How would Hillary have done?

[liberalpragmatist]

Note: I have been an Obama supporter from the start, so this is NOT intended to be a sour grapes thread. This is purely just a thought exercise, since I love alternate history.

How does Hillary fare against McCain?

Obviously, there would have been a range of possible outcomes, and one big wild card is that McCain would not have picked Palin. A safer choice, like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or a riskier-but-not-Palin-pick like Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA), may have resulted in McCain doing at least a couple points better nationally, even against Obama.

Still, my own feeling is that a Clinton/McCain matchup would have had a roughly similar popular vote split. Hillary would have done somewhat better than Obama in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania and she would have done slightly worse in the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, and the Mountain West. Still, the outcomes in those states would have been the same.

Where electoral votes would have shifted would have been in the South and in border states. Hillary does better in most of the states Bill Clinton won and less well in the "New South" states of Georgia, NC and Virginia.

So flip North Carolina. Give Indiana to McCain, unless Hillary's VP is Evan Bayh -- then it may still have gone blue, although I don't see Hillary's campaign investing the same kind of money and time in Indiana as Obama did. Give Hillary Arkansas, Missouri and West Virginia. She does better in Florida by a couple points (as already mentioned) and also polls better in Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Out of those four, she only comes close in Kentucky (which she *might* have flipped).

On balance, I'd project Hillary to win a very similar margin: 360-178. To sum, under her, Missouri, Arkansas and W.V. go blue, but Indiana and NC stay red.

[YOY]

1. I don't think it would be the same margins. Perhaps a narrow victory if that.

She has the brains but not the charisma like Obama. She also would NOT have taken the high road. Lets face it. Obama took the high road. McCain just insulted himself at every turn.

No sour grapes intended to be dealt or wounds to be opened.

[KSDiva]

61. I agree

A Dem win, but not the large mandate that Obama has and much less celebrating in the street! (Although as a woman, I might have still popped the champagne!)

[Whoa20]

106. lower margin?

she only had much more geographical appeal. She, like Obama woulda carried the Coasts in landslides because of Bush fatigue, and the upper midwest. But unlike Obama, she woulda performed in Appalachia and the South, and won Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Missouri, maybe even Lousiana which went Bill twice, and perhaps Tennesse, along with near everything Obama won, save perhaps Indiana. Her map, even before the economy took a hit was http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html while Obama was doing poorly. She woulda done far better in OH and FL for sure, and even Pennsylvania. If she had been the nominee, when September rolled around, she woulda taken off like a rocket, especially cuz economy is a Clinton trademark. She woulda gotten at least 55% of the popular vote or around there.

[FrenchieCat]

111. It really depends on how upset Black folks and young folks would have been

about her treatment of Barack....because no matter what is said, Barack's treatment of Hillary was not the same as Hillary's treatment of Barack. Would she had picked him as Veep is the question? And if she would have asked him, would he have accepted the position? And would McCain had picked a Jindahl and try to attract the minority vote, the same way he picked a woman to try to gain Hillary voters?

Too many unknowns and turns to really know how a Hillary/McCain contest would have gone.

[Whoa20]

128. if McCain had picked Jindal,

Hillary would have easily exploited it with the white vote, as racist southern reps would feel torn and stay home. She woulda kept Obama in the Northwest and Midwest, she could go into Appalachia and the South, while maintaining the coasts easily, as Jindal's crazy conservatism woulda kept the coasts as blue as they were this time, which was extremely heavy, and provided Obama's popular vote margin. If Hillary had won around Pennsylvania, she would have likely picked Obama as VP. If she had won in Iowa, the GOP may have picked someone else altogether. HIllary's populism would have trumped Romney's corporate background as Gordon Gekko. Her intellect woulda made Thompson look dumber than he is. Huckabee would have just scared too many people, and plain didn't have enough money.

[FrenchieCat]

137. In reality, you don't know what would have happened.

That really is the end of that story.

[genna]

155. You're assuming the black people who haven't voted would have stepped up and voted for her.

You are also assuming that Hillary would ignited young people in a similar manner as Obama.

Most AAs believe in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and a whole lot of stuff that some have hit Bobby Jindal for.

With a suppressed Black vote, apathetic youth (sorry about the children part earlier), and an enraged Conservative base (they hate Hillary, how many of them booed Palin for trying to invoke her?); you tell me whether Bush fatigue would have pushed people to the polls.

[Liberal_in_LA]

131. yes, depends on how Obama "lost"... if the opposition pushed the "a black man cant' win argument"

That really pissed off black people who have been voting for white candidates forever.

[Blaq Dem]

201. Blacks and young whites would've stayed home

Just like in past elections.

If Hilary had ran against McCain, the race would've been much nastier.

[knixphan]

160. agreed.

[YOY]

146. Yes.

And the amount of ammunition they already had for Hillary could have been mesured in megatons.

[Whoa20]

168. buddy, if the Muslim/terror smears didn't

stop Obama from being President, then there's no way bringing up a scandal most would find a joke now would dent Hillary at all. Its not like the stuff they "had on her" questioned her patriotism.

[TheWraith]

178. Hello... Bosnia sniper? CGI donors? Voting for the war before she was against it?

Running for president for about the last 3 years? Which isn't even touching the 15 year head start they had on painting her as vicious, ambitious, and power-hungry, which her behavior in the primary did nothing but reenforce.

[Whoa20]

180. people have heard that

forever about her, and when interviewed Tuesday her vs. mccain if she were the nominee, she won by a http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3 wider margin 52-41 with the rest saying not voting, which translated into 55%+ of the popular vote. YOU are the one who thinks she is "vicious, ambitious, and power-hungry" given that Americans woulda gone for her over McCain more than they went Obama over McCain. People like you and the media say shit about her you cannot back up with anything. Also, no one questions whether she is a "real American" or her religion, so she keeps all the costal Obama voters and actually adds many more votes in the south and Appalachia. Those smears are a lot more damaging than run of the mill smears.

[Whoa20]

181. its people like you

who really make me dislike Obama personally in an intense way. You have no honour for the Clintons, or moderation or pragmatism. You see everything with your one dimensional Chris Matthews induced baseless hatred.

[YOY]

196. Please...disrupt elsewhere FReep

Transparent as it gets.

[YOY]

195. and about as easy to believe as Hillary and Bill offing people

Now the real stuff they had on her? Would have hurt.

[TheWraith]

177. She emphatically did NOT have more geographical appeal.

Hillary wouldn't have played as strongly in the VA/NC area, and Florida would have been off the table.

The idea that Hillary would have done better than Obama, either in popular vote or electoral, is absolute fiction.

[Whoa20]

179. how do you back it up?

because in June, she started out nearly as high as Obama got the other day http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html while Obama only went up from here http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Jun03.html . When the market crashed, any dem would go up. Not to mention, Hillary has always polled well in Florida. Also, you may wanna check http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3 for Hillary wins against McCain if she had been the nod, with everyone in the US knowing all there is to know and the GOP has said, by a much wider margin than Obama, 11 points 52-41-not voting meaning that translates into 55%+ of the pop vote. Thats a real landslide, not a "landslide" like Obama's because it wasn't as close as 2004. Obama's election was a rout at best. Your hatred and dishonour of the Clintons is showing.

