18 point margin to Clinton 53-35.

Apparently there is nothing like having a Republican Governor and legislature to help voters see the folly of voting GOP. Ohio voters oppose the recently signed restrictions on abortion rights 40-34. Furthermore, the state’s voters also now favor gay marriage 48-42, a 29 point reversal from just two years ago when voters opposed same sex marriage by a 55-32 spread. The state that John Boehner calls home and that once gave George W. Bush the necessary electoral votes to eke out an electoral college victory over John Kerry is in danger of being hopelessly lost for the GOP.

The Republican Party apparently learned nothing from the national drubbing Mitt Romney took in the 2012 election. Even in that contest Ohio was regarded as a toss up and Barack Obama’s margin of victory was less than three points, 50.58-47.6. To put the poll results in perspective, if Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul became their party’s respective nominees in 2016, and Clinton held her 15 point advantage, Ohio would deliver a bigger margin for the Democrats in 2016 than Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alaska or Montana did for the Republicans in 2012. The Republican Party has veered so far to the dysfunctional hard right that they run the risk of getting annihilated in the pivotal state of Ohio.

If the Republican Party cannot regain a sense of pragmatism and reason they are headed for humiliation in Ohio. The drubbing will be so thorough that even Karl Rove will not question Megyn Kelly’s judgement when FOX News calls Ohio for Hillary Clinton less than thirty minutes after the polls close. If the GOP does not reinvent itself and renounce some of their extreme positions on social and economic issues, they are headed for political disaster in the Buckeye State. Luckily for the Democrats, at this stage, the Republicans neither seem to notice nor care. If that apathy continues, Ohio will be colored a very deep shade of blue in 2016.

The rest at the link:
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/25/hillary-clinton-posts-crushing-leads-ohio-buckeye-state-swings-solid-blue-state.html

[stevenleser]

1. No one on either side of the aisle has a chance against her if she runs.

Which I think she will.

She has a 50 point lead in the Democratic nomination race at this point against 2nd place Joe Biden whom everyone pretty much likes personally. She's out-polling Republicans in most deep south states, not border states, deep south states like Georgia.

If she stays healthy and runs, its not going to be close.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I suspect she's following this story; it may well push her into running.

Too bad, since I really don't like her as President.

[Auggie]

15. Well, Hillary Clinton is a member of the American oligarchy ...

though the Republican option, whatever it may be, would be far worse. The bright side: If Clinton runs and wins two consecutive terms, progressives will eventually become the majority on the Supreme Court.

[gopiscrap]

50. thant's what I was thinking also!

[JDPriestly]

24. I really don't like her as a president either.

I want to see Elizabeth Warren as president in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren is, so far, the only one yet untainted by D.C. corruption who has the courage and the knowledge to stand up to the corruption and very powerful.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. I like Senator Warren a lot too. But it's too soon for her.

I want her to stay in the Senate for a while and do more work.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. +1000! eom

[Left Coast2020]

56. Too Bad its not Dr. Dean name instead of Clinton.

I think of too much bad crap her husband passed--namely Communications Act 96 which gave us corporate "hate radio" de jour.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. She's inevitable!

Just like last time!

[JI7]

12. there is no OBama this time. plus she would have won against McCain and Romney

if she had ended up the Nominee.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. That's like saying because Joe Frazier once beat the great Muhammad Ali any Joe Schmoe could/nt

[Jackpine Radical]

26. What's with you people

and the Warren stickers?

[joshcryer]

68. She actually got more votes than Obama "last time."

[AtomicKitten]

70. Ah, no.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

[joshcryer]

71. Ah, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

That article wants to remove states that didn't count.

Except all the delegates were seated, so all the delegates were represented (as were the states), so Clinton had more votes, Obama simply had more delegates.

The article would be accurate if neither MI or FL were seated, but they were seated.

[AtomicKitten]

72. Nonsense.

Four caucus states that Obama won don't tally the popular vote, plus he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan which was disqualified but Clinton insisted on counting it anyway as she did with Florida.

It's crystal clear. Read it here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

No offense, but the only people that insist on that debunked claim are, well, you know ...

[joshcryer]

73. I trust the Green Papers over Real Clear Politics, thanks.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml

RCP even says they are estimating.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Popular Vote Poison: How Hillary's latest math hurts the party.

For your consideration.

