Back in 2015 before the summer of Trump and the rise of Bernie, my general political sense (hunch) was that Hillary Clinton would be a modest favorite in the November 2016 election.  I perceived that 2016 would be a “stay the course” rather than a “time for a change” election, and that HRC was would be a good vehicle for a such a status quo message despite her flaws as a politician.  I believed that “stay the course” would be a likely (though not certain) winning message over the Republican nominee for several reasons.

1. Unemployment was low and getting lower.
2. Interests rates an inflation were both very low.
3. The stock market was near an all time high.
4. The nation was at peace with no terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
5. There was no civil unrest.
6. The deficit was going down as a percentage of GDP.
7. The Democrats have won the popular vote in very presidential election going back to 1992, except 2004.
8. The Republican nominee was likely to be even more conservative than the last elected Republican, GW Bush.
9. Demographics favored the Democrats. The Democrat coalition of minorities and college educated whites was growing as a share of the electorate while non-college educated whites (the core of the Republican base) was shrinking.
10. A more conservative nominee would have an even harder time overcoming the demographic trends already favoring the Democrats in higher turn-out Presidential elections.

So I concluded then that HRC would be about a 60 favorite.  This was hardly a slam dunk.  Changes in the economy or a terrorist attack or a genuine external threat remained a possibility.  Moreover, I understand that the gains of the recovery have not been widely spread and many feel left behind. But the usual Republican nostrums of foreign policy belligerence (wars of choice) and tax cuts for the rich were not likely to resonate in this environment.

Those 10 from above still look pretty good to me.  The stock market has been volatile but recently has been rising, and is now not far from all time highs.  Ferguson and the black lives matter arguments do call slightly into question the “no civil unrest” point, but all in all the country is at peace with an improving economy as we move into the second quarter of 2016.  If anything, ISIS seems like less of threat today than last summer.

So I was surprised to read the following in a Timothy Egan piece:

If nothing else, the astounding presidential election of 2016 has shown that Americans are ready to junk the present system and try something bold, even reckless. Small ball is out. Incremental change is a nonstarter. Big will beat little.  Almost two-thirds of voters — Democratic and Republican majorities — agreed with the statement that “The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change,” when asked in a recent Quinnipiac University poll. This is not a frustrated fringe.

 The Quinnipiac finding that nearly two-thirds favor radical changes is shocking to me.   Even if you accept the finding (which I am struggling with and plan to research more), Egan, like me has trouble seeing how Trump or Sanders could be the solution.  Egan writes cleverly and perceptively that “The largest cluster of voters willing to chuck the status quo, not surprisingly, supports Donald Trump. But he offers nothing for them, no details, no workable solutions, just a buffoon with a gold-plated selfie stick.”  Regarding the Vermont Senator, he writes “Sanders is a sloganeer with authenticity. But a rant, no matter how dead-on, is not a governing blueprint. His answer, on a number of occasions, to complex issues has been “I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.” In many areas, he’s almost substance-free.”

A few months back I wrote about Ezra Klein’s description of Hillary’s view as “The Audacity of Political Realism.”  Her approach and agenda still fits well with a “stay the course” election which I foresee.  But has something deeper happened to the electorate making it a change election?  I remain doubtful, despite the Quinnipiac finding.  My hunch is that certain partisans on both sides crave greater change, but the broader middle of the electorate remains ready to embrace the status quo with just a few tweaks.

According to Nate Silver, the betting markets now have HRC with a 71 percent chance of becoming the next President.  Her all time high.  If she can find the right tweaks to campaign upon, her numbers will go even higher.