[TheDonkey]

183. I don't see her doing as well in the young vote.

and turnout would have probably been lower. Would she have won VA or NC? Not sure.

[...of J.Temperance]

2. Hillary would have won also, I agree a similar margin to President Obama's

I heard on one of the channels, I think CNN, where analysts agreed....when 62% of the people who voted said the economy was their top reason for voting....McCain was DOOMED....so yeah Hillary would have won as well.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The results would have been similar. She would have won Florida no problem.

Two national surveys the last week of May showed her beating McCain by a wider margin than Obama. Five points wider. But a campaign season would have evened this out between her and Obama.

Yes, she would have won because a lot of Rockefeller Republican women and Indy women would have crossed over to give her the win. I know men who own businesses who were very pro-Hillary. Not a demographic I'd expect.

I am still stunned how small the margin was between Kerry and Bush on the women's vote.

[onehandle]

4. Same margin. Different states. This election was ours a long time ago.

Which explains why Obama and Hillary fought so hard in the primary.

The winner Was going to be President.

[Captain Hilts]

25. BINGO! We have a winnah!!!!

[Ozma]

63. North Carolina? Nevada? New Mexico? Indiana?

I doubt it.

Would she have chosen Biden or Obama for VP? OR?

[BornBlue]

74. I think the BIG questions are

would she have had his management team, his resources, his money, his volunteers?

I don't know.

[Ozma]

75. Equally good questions.... another reason why I was an Obama guy

from day one... and watched him do his wonderful thing for America.

[BornBlue]

78. I am in IL

so I have been in Obama's corner since the beginning, and I couldn't be prouder or happier for what this country has done!

[Whoa20]

115. West Virgina, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky,

and maybe Tennessee. And she would have WON New Mexico and Nevada, as Latinos actually liked the Clintons more than Obama

[genna]

157. So you think it is true that spin/b.s. they put out about Hispanics would never vote for a black guy

What other tales of the black/brown divide do you have to tell the rest of us?

[Whoa20]

169. i never said it was true,

but I think more would have voted for Hillary, if only because they knew her from the start, she had more connections from the beginning. THey also didn't as much vote Obama as vote against McCain. With Hillary, they'd be voting for her. They knew and liked her, even in the primaries. Obama wasn't so hot with Latinos until the meltdown.

[Barack_America]

5. The big difference would have been in the Midwest.

Michigan would have been closer, I agree that Indiana would have stayed red. Iowa, IMO, would have gone red and MN would have been a toss-up.

CO would not have been a sure thing either.

[fujiyama]

185. The economic collapse would have helped Clinton in MI

I don't think she would have had too much difficulty there.

Then again what about WI, MN and IA? A little closer perhaps but the economy would have trumped all.

I agree about CO. Hard to say about there, VA, or NC. NV would have likely stayed with Hillary. On the flip side she would have done better in AR, WV, TN, KY, and LA. But only AR and WV would have been likely. The others are trending very republican in recent years. But the problem is, she wouldn't have had unlimited $$$, the ground game, or quite the same enthusiasm.

She likely would have won, with a slightly different path to victory though.

[Tinksrival]

6. We will never know

There are just too many variables. The VP choices would be different. Hillary's staff....Bill...history...

But with the economic climate we are in I would hope any Dem would win but like I said...We will never know.

[JVS]

7. She would have lost. She was deep in debt at the end of the primaries, she probably would...

have been unable to get enough funding to wage a successful campaign.

[Metric System]

10. Speaking of sour grapes...

[Captain Hilts]

20. ...and ignorance on how the funding streams work. nt

[Metric System]

27. Exactly. She had plenty set aside for the GE. But let's not allow reality to get in the way of his

hate-on.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Right-oh. nt

[Metric System]

31. Some seem to forget that while Obama raised the most of any Democratic candidate, Hillary was right

behind him. They also seem to forget that they both got around 18 millions votes.

[ROh70]

120. No way HRC could have matched Obama's fundraising prowess. 150 million in Sept. Nuff said.

[Fran Kubelik]

90. JVS is otherwise a generally good guy

...but his irrational hatred of all things Clinton is getting tedious.

[Beacool]

100. Yep, it clouds reality.

:eyes:

[SweetieD]

54. Agreed.

[ecstatic]

57. She would have needed public financing

and then the Bill C. bimbo eruptions would have been all over the news!

[iamthebandfanman]

148. whatever, you know everyone who donated to obama

woulda donated to her if she had been the nominee. gee whiz

[ps1074]

8. She wins MO, AR, WV

Loses OH, VA, NC, IN

[Captain Hilts]

26. Wins Florida. Perhaps Ohio. Not VA and Not IN. nt

[Whoa20]

129. "perhaps" Ohio?

that was one of her strongest states not only in the primaries, but polling GE. She absolutely would have won Ohio. Exchange VA for AR, KY, WV, and MO. She may have even pulled off VA depending on how the situation with Barack went.

[Dark]

174. Um, no.

She would have lost Ohio. Saying she did well in Ohio in the primaries means she'd do well in the GE is like saying in Texas in the primaries means she'd do well in the GE.

Ohioans don't like the clintons.

[LisaM]

9. I think it would have been a narrower victory for a few reasons

one is that she just didn't have the money. I was looking at some of the spending differential yesterday on one of the news shows (can't remember which one). Obama was outspending McCain in place likes Ohio by almost 4 to 1. Hillary couldn't have done that. Second, for whatever reason, Obama was able to inspire turnout that Gore and Kerry certainly couldn't, and that I don't think Hillary could have either. Third, he had more organizers on the ground. Don't get me wrong, I preferred Hillary. But I'm not going to delude myself that she could have pulled off as big a victory.

OTOH, I'm almost certain she would have chosen Obama as her VP, which would neutralize some of the factors I mentioned above. So who really knows?

[liberalpragmatist]

19. I think it depends on how Hillary would have won the nomination

Had she managed to win Iowa (in hindsight, a big uphill battle), she'd have won the nomination early without much acrimony.

Had she not contested South Carolina (and had Bill not injected race into the campaign), she would have done better on Super Tuesday, not alienated blacks and youth voters and been in a pretty strong position.

Had she somehow managed to win by a superdelegate coup (say, Obama doesn't respond well to the Wright crisis) -- then the party is riven by major internal bitterness and lots of less-engaged Obama supporters don't get out and vote.

How she wins the nomination also affects whether she puts Obama on the ticket. Had she somehow eked out a win after the long contested primary, then she definitely offers it to him (whether he accepts is another question). Had she won early, though, I doubt Obama would be her VP nominee -- she'd have, in that case, gone with a safe, white male.

[Hamlette]

where would she have gotten the new votes?

analysis being done by scholars all over the net show Obama brought in 4.5% new, first time young voters and more blacks than Kerry got for a total of 6.2.

The youth say (anecdotal evidence only) they came out for Obama because of the war and against conservative social issues (abortion). Hillary would have gotten the ones for whom abortion was an issue but I'm not sure she would have pull in new, first time voters over the war.