Give credit where it's due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year.

But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats' chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie "Recount," which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.

Oh, and it's not true.

Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.

more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/20/popular-vote-poison.html

[joshcryer]

75. Another 5 year old source.

The Green Papers are the most up to date source.

Oh, and btw, most of those articles were all worried about a divided convention or a slight against Obama, which never happened. She campaigned lively for him the whole time.

[AtomicKitten]

76. Doesn't surprise me you didn't read it.

Which rather proves what I hinted at above.

The only way she comes out ahead is if you are fine with not counting 4 caucus states where Obama won big and counting Michigan and Florida - both states disqualified - where Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one.

The.Only.Way.

So, if you are fine with that and think that's fair and square, well, mazel tov.

[joshcryer]

77. The Green Papers tally all the states.

So I don't know where you are talking about.

The article you posted isn't accurate. The Green Papers are the most accurate tally that are available.

[Bandit]

17. That was what everyone was saying in 2007 as well, but then along came a guy named

Barack Hussein Obama.

[stevenleser]

19. Barack Obama came along three years before that and had a convention keynote speech to introduce

himself, one where tens of millions of Americans were watching, and he hit a grand-slam home run. There aren't any national conventions between now and the nomination process and so no opportunities like that for someone to jump-start their name recognition.

It's also a year behind now if we use the Barack Obama analogy and no one has emerged that excites the people of this country like he did. In five months, the public's attention will be increasingly focused on the 2014 elections, further hampering anyone's opportunity to get the country to focus on them.

In 2008, Hillary also did not have the benefit of serving four years in traditionally the second most important job in the US Government on her resume.

Even with all of the excitement about him, Obama would still have not won if Clinton's team had taken him seriously and prepared to contest the first dozen or so caucus states. Had they done that, Obama would have been out pretty early on. They screwed up their strategy. You can bet they will not make that mistake again.

[NewJeffCT]

22. I thought Castro's speech at the DNC

last year was excellent. I could see him as a strong VP candidate in 2016 at least...

[DonCoquixote]

40. revisionist history

Hillary did take him seriously, and contested Florida, right after she condemned Florida for having an early primary; suddenly when the count was in her favor, she loved us.

You an say what you want about BHO in 2012, but Hillary the pol proved to be a lousy candidate, especially as she let Bill run his mouth. If she hire mark penn again, it will be a slow,painful election year.

[stevenleser]

57. No, none of it is. The Clinton campaign didnt expect to have to contest the caucus states in Feb.

They had no plans for them and it showed.

You are obviously making this up yourself by guessing. If you have ever talked to folks inside both campaigns you would know what I am saying is true.

[joshcryer]

69. Correct. Obama won on caucuses.

This is uncontroversial.

[stevenleser]

80. Yes, the Clinton campaign expected a quick knockout. They certainly didnt expect anything to go

beyond Super Tuesday on Feb 5th. As a result, Obama swept 11 contests in a row in 11 days in Mid February, most of them caucuses but also the primaries in Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin primaries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#Mid-February_contests

The Clinton campaign did not expect to have to compete in any of these races. She thought it would be over by the conclusion of Super Tuesday and she would have the nomination in hand.

The Obama campaign, conversely, had prepared for a protracted war of attrition where every delegate in every caucus mattered.

[AtomicKitten]

67. truth

[stevenleser]

81. No, it's not. The history is all there for anyone to see. Folks in both campaigns will tell you. nt

[AtomicKitten]

85. Do you deny her campaign was inept?

For crissakes she raised and blew through $100 million dollars by the end of 2007. She blew off the caucus states. She had no plan after Super Tuesday. She had a 12-person majority on the steering committee that established the rules regarding the consequences of states jumping the gun, and then turned around and demanded that the votes in the disqualified states be counted including Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. She put her big shoes on and tried to persuade delegates to vote against the wishes of those they represent. The whole mess was an embarrassing string of incompetence punctuated by arrogance, a lethal blend for any candidate and especially the 'inevitable' one.

[stevenleser]

86. I think we are in agreement about nearly 100% except for motive but the effect is the same her

campaign thought she would win easily and had no plan for anything after super Tuesday. They had to sit there for the better part of a month and watch Barack win everything. They tried to rush together a campaign in states after that but by then, it was really too late.