The analysis, if you're interested in looking at this scientifically and not emotionally, is really fascinating.

[PresidentObama]

11. Who cares? Obama won n/t

[Metric System]

12. I'm surprised there wasn't an exit poll done on this. Or is that even possible? But then I don't

really like this "what if" stuff anyway. All we know is the reality and that is that Obama is President-elect.

[ruggerson]

99. there was. It's on CNN's site.

[Whoa20]

135. and Hillary won by a landslide

52-41 with the rest not voting, which of the 2 party vote translated to 56% of the vote. She would have improved with white voters, turned out more women, slightly better with Latinos and turn more out, and blacks would have come back on board.

[genna]

161. No blacks would not. There is a centrist participatory black group who believe in the ballot

But there is a leftist tendency that think that change comes from outside the established order.

After all the Clintons said and did during the primary, I doubt Black men would have turned out in the proportion that they turned out for Barack Obama. I doubt the truly apathic would have returned to the ballot.


As for the conservative 10 or better percentage that voted for Bush, 6% or better jumped party lines and voted for BHO. HRC would not have received their support either.



You tell me what demographic would have enthusiastically gotten behind her after her primary performance.

[Whoa20]

170. what demographics? I'll tell you...

white women, who are a much larger percent of the population than black men would have all around America come out bigger for her, and she may have won that demographic outright. It would have stretched from the northeast to Appalachia to the new south, Florida, the midwest,and the West Coast. She was actually doing better in states like NM and NV than Obama when she was in. Obama only picked up when the economy died.

[Robbins]

13. Hillary

She would not have won Colorado,Indiana,Virginia,and North Carolna.SOme of the Kerry States would
have been closer.She may have put Kentuckey,West Virginia,and Arkansas In Play.She would have done
worse than Obama In Missouri.

[Captain Hilts]

17. She would have won Florida in a walk away. nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. i have no idea

but I doubt Arkansas would have gone blue.

[liberalpragmatist]

15. Well, polls during the primary election showed her doing so

You do have to take any polls taken in the spring with a grain of salt, but they virtually all showed Hillary winning Arkansas with as much as 60% of the vote.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Yes, polls showed her winning all three of her home states; Ark, Ill and NYS.

[Beacool]

101. Yes, she would have won Arkansas.

The internals during the primary showed that she was still extremely popular in the state. They would have switched for their former first lady.

[Arkansas Granny]

30. Just an observation: Arkansas went blue for Bill in 1992 and 1996.

[mtnsnake]

16. I'm guessing, but I think she would've beat McCain too, but maybe not by quite as much

She would match up well against him, though, that's for sure. I don't know if anyone could have run such a flawless campaign as Obama did, though.

Besides Hillary, I think Kerry and Gore could also have beaten McCain in 2008...again, not by quite as much as Obama.

Hillary, Kerry, and Gore were all as competent a candidate as anyone going, but I don't think any of them could match Obama when it comes to the art of campaigning.

[PresidentObama]

33. I don't Hillary or Edwards would have won by this kind of margin.

I supported Edwards, and convinced myself he was the most electable. Then when I voted for Hillary, I was convinced she was the only electable candidate left. All in all, I was blinded by the candidates I supported at the time, and like you said no one could match his art of campaigning. He's the best campaigner since Bill Clinton in 1992.

Hillary could have won.

Edwards could have won.

Kerry, Gore, Clark, Biden, Dodd or Richardson could have.

But at the end of the day, Obama did.

He was the best. Simply put.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Obama is an attractive personality in a way the others weren't.

And his lack of a track record made it possible for people to project onto him what they wanted to see. Again, the others had long track records. This is why Daschel told Obama to run NOW, BEFORE he had a record to defend.

People got a sense of affirmation voting for Obama they didn't get voting for the others. Hence, the intensity of Obama's support even when he didn't yet have the numbers to back it up. Hillary voters voted for her then got on with their lives. There wasn't the intensity.

Obama reminds me so much of Bill Clinton, but because he's a good student of the game, I don't think he'll make the mistakes Bubba did - such as trying to push progressive legislation through too early.

[Beacool]

102. Actually, there was plenty of intensity for Hillary too.

I saw it in the primaries by the amount of volunteers who traveled from various states at their own cost. Maybe they weren't as loud as Obama's youth supporters, by they were just as fervent. They had to be to spend so much money coming to the East Coast from as far as CA, FL, CO, TX, AR, MI, etc.

[ROh70]

121. Yes, but there weren't as many compared to Obama supporters.

[Marrah_G]

141. it was very close

Then those Hillary supporters became Obama supporters.

[mtnsnake]

38. Yup

That about sums it up. This was definitely a year that a Democrat should have won, and one did.

The thing that still boggles my mind, though, is how mistake-free Obama's campaign was. I don't ever remember a candidate being so careful as what the Obama people were. They were always thinking ahead. I think they were the most well prepared campaign ever.

[tpi10d]

18. thoughts... as Obama supporter since Iowa

2008 was change election-the Democrat's year. I suspect the popular vote margin would have been similar. I basically agree with you on the state by state totals. Colorado is another question mark re: Hillary Clinton. I suspect Obama pulls a few percent more than Hillary there-whether it would be enough to overcome the 6% margin..?

That said Obama ran a smooth competent campaign. His performance during the economic crisis and the debates was spot on. His fund raising ability was unequaled. While Hillary is an excellent debater, and probably would have handled the crisis competently, we can't simulate exactly what would have happened.

[liberalpragmatist]

51. Right

Obviously, there are a lot of variables, and her performance would have depended somewhat on *how* she won the nomination. If she won it by superdelegate coup, there'd be a LOT of pissed off Obama voters and Dem turnout may have been depressed.

But assuming she won it by, say, doing better on Super Tuesday and moving into a narrow pledged delegate lead by Texas and Ohio, I think she'd have done about how I described.

Yes, Colorado and the Upper Midwest would have been closer -- but with the economy the big issue, she'd have a large popular vote spread and that would be reflected in the state-by-state total. I think she'd still win the Upper Midwest and Colorado. Virginia would have been closer too and she might have lost it.

[BeyondGeography]

21. We'll never know

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. She blew a 30 pt. lead in the primaries.

I'd expect a similarly dismal performance in the general.

[Tektonik]

23. DOESN'T MATTER, WHO CARES?

[ComtesseDeSpair]

29. I don't think so...

I think Hillary would have lost. I don't think she could have energized people to turnout like Obama did, and without that extra turnout, McCain would have taken most of the battleground states. She also could not have honestly spoken to bringing "Change" to Washington, since she was part of the mainstream Bush/Clinton aristocracy that had controlled the country since 1980. That's one reason I was so happy when Obama won the primaries: I knew we could win the election. Otherwise, we'd have President McCain right now.

[Captain Hilts]

32. "Bush/Clinton" aristocracy? If people want diversity they should vote against Harvard/Yale.

Does this mean that Caroline Kennedy shouldn't be considered for the UN or RFK jr. for an office?

Should we not had FDR because of TR?

[ComtesseDeSpair]

139. I'm not saying that it's bad to be a Clinton...

I'm just saying that she couldn't have the same message of Change as Obama did because she was a Clinton.

[azmouse]

34. We'll never know, and I don't care.

[RoadRage]

35. Completely different race.. impossible to tell.

If Clinton would have won... who would she have picked as VP (probably not Obama).

Who then would McCain have picked.. perhaps Powell to get the "black" vote because black people would have been pissed.

If that would have happened.. a competent VP pick who independants liked... it would have been a much tighter race.

But, there are a million "if he/she did this then that would have happend".. making this impossible to tell.

[Captain Hilts]

37. She would have picked Wesley Clark for veep. He's a general and he's not too tall. nt

[endthewar]

39. Hillary and Bill would have tried to break the backbone of the Republican Party.

Obama has explicitly called for bipartisanship. Hillary and Bill (especially Bill) would have used this opportunity to crush the Republican Party and set them back decades, whereas Obama is content to stand aside and let the Republican Party pick up their pieces. I see Obama as trying to expand the Democratic Party by including more moderates and some Republicans, whereas Hillary would have tried to indirectly expand the Democratic Party by crushing the Republican Party.

[Captain Hilts]

50. Hillary was labelled a DINO when she talked about bipartisanship.

She was fried here for saying that you had to compromise with the opposition to get things done on Capitol Hill.

[endthewar]

83. The Clintons wouldn't be compromisingn with Republicans right now

They would try to break the Republican Party's backbone in two. Just listen to Bill Clinton's Dem Convention speech. He said that the Republican Party veered toward "right-wing extremism" 30 years ago. According to Bill Clinton, it's not that Bush is a bad President, Bush just represents the first time in 30 years that the Republican Party had enough political power (controlling the executive AND legislative branches) to enact the perverse political agenda that they've had all along. The Clintons clearly view the Republican Party ideologically as an evil entity and the Democrats as protecting the American people from their perverse political ideology.

[Beacool]

103. I don't agree.

Check her record in the senate, she has reached across the aisle repeatedly over the years when they shared a common goal.

[karynnj]

152. Who doesn't say those things?

I do think the Clintons would be compromising - that is what they have always done.

[KittyWampus]

80. there is absolutely nothing in either Clinton's record to support your statement. In fact,

their history indicates the opposite.

You must not be familiar with the Clintons and their record going back to Arkansas.

They've been accommodating the NeoCons since Bill was Governor.

[endthewar]

82. Not true. For example, take Bill's statements on the campaign trail

His message has stayed the same, from the Democratic Convention to the stump late in the election season. You can also watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Obama to see a difference in political philosophy here.

Obama's message was that Bush is a bad President and that McCain wants to follow Bush's policies. However, Obama clearly left the door open to disaffected Republicans. Bill Clinton's message was not that Bush was a bad President in particular, but that he was a Republican President. Bill Clinton said that the Republicans veered toward "right-wing extremism" (he uses that phrase verbatim) 30 years ago. It's not that Bush in particular was a bad President, it's just that this is the first time that the Republicans controlled enough of the government to enact their perverse ideological agenda.

Hillary was slightly more diplomatic than this, normally saying things like the Democrats have to dig America out of the hole that the Republicans dug for them. Phrasing it that way leaves it open to interpretation that perhaps she's just talking about Bush. Bill Clinton lays it all out on the table though. It's clear to me that the Clintons view the Republican Party as an evil entity since they veered toward "right-wing extremism" 30 years ago and they view the Democrats and the ones protecting the American people from the Republican Party's perverse agenda, but that they didn't have enough power once Bush was the President and controlled both houses of Congress.

Overall, I think that the Republicans should send a thank you note to Obama. Obama clearly is content to sit on the sidelines while the Republicans pick up their pieces and try to regroup. The Clintons are much different. They're probably still a little bitter or angry over what happened to them in the 90s and I think that they would have used this opportunity to deal the Republicans a crushing blow that would have fractured their party for decades.

I don't know how they were planning on doing it, but if I had to guess, they probably would have tried to pit the social conservative wing of the Republican Party against the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, and then perhaps try to peel off some of that support after some bitter infighting among the Republicans. I don't see the Clintons as being cozy with the social conservative wing (though their DLC membership might suggest otherwise), but perhaps with the neoconservative wing, so they probably would have targeted the neocons. This fits theory fits into your assertion that they were comfortable with the neocons as well. :hi:

[cooolandrew]

40. Barack does better as he had the money and didn't vote for the war.>

There is also the comment she made that McCain passes the CiC level. Not being negative just components that would of been a factor really. Would th youth vote come out as strong is another factor. Although if she ran in 2016 then all these factors would no longer count and would get a sizable win.

[Vattel]

41. I think all of the slanders

against her and Bill by Obama supporters in the Media and elsewhere would have hurt her.

[Captain Hilts]

42. Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd would have had a field day. nt

[Beacool]

104. Yeah, you're right about that.

They are both two pieces of turd.

[blonndee]

85. No more so than the slurs against Obama by their supporters hurt Obama.

[Whoa20]

108. if the Muslim, terrorist slanders

didn't kill Obama, than Monica etc. wouldn't have made a dent in Hillary.

[quakerboy]

43. Does it matter?

In any possible way?

I suppose idle speculation is fun. Lets look at it this way. I think you may be right in your OP assessment. The big differences would be in coattails.

For instance, would a closer race in the NW mean that Merkley might not have won? Would the lessening of AA vote in NC and Georgia be enough to allow Dole and McConnell to be victors rather than a loser and an unlikely contest? How about the effect on the Alaska Senate race?

For me this is close to home. I Feel that we would have lost the senate race here in Oregon, and I think that while Hillary would still have taken Oregon. And I think a price would have been paid down the ticket here. It would have been a bittersweet victory for Oregon.

On the other hand, if the AA vote in California had been lowered significantly, would M8 have passed? That already adds some leavening to my victory celebration.

So.. In my opinion, we would still have the presidency. We would still have majorities in the house and the senate. I am, however, quite sure that the margins would have been smaller nationaly, and our majorities would be slimmer than they are.


But in the end who cares. Obama Won. WE won. Now we need to get through the next couple months till Obama has the pen and can actually start making change. Lets go forward, not backward.

[rug]

44. No Republican would have won this year.

[Ozma]

68. Not with Sarah Palin as VP

But John McFuckup might have chosen a smarter woman to be VP, or might have chosen Huckabee to get the religious right.

I think it would have been a close election... with less black participation.

When was Hillary out there working on voter registration in NC, VA, PA, and NV???

[cwydro]

45. Hillary would have won. nt

[mdmc]

46. HRC would have beat McCain

I don;t know if she would have picked up more seats overall...

[apocalypsehow]

47. We know McCain would not have picked Palin had HRC been on the ticket - that was a transparent

attempt on his part to woo the PUMA'S. That could have been a factor in his favor, at the end of the day, in a matchup with HRC.

I still think she would have won; the GOP brand was just too toxic for the moderate voters in the country this year, and despite what the firebrands at either extreme will tell you (both here and at places like free republic), it is the moderates and independents who determine our national elections.