The point I would make though, is that if her campaign had not done that, even as great of a candidate as Barack was would not have won. And I think correcting that simple mistake, as she will almost certainly do for 2016, doesnt leave much for anyone looking to take her on.

[AtomicKitten]

87. Okay then.

It was a rather circuitous route coming to agreement, but here we are. Cheers.

Edited to say I don't think she's inevitable now just as she wasn't then. But she now has a template to win courtesy of the "junior senator from Illinois with the thin resume" that beat the House of Clinton.

[FreeBC]

51. That's what they said about Obama... Warren can win!!!

[vaberella]

65. She wouldn't have to campaign, she's got my vote unconditionally.

Unless Warren runs, then she has a problem. But then I see Warren as an awesome Veep.

[mick063]

2. Nothing is more toxic to the GOP brand than the GOP in power, implementing GOP policy.

Another, more suitable Democrat would win this state as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Beware: Politicususa is a fringe Third Way site

And, no surprise, I've caught them making things up from whole cloth.

That said - better Hillary than today's Republicans, but I suspect that a traditional Democrat could knock Hillary out - like Obama knocked her out when he pretended to be a (more-or-less) traditional Democrat.

[msongs]

6. only one reason to vote for her IMO - if she can deliver a solid democratic sweep in both the senate

and house, ie, a swamp job electorally, so that the house and senate can reign in her right of center tendencies and force her into progressive/liberal directions

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. This is a very valid point. I agree. n/t

[stevenleser]

20. I think that is extremely likely. I don't know what states are safe for the GOP against Hillary

besides maybe Utah and Wyoming. I think she carries a LOT of Democrats in on her coattails in the House and Senate.

[Art_from_Ark]

46. Probably nearly the whole South is safe for the GOP against Hillary

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

and that probably includes Arkansas, where she spent 12 years as the state's first lady.

[stevenleser]

58. The polls say otherwise. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

61. What polls?

And who is mentioned in the polls?
Hillary versus some unnamed Republican?

And who is polled in the polls?

The last time a Democrat carried all but 2 states was during the FDR era.
The last Democrat to win 40+ states was LBJ.

It's only 2013, the primaries are nearly 3 years away.
That is an eternity in politics.

[stevenleser]

62. There are several. Here is one for Georgia

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/georgia-2016-poll-hillary-clinton-95343.html

"If former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, the state of Georgia could be within her reach, according to a new poll.

Clinton topped two of the GOP’s potential candidates in hypothetical matchups, according to a survey Democratic firm Public Policy Polling released Thursday.

The presumptive Democratic nominee led Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul by 5 points, 48 percent to 43 percent and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan by 3 points, 47 percent to 44 percent, among Georgia voters. Clinton was tied with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 45 percent and lagged New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 2 points, 44 percent to 42 percent."

[Art_from_Ark]

64. The key word is "hypothetical"

I'm not going to get excited about a Democratic polling firm's results this far out. And after having followed Arkansas politics since 1966, I would say that Hillary would have an upward climb there, given that since that time the state has only voted for a Democrat 3 times (4 if you count Wallace)-- and each one had been a Southern governor. Of course, Hillary was the state's first lady for 12 years, but that was 20+ years ago, and today the state's largest and most influential newspaper, the Democrat-Gazette (which swallowed the much more liberal Arkansas Gazette in the early '90s) isn't about to endorse her.

[stevenleser]

79. Polls always are. The only real one is election day. PPP was the most accurate one last time. nt

[DonCoquixote]

41. I will agree

though considering she is the symbol of the DLC, I do not see how that is possible.

[vaberella]

66. No won't happen for the second portion. Hil is definitely borderline Blue Dog.

She will bring in Dems but there will be a lot of conservadems. It will not be progressives. I don't see how Hilary would manage to bring on Progressives when Obama, who is considered in most cases more Progressive than she is, couldn't do it. Hilary has old Blue dems. And if she could do that, she should have done it for Obama, to help maintain Dem power.

[freshwest]

8. Politicususa has been loving on Hillary a couple of months now. Or at least their ads have been...

I just don't know about it.

[Cha]

11. If you pay them they will take the ads.. except unlike

some sites.. they don't do gops, afaik.

I haven't seen the bloggers there doing anything like that.

I don't even think about 2016, yet. I'm too busy trying to savor these wonderful years, fresh.