I was for Obama pretty early on (for Edwards first till he dropped out), but had HRC been our nominee I would've still voted for her. Eight years of Republican misrule was enough.

Edit: grammar & punc.

[Metric System]

76. I think he would have picked Palin anyway. At first I thought the same as you when I assumed it was

just a cynical ploy to win over Hillary supporters. But I think it became apparent that it was actually a cynical ploy to win over the Republican base, which McCain was having a hard time winning over.

[No Elephants]

48. BAIT. Get past the primaries. There is NO rational way on earth to tell how Hillary would

have done. None whatsoever. And no legit reason to pursue it now anyway. The primaries have been over since June. Whether you are huring about Hillary's loos or want to gloat over Obama's win does not matter. Threads like this are nothing but bait.

Hello, we have a new President Elect and a great one, too.

MOVE ON!!

[trayfoot]

49. Hillary would ALSO have won!

[Lady-Damai]

52. Hillary would lose to McCain.

Hillary Clinton went against the ppl and voted for the Iraqi war. I have never heard her say "It was a mistake." During the campaign Hillary used all the power she had to destroy Obama. And what happened? It blew up in her face. My opinion of her has forever changed. I know it probably makes me very immature because I can't forgive and forget. But, I don't give a fuck. I would never in my life try to crush someone to get ahead.



Ppl refuse to understand that when you wickedly try to force fate to happen in your way. You will be fucked!

[Terran]

53. McCain would not have picked Palin if HRC had been

the candidate. Potentially, that could have changed the dynamic significantly. But all else being the same--the crappy negative campaign by McCain and the tanking economy, I think she would have won as well. I do not think her campaign would have been run as flawlessly as Obama's, however, and that's another factor to consider.

[SweetieD]

55. She would have lost.

[ecstatic]

56. Hillary would NOT have used the 50 state strategy

Remember, her strategy during the primaries was the old school way of thinking. Focus would have been on big blue states only. The map would have remained the same and there would have been a greater chance of losing.

[Captain Hilts]

81. No. The primaries and GE are very different.

[Beacool]

58. She would have won, ANY Democrat would have won this year.

Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc.

After 8 years of the Bush administration, the economic bust of a few weeks ago and McCain picking Palin as his VP, a dead Democrat would have won the election.

:D

[JVS]

60. Edwards would have been destroyed by his scandal.

[Beacool]

96. Yeah, you're right.

I meant under his pre-scandal days.

[democrattotheend]

59. I said 6 months ago that Hillary would win or lose 51-49. Obama would win or lose in a landslide.

I always felt that Hillary had a lower ceiling but a higher floor when it came to electoral votes (and probably the popular vote too). She started out with more guaranteed votes but fewer people who were willing to consider voting for her. People had pretty much made up their mind about her one way or another, so she had fewer Democrats she had to convince but there were fewer independents and crossover voters who were willing to take a chance on her.

A lot of it would have depended how she handled the economic crisis and how she responded to McCain's stunt. I'm torn on whether she would have been in a stronger or weaker position after the financial crisis hit. On the one hand, people associated the Clinton years with a strong economy. On the other hand, one could make the case that some of the deregulation that led to this crisis happened during the Clinton years. If she had been the nominee there would have been a lot of squabbling about who was responsible for the crisis, whereas Obama's relative lack of experience ended up helping him, because he was too new to Washington for anyone to be able to blame him for it, and people were willing to take a chance on change and look forward instead of back.

From an electoral standpoint, I think Hillary would have been stronger in Appalachia and the Rust Belt but weaker in the upper midwest and southeast. She probably would have won Arkansas and West Virginia, but would not have won Virginia or North Carolina, and probably not Indiana either. And states like Wisconsin and Minnesota might have been more competitive than they ended up being, though she probably would have won Ohio bigger and not had to worry at all about Pennsylvania.

[theboss]

62. Probably a win with different math

We don't win VA, NC, or IN. Maybe not FL. Probably win WV.

[Whoa20]

132. what the hell are you talking about?

of course she woulda won Florida. Old folks there love her. She was popular in that state before Obama announced his run.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Kerry states + MO + AR + OH to win.

[Whoa20]

107. and a lot more,

as she was winning FL from the start, not sruggling in it like Obama initially was. She woulda won FL much bigger along with Ohio. She also easily woulda destroyed McCain in West Virginia, and was actually winning NC by a lot http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html when she was polled, while at that point, Obama was still struggling. He won, and it was precipated by the economy. Hillary being the nominee woulda taken off by much more when the economy melted in September. Latinos loved her too, and woulda won New Mexico and likely Nevada too. She woulda won all the Obama states plus MO, AR, KY, WV, minus VA and IN. CO woulda been toss up, but who cares.

[Dr Fate]

65. Hard to tell- but my guess is she could have squeeked by. n/t

n/t

[Arugula Latte]

66. I think she likely would have lost.

She would have run more of a traditional campaign, which wouldn't have worked this time. She misread the mood of the country from the start -- that's a big reason why she lost in the primary.

And, let's face it, millions of people gnash their teeth at the mere mention of Hillary's name (and not just Republicans -- I know a few liberals who said they would not vote for her, period). I think she would have mobilized and energized the 'pukes enough to where they likely would have pushed back enough to win.

[Whoa20]

134. people like you

always just say she's polarizing with shit to back it up. Hillary woulda won in a landslide. Women all across America would have come out in greater force, she'd have done better with white voters, Latinos liked her even better than Obama, she was stronger in the swing states. Your hate of the Clintons is showing.

[Arugula Latte]

163. Obama did better with white voters than Kerry did.

Latinos weren't as familiar with Obama at first, but then their support skyrocketed. They came out in full force for him -- the highest percentage ever. That is why he won Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

Just because I didn't want Hillary doesn't mean I "hate" her. I did hate a lot of what she said in the primaries, though.

As for your contention that women would have stepped up for her -- well, yes, many would have. But I know many more women who were despondent over the possibility of a Hillary nomination. About 80 percent of the Democratic women I talked to who told me their preference wanted Obama over Hillary.

[Whoa20]

171. wow, a duck could do better with Kerry

with white voters. Have you not forgot John Kerry was the ultimate old money Yale New Englander who was stiff like wood? Also, the fact that "you know" Women who wanted Obama over Hillary means nothing. Anecdotes don't mean shit. Anyone can say, you know. Polls showed they preferred her over Obama. You're also from Oregon, a perennial Democratic state. Dem women in Ohio, WV, KY, FL, AR, MO, TN are a lot different from those in non-swing states. I know Obama won OH and FL, but barely. Hillary polled a lot better in those states. She also polled way higher with white women in NC, a state she was actually beating John McCain in lately in trial heats.

[Arugula Latte]

172. Obama actually won Ohio and Florida with very respectable margins for a modern election.

And he won Florida because the Latino voters went for him big time.

Anyway -- Hillary didn't have the sense to run a decent campaign -- so much for her "experience." She was tone-deaf to the mood of the country, played the "oh, poor me" card over and over, appealed to white racism in Appalachia and never gave a proper apology for her war vote. I'm glad she's back in the Senate.

Bye.