[rury]

9. Makes me pretty sick that all these rednecks

in the deep south and rural Ohio who voted Republican when the Democrats ran a black candidate are now coming home to a white candidate.
Reminds me of her appealing to "hard-working white Americans" when she was trying to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama.
America has shown its true colors.
I will NOT vote for her!!

[bhikkhu]

14. I hope you mean you won't vote for her in the primary

and not that the republicans are likely to field a presidential candidate you'll prefer over Clinton. Or that you'll pout in a corner and sit this one out, because "there's not a dimes worth of difference"...

[adieu]

31. Do what I did in 2012

I'm in a solid blue state and voting district. I voted for Jill Stein because (a) it's a vote to say that I am not in favor of Obama's stances on many things and (b) it's a safe vote in that there's no way my vote would affect the outcome of the election from my district.

I did work with the Obama campaign in my city. I did make calls to other states. I did work with the voting website that runs the vote tracking of calls and what each voter will do. But at the end, I voted for my conscience and that was to vote for a Green Party candidate.

[defacto7]

10. K&R

[BrainDrain]

13. SFW?????

This is like saying.."if the election were held today HRC would beat the crap out of a hamster by double digits...." and no HRC is not "inevitable" any more than it is "inevitable" that the Titanic will do great on her maiden voyage. Remember how "inevitable" she was back in oh...lets see 2004, when she famously said on national TV "I will be president"?

Beating the HRC drum does not a bandwagon make. It's all just noise right now.

[Sheepshank]

59. I clearly remember the RW jeering, as their unknown RW candidate

was outpolling Barak Obama before the RW'ers held their primaries.

They were laughing and pointing fingers that even a pile of dirt could beat Obama. Turns out that every Republican polled had their ideal white dude in mind and couldn't imagine that the dude would have ended up being Mittens.

Your statement flies in the face of all that previous Presidential polling. Hillary is poised to take Ohio (if she choses to run) in spite of the glorious make believe Republican Presidential candidate that hasn't even been invented yet.

[Dustlawyer]

16. Hillary is the same corporate tool as her husband and Obama!

Is there any Progressive that will run that will not answer to the Corporations and the 1%? Anyone that will fight to cut the defense budget significantly to massively fund infrastructure, education, environment, single payor, social security, Medicare...
I am not voting for the lesser of 2 evils any longer!

[Auggie]

21. Warren

But forget about it. This country is too stupid to elect what's good for it.

[Dustlawyer]

27. Agreed! It's a sad state of affairs that we have so few who actually have the 99% at heart!

We no longer have Representative government, the rich and the Corps are the only ones that have Representative government!

[Art_from_Ark]

48. That reminds me of a quote attributed to Adlai Stevenson

when he was running for President.

During Stevenson's campaign, a woman is reputed to have said, "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

To which Stevenson reportedly replied, "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

[snooper2]

18. This is so premature the zipper didn't even come down

[Metatron]

28. I think this is great news about/for Ohio

no matter who the eventual Democratic nominee is. Kasich is such a POS.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

29. Oh, I agree! Anything that could damage him makes me cheer. n/t

[FSogol]

30. 2014 is more important, right now.

[Rozlee]

32. Yeah. Didn't Nate Silver say it was at 50/50% odds that Rethugs might take back the Senate?

That's unless there's a new crop of conservatives putting their feet in their mouths about rape soothing PMS in women or something equally stoopid.

[diane in sf]

33. Ohio's votes were stolen for bush in 2004, but other than that point I agree with the article.

[Hulk]

34. Am more concerned about the House and Senate seats than the President prospects...

UNTIL we can turn the House back to rational minds, and maintain a strong and even stronger Democratic voice in the Senate, this country is locked in tire-spinning exercises, and name-calling fits and rages. We NEED TO get the weak teabaggers and repuKKKes OUT of Congress!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

35. I agree! But I saw this article, and thought it worthwhile. n/t

[Hulk]

53. Agreed.

True. I think Hillary or even Joe Biden could pretty well hold off any repug threat at the present time...but we all know that we have a road block in the House..and the Senate is a mud crawl.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. OK, Ohio Duers -- how hard is Kaisich going to fall next year

Real hard, I hope. And that fascist SoS needs a real drubbing, too.

[madinmaryland]

43. I'm now in Ohio and will be working to see that Kasich is kicked out of office!

BTW, we miss your gloat-free scores in the Sports Group! Especially with the Pirates have such a good record so far this year!!

[William769]

37. Kick & very highly recommended.

[brooklynite]

38. Hmm, Dennis Kucinich won't be getting the "favorite son" vote?

[davidn3600]

42. Great! Another 8 years of the status quo!

1% will continue to be protected. The surveillance state will continue to expand. The middle class will continue to suffer.

But at least we can celebrate that we got a woman president! Meanwhile the rest of the world rolls their eyes at the stupid Americans who actually think a female head of state is some major groundbreaking thing the world has never seen before.

[snappyturtle]

52. 100% agreement. Time for a new regime. She's served enough...

time to go enjoy retirement and be a 'trusted' advisor or something...
and she voted for the Iraq war. Wonder how she would vote to go into
Syria?

[bowens43]

55. Exactly she'll be Obama II

[ybbor]

44. Go Blue!

Nothing makes a Michigander happier than seeing Ohio Go Blue! HeeHee

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. And why is that? I think I've heard this before...is it a football reference?

[ybbor]

47. Yes

The University of Michigan's colors are Maize and Blue. We have what some will argue the greatest rivalry in sports with Ohio State in football.

That being said, I still love seeing Ohio tip to the Dems. I hope my fellow Michiganders see the error of their ways and we send Snyder packing. He is as bad as Walker in WI and that clown in NC.

[gopiscrap]

49. Yeah I hope it stays this way

on a side note: I loved watching Karl Rove's face when they called Ohio for Obama.

[bowens43]

54. If we can't do better than Hilary then we'll get we deserve.

[madinmaryland]

60. Hillary 45 in 2016/2020. 80-20!! Sorry, CP, but we are 3 years away from 2016 elections,

and I think more needs to be focused on 2013/4. BTW, I'm in Ohio now, and still MAD!!!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

63. I hear you, my dear madinmaryland, and I have to agree for the most part.

The main reason I posted this was because I saw it today, and I thought it was interesting.

We do need to focus on the Congressional elections next year, for sure!

[blkmusclmachine]

78. Great. Another wanna-be Republican for Party Leader.

When are we gonna run a REAL Democrat ???????

[davidpdx]

82. Most likely any D will win Ohio

Maybe not by a lot, but they will win. The polls are so premature being that it's 26 months to any primary.

[AllyCat]

83. Oh God, please let this be true. I would be thrilled to see

the states the TeaJadists have taken come back to the people so we can start to rebuild our country.

[Beacool]

84. This place is so predictable and an utter bore when the name Clinton is mentioned.

To the extreme Left and Right, the mere mention of either Clinton is like catnip to a cat. Oh, the complaining and wailing from all sides.

To the Right, they are evil incarnate. They are socialists and marxists who are bent on the destruction of the "American way of life".

To the Left, they are "Republican light". They only care about the 1%, they would be just as bad as Obama and did I forget to mention that Hillary voted for the IWR?

Blah, blah, blah for the next three years.

[smallcat88]

88. There is no Republican party anymore

the Tea Party ripped the GOP into shreds. Now they have the Regressive party. And the harder they try to take the country back to the 1950's (or the 19th century) the more they lose people. They have become their own worst enemy. That's why they're trying to fix elections with voter ID crap; they refuse to take the hint on changing their policies so restricting voters is their only recourse. They have virtually assured Hillary Clinton's victory (if she runs, still waiting on her official announcement on that). Apparently they didn't take the hint from the last election that attempts at voter restriction just pissed people off and brought MORE people to the polls!
F#$%ing idiots!

[HumansAndResources]

89. The DLC and Obama's Failure to Reverse Bush Policies Has Destroyed Faith in the Dems Too

"Hope and Change" has become a sneer - which is the saddest part. Though it did effectively train us in "learned helplessness," { http://jaydixit.com/psychology/learned-helplessness/ } along with the "inevitable" messages on DLC-Hillary's candidacy.

That said, we COULD choose a candidate of the grass-roots and take advantage of the split in the Rethugs, but only if more Democrats stop believing their Tee Vee Sets and who the Transnational-Billionaire-Owners tell us "is really electable."

In the **primary**, when it is Hillary and some slightly worse-option "leading the polls," we must vote for the anti-war, anti-NSA candidate - the one "they" will say cannot possibly win.