[bigwillq]

67. She would've won. Heck, I would've won!

As much as the support was strong for Obama, a lot of people wanted the Repukes out of office so people voted for the DEMS.

[Captain Hilts]

72. You've got my vote!

[bigwillq]

79. YAY!

bigwillq in 2016! :bounce:

[Drunken Irishman]

69. I think Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico would have gone to McCain.

Missouri would have been tight, but even that wasn't a given.

She wouldn't have won Indiana, North Carolina or Virginia and would have lost the deep south like Obama.

She also probably loses Iowa, which really liked Obama and wins Minnesota and Wisconsin by a smaller margin. Ohio most likely would have gone to Clinton, giving her a 309-229 victory, most likely.

[blonndee]

87. I agree on NM.

I really could not see Hillary winning NM in the general. Her being on the ticket would have turned out the RWers much more than Obama did. JMO.

[Whoa20]

110. she would not have lost nevada or New Mexico

as she was stronger there in June before the market melt before Obama gained there http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html . Plus, Latinos liked her even better than Obama. She woulda slaughtered McCain as badly on the coasts, and mobilized women

[Celeborn Skywalker]

118. I disagree on NM.

People here seem to love Clinton.

[ROh70]

123. Agree with your analysis. She barely makes 300 EV. If she does so at all.

She also would have had trouble in the northwest - Oregon and WA. Remember, McCain thought Oregon was in play when he thought Hillary was going to be his opponent.

I could easily see her losing a Kerry state or two; Wisconsin or Oregon, for example.

[CANDO]

70. I contended all along the Republican hate machine would do her in.

They had so much more to go on(in their own minds). She may have still won, but I personally didn't want to re-live the 1990's.

[Captain Hilts]

71. They tried and failed for 16 years. You can't blame her for "the 1990s"

[JimWis]

73. Since this is just a thought exercise - I think she would have won.

No idea as to what margin.

[Dems to Win]

77. MCCAIN would have been a completely different candidate against Hillary

Robert Draper's reporting about the McCain campaign made clear that McCain disdained and disliked Obama. That attitude was visible in the debates. McCain came across as condescending and angry. The grumpy old man image.

If Hillary had been the nominee, McCain would have been 'the happy warrior'. McCain likes and respects Hillary, and the feelings are mutual. McCain would have come across as a completely different person when debating Hillary.

I don't know if happy warrior McCain could have won, where grumpy old man McCain lost. No way to know. But I do think it would have been a significant difference.

[Beacool]

98. I agree with you.

McCain does like and respect Hillary. They have a friendship, even though they can argue like cats and dogs on the senate floor. When they argue it's usually over money that Hillary wants for NY and McCain is intent to prevent her from getting. When they get into these disagreements the other senators stay away with a shrug, they know they'll be back to joking around once the argument is over. They can both be very passionate about getting their point of view across.

:D

[Whoa20]

130. just like Bob Dole

who was good friends with President Clinton. He would have barely attacked her, she would have eaten him alive. He wouldn't have Ayers, Acorn, other BS to pull. She'd use her populism on her, and in economic downturns, would have worked with great effect. She was also a killer debater. McCain would have been caught off guard every time.

[Recursion]

84. Bigger popular vote margin, smaller electoral vote margin

She would have won bigger in the "battleground" states, and essentially done in spades Kerry's attempted electoral map.

Two roads, same destination.

[secondwind]

86. we would have been deprived of Sarah Palin! McCain would have chosen someone else

[eridani]

88. Depends on whether her campaign held on to the 12 state strategy or not

She had no plans for after 2/5/08, and adopted a multistate campaign as a matter of necessity rather than a matter of basic strategy. Obama would probably have put his people to work on her ground game, and that would have made a difference.

[yeswecanandwedid]

89. She is good and all, but she is no Obama.

[ibegurpard]

91. That's who they geared up for

I really don't think they knew how to handle an Obama candidacy.

[TheKentuckian]

92. I think Hillary would have still won but it would have been tight

because we'd be in a 2000/2004 type situation.

She would have taken public financing, McCain would have been able to go with a more traditional and/or competent VP because Hillary would have fired up the base even if he still had to go to the well with Jindal or Huckabee, and McCain would have been able to WAY more civil.

I think she would have won by keeping the Kerry states and flipping Florida and probably Ohio, which would have left the old map but we'd have got her in.

Of course McCain ran a pretty damned inept campaign so he may have still screwed himself by selecting Jeb or something stupid and maybe went on to near Mondalian defeat winning only Oklahoma and Utah.

Of course we could have run Bayh, won every state but be completely deenergized and so middle of the road that no one would be sure who the hell the President is or what party was in charge.

Its interesting to speculate but I think we did about as well as we could unless Obama could have been white and named Dave Bryant or something. Hell, he probably lost 3-6 points on the name alone.

[NorthernSpy]

93. IF Hillary had been the nominee, and IF McCain had chosen Huckabee...

Then we could actually have lost this race.


Fewer new voters would have been registered.

Black turnout would have been lower.

Latino turnout would have been lower and split.

And on top of that, working class whites might have shifted somewhat toward McCain, because of the Huckabee factor.

[Whoa20]

112. yea, only the moderates woudla ran to Clinton

as Huckabee was nearly Bush along with McCain. Latino turnout woulda been far higher, they liked her a lot better than Obama during the primary, and the Clitnons woulda focused heavily on them. Women woulda come out in greater numbers against Huckabee. Depending on how the nod would determine black turnout. White working class woulda actually went to Clinton because the Clintons r far more populist, and populism woulda won it for her, economically, considering how economically people trust the Clintons. The blacks didn't even turn out more this year than 2004. SHe woulda won in a fucking landslide.

[Skip Intro]

94. I think the map would have been just as blue, but one big variable not mentioned - Hillary/? -

Actually, I think she'd have picked Biden for vp too, and I think it would have worked out as well as it did for Obama.

I agree that the difference would have been in the south - Arkansas for NC, possibly WV and/or KY for VA (although Hillary/? may have taken VA too).

However, had McCain picked a serious, experienced, somewhat moderate moderate running mate, we may have had a different outcome regardless of whether Obama or Hillary headed our ticket. Then again, without Palin,he repuke base might have gone into apathetic coma with a moderate choice, so the repuke base, had Hillary won the nom, may have been beyond ressurection for this election.

You know, this is fun, alternate history. But it always ends the same - who knows?

[yellowcanine]

95. I think Hillary would still have won but without as many red states.

I think McCain would have hung onto North Carolina, Indiana, and maybe Virginia. OTOH I think she would have done a little better than Obama in Ohio and she likely would have snatched West Virginia back.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

97. I don't like to engage in this type of speculation, but I have thought about it.

I think Hillary would probably have won but likely not in the kind of epic smashdown Obama did.

She probably would have won by taking Kerry states and one or both of OH and FL.

Hard to say but I suspect she would not have been competitive in VA and NC and not in CO. She probably could have won NM too with a strong Richardson endorsement. IA would not have been as easy a win for her as Obama.

I think a very narrow win or loss would be possible for her due to being competitive in less states.

I'm still really impressed that Obama's core, minimum Kerry plus IA/NM/CO strategy was totally solid, and that he didn't need NC/VA/OH/FL/NV but got them anyway with his outstanding ground game.

[anonymous171]

105. It would have been Bush legacy vs Clinton legacy

So basically Hillary would have won by similiar margins (probably a little less, since she may not have been able to flip places like VA, NC, or IN.)

[Whoa20]

109. it woulda been a return to normalcy

and she woulda won all the other Obama states plus Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, and perhaps Tennesee, She still may have won NC. Look at her in June, before the economy sank http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html and come Sept, it only woulda gotten better, whereas Obama started off with even less.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

116. You can't extrapolate old polls like that with any certainty.

Obama had no shot according to early Iowa polls. And Obama was doing much worse against McCain around the time he secured the nomination than he did much just before the election and in the actual voting. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, although I think you are, just that the information you provided is not a valid basis for making such a prediction.

Actually there is no way to make a particularly valid statement about this as there wasn't much data collected about Clinton vs. McCain once she lost the nomination.

[Whoa20]

119. a party nomination

is way different than a GE campaign. By June, the campaign was already under way, and given the economic course of events which occurred, theres no reason to believe the blue states on that map woulda moved red. If not, more red states woulda gone blue.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

125. The poster I was responding to is claiming that HRC would've won all the states Obama won,

along with a bunch more (MO, AR etc.).

There's no doubt economic events would have helped HRC as well as Obama. But Obama's victories in places like VA and NC are not only due to the man's unique appeal as well as the super motivated black vote there, but a direct result of the incredible campaign effort from Obama's people.

There's no way that poster can credibly claim those states would have just gone to Hillary by default due to prevailing conditions. She could not raise the money like Obama or have the people on the ground like Obama so, given VA and especially NC were somewhat close for Obama, I suspect HRC would NOT have won them.

I do think she would have won WV and AR though and perhaps had more of a chance in KY.

[Whoa20]

127. she did have a lot of big donors,

and if her camp was grassroots like the middle of the primary, she woulda raised a shitload of grassroots money. I do think VA may have been harder, but she was polling strong against McCain in NC, and white voters may have made up for blacks there, tho I think depending on the scenarios, blacks would have come home. MO, AR, and KY definitely her.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

133. We simply disagree, and it's a pointless exercise. She lost, he won, and

he and his campaign did things right to secure a resounding victory. Regardless of prevailing condition and opponent, it's an incredible achievement.

[Metric System]

113. According to the Newsweek article I read today featuring campaign stuff that wasn't allowed to be

printed until after the election, the McCain campaign were most afraid of Obama picking Hillary as his VP. Now whatever they could have used against her running as President would also be useful in using against her as VP, so the fact that they were scared of her being picked kind of makes me think that they didn't have much new dirt on her. I remember many posters here saying that the McCain campaign was probably praying that Hillary would be picked as VP and now we come to find out they were scared of her!

[ROh70]

117. Difference between being VP and President.

They could attack her as the front of the ticket in ways they couldn't attack her as VP.

[w4rma]

165. The McCain campaign picked Palin. They are a bunch of idiots in that campaign. (nt)

[ROh70]

114. 150 MILLION DOLLARS in September. Obama. No way Hillary could have done as well.

Are people forgetting that Hillary was 26 million dollars in debt at the end of the primaries? Sure, she had cash for the general, but, I don't know if she would have opted out of public financing, and even if she did, there is no way she could have matched the amount of money Obama raised in just the month of September, let alone August and October.

Without as much money, she would have been forced to take a narrow path to 270, focusing on the Kerry states and Ohio and Florida.

Also, the McCain campaign wouldn't have imploded the way it did against Obama. It wouldn't have picked Palin, and McCain wouldn't have had to lie to smear Obama, since they had a 1000 page playbook to use against her, and Bill.

And she would have been vulnerable with all the crap she pulled during the primaries, especially with her humiliating sniper fire lie.

People also forget that HRC had extremely high negatives with independents.

Hillary would probably still have won, but, no way she would have picked up North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado. She would have had to play defense in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. She would have picked up West Virginia and Arkansas, but those don't amount to very many electoral votes.

In the end, she might have barely gotten 300 electoral college votes.

[rogerballard]

122. C H AN G E

period end of story......

[Awsi Dooger]

124. Excellent analysis, liberalpragmatist

I couldn't disagree with anything, and I like to nitpick. :)

One factor to consider: There is significant evidence Sarah Palin helped McCain avoid a more lopsided defeat. I'm amazed no one is mentioning it. The one major voting block that defied typical tendency this year was white women. They preferred McCain, 53-46. That doesn't jive with a 6 point Democratic national margin at all. For reference point, in 2006 Democrats won the national House vote by similar margin, 53-46, with white women favoring the GOP by 1 point. So only 2 years later, in another Democratic wave cycle, and white women shift preference considerably, from a 1 point deficit to 7 points. Maybe you can speculate bigotry in certain states, but the more logical conclusion is Palin indeed helped McCain with white women. Prior to her selection, I expected McCain to win the white female vote by 2-4 points. A +7 was very surprising, and its amazing when it comes parallel with a 6+ point national deficit for McCain.

And it's hardly a stretch to believe Hillary would have fared much better than a 7 point deficit among white women. She obviously would have trailed Obama in other categories but the strength among white females would balance it, or very close.

It is not credible to assert Hillary would have lost, not in a pro-Democratic climate like this, with a late cycle boost from the economic collapse. If anything, Hillary was better positioned to emphasize economic strength than Obama.

Last night Ed Rollins said Hillary would have won.

[Whoa20]

126. by a lot more popular vote,

electoral college, more or less the same, tho I'm inclined to say more. First, because she was more palatable over a more geographical area. Obama did well in the traditional Democratic areas, the coasts and the upper midwest, but got shelacked in the south and Appalachia. Clinton was relatively popular in Appalachia, and would have done better in the south, winning Arkansas, Missouri, Florida by a lot more given her established popularity she had there before, and she woulda kept the margins smaller in the deep south, probably because of race. She woulda done better in Texas, as Bill actually ran strong in some of the northern counties when he ran. Arkansas woulda gone to her huge. Louisiana woulda been close, if not her because Bill won it twice and it borders Akansas, where Clintons are still wildly popular. In Appalachia, she woulda won West Virginia, and Kentucky, as she was pulling ahead of McCain there late season, it voted Clinton twice, and the economic situation woulda killed the GOP there because of its working class roots. Tennessee woulda been closer, if not hers for the same reasons. her message was tailor made for those folk: populism. Like with Obama, the Bush factor woulda been huge on the coasts like with Obama. Nationally, she woulda have performed higher with women for obvious reasons, not only done as well or better percentage wise as Obama, but turned more of them out. Maybe she wouldn't have done as well in OR and WA and in WI, but that woulda been offset in Michigan because of the working class whites she would have had. The Latinos would have turned out more, as they liked her from the start, and didn't need to warm up as they did to Obama, and they know the Clintons. She still woulda won New Mexico and Nevada. Colorado, open question. Virginia, I think may have gone her, but maybe not cuz of lower youth vote, but in June she was winning NC handily http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html , yes I know thats an old poll, but it still showed strength, especially when the meltdown happened. Depending on how the nod went would determine black turnout. If she had won it smoothly, it would have been huge because they liked the Clintons a lot prior, but if she had won it after PA, it woulda taken work. But then again, black turnout wasn't much higher this year than in 2004. Nationally, she wins because of better showing white voters and white working class, better Latinos, but more importantly, far high female turnout all over America. The youth lower, but offset by the rest. I'd say pop vote, a landslide, 54, 55%+. Electorally, I say the Obama states, minus Indiana, VA, and CO, but she'd win Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, maybe Tennessee, and perhaps LA. Given Obama didn't get killed too bad in Texas, she coulda gotten close or won. In the realm of 360-400 electoral votes.

[Zero Division]

136. Hillary desperately needed a better campaign team and strategy

I don't think she would have built the kind of on-the-ground organization that Obama had, which was essential to the size of Obama's win. I think a lot of post-election analysis will continue to illustrate this. Obama may have narrowly lost to McCain without the advantage of money, consistent message, the 50-state strategy, proactive anti-vote suppression measures, and his excellent GOTV organization. Although, I also think Obama does have a considerable amount of plain old charisma as a result of his cool, even temperament and ability to excite people that cannot be underestimated.

[Erin Elizabeth]

138. Not relevant. She wasn't the candidate.

End of story.

[all.of.me]

140. She would have run a different type of campaign.

I don't usually play the what-if game, but I'm sure all political analysts are thinking about this.

It was the kind of campaign Obama ran that got him elected. They got people to go out in droves and register, they encouraged early voting. Hundreds of thousands of blacks registered and voted for Obama, and I'm not sure that would have happened with Clinton. Same for the youth vote - I don't think she would have gotten it.

I don't think she could have raised enough money to pull off what Obama pulled off. He had a unique campaign setting precedent after precedent, doing things no one has done before. He and Clinton think differently, and that would have created different results. I won't speculate on her win or loss, but we wouldn't have seen the enthusiasm we did, and it was that enthusiasm that got him elected.

My 2 cents.

[davidpdx]

142. I think it's too difficult to speculate given some factors would have changed

but I think she would have won narrowly over McSame.

Some of the factors to consider:

Fund-raising (would she opt out of public financing like Obama did?)
Who would she pick as her VP? (it wouldn't have necessarily been Obama)
Would McSame had picked someone different or still picked Palin?
Would she have ran a traditional campaign like she did in the primary of moved to more of a grassroots campaign?


I'm sure there are more I could list, but I'll leave it at that.

[LostinVA]

143. She also would have won, the margin would have depended on the running mate

[Lilith Velkor]

144. Given the economy still would have imploded in October

she would have CRUSHED THEM.

(And Barack Obama would be VP.)

[LostinVA]

145. Yup, agreed

Sorry -- I meant the margin would depend on McCain's running mate.

[Beacool]

147. Yeah, that was my preferred ticket.

Clinton/Obama and then Obama/?

We could have had 16 years of Democratic rule with two great history making presidents.

Alas........

:cry:

[iamthebandfanman]

149. she woulda won, but i see no need to speculate beyond that.

cant we just be happy a democrat is president again?

[PBS Poll-435]

150. 538-0 nt

[Renew Deal]

151. I think Hillary would have had a lot of problems.

There would have been some tradeoff on states. But would Hillary have won Ohio? I'm nt sure. Would she have won Florida? It's possible. It would have been a much different campaign.

[high density]

153. Who knows, but she probably would have been fine.

McCain wouldn't have picked Palin, and that probably would've helped him slightly. The economic downturn plus McCain's unfocused, out of touch reaction to it meant nearly any Democrat could've won 270 EVs no matter what states they came from.

[WI_DEM]

154. We will never know, will we?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

156. Could we have another election and find out?

:*

[fujiyama]

186. ROFL@

I woke up to NPR talking about this. The Onion had a hilarious article on this as well about Obama supporters now having nothing to do.

I'm still kinda confused wondering when the next Rasmussen poll is coming out or Zogby or R2K or...Then I see the actual results and they look better than I ever imagined. I just love to see that Obama carried IN and he carried NV by 15+ points. Just crazy...

I should just get some sleep.

[genna]

158. Is HRC on record in believing in the 50 state strategy? I thought she stuck to the Gore and Kerry

model. Howard Dean who was blamed for every problem would have had to give up his DNC seat. Who would have been in the forefront making the case for her?

Mark Penn didn't do it for me.

Who else?

[Whoa20]

182. except she was a contender

in more states than Obama BEFORE the meltdown http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html god only knows how much she woulda wrecked McCain by if she had been the nod when the market died.

[kwolf68]

159. Absolutely no way to know

If she was the selection, then McCain does not select the dimbulb. The entire dynamics of the race change. Also, Hillary -while being one sharp cookie- I don't think would have had cross sectional appeal. She's not near the speaker or campaigner Obama is either.

I think Hillary would have beaten McCain/???? but it would have been much tighter.

[Sebastian Doyle]

162. She would have won, but by a much narrower margin

Main reason.... the pathetic campaign team. It's a fair question to ask which team was worse this year, Hillary's or McCain's. But considering that they all came from the same lobbying firm, that's not surprising. Penn & Wolfson are worthless fuckwits and I hope nobody who calls themselves a Democrat will ever have anything to do with them again.

[w4rma]

164. She makes a worse President and fires up the opposition. We got a much better deal with Obama. (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

166. I think she would have been consigned to the 50:50 paradigm.

IMO it would have been a squeaker in either direction. It's Obama and Dean's 50-state strategy, the same strategy that Clintonites denigrated, that created the monster victory.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

175. I seem to recall Democrats in the primaries denigrating Obama's efforts in red states.

"He'll never win in those states" that he took in the primaries, they said.

Amazing that Obama's victory combinations didn't require either OH or FL yet he won both.

Amazing times we live in.

[lojasmo]

167. Same as Kerry did.

Same coin, different side.

[Independent_Voice]

173. My guess...

She still would have beat McCain in the popular vote and electoral college.

But she wouldn't have won North Carolina or Indiana, and she would have had difficulty carrying Virginia. Probably would have carried all of the other Obama states, though.

Also, she would have spurred a lot of split-ticket voting...for example, more people voting for Clinton at the top of the ticket but for Republicans in U.S. Senate races (for example, voting Clinton/Smith in Oregon or Clinton/Coleman in Minnesota or Clinton/Dole in North Carolina, in order to "maintain balance" to "temper Hillary's LIBRULism").

[Mid_FL_voter]

176. Who cares?

I was and am a Hillary fan. She lost. Obama won.

There is a big part of me that know that Hillary had a huge bunch of baggage and she may not have been able to win.... or maybe she could have. I just don't care. We won. That is all that matters at this point in time for me.

[fujiyama]

184. I agree for the most part

but looking at the trends, I think she too would have had a tough fight in TN, KY, and LA. MO would have still been a toss up. She would have likely taken AR and WV. All of those states have trended away from Dems on the presidential level since '00. Yes, the Clinton name would have helped but the religious right's influence has grown.

I don't think she would have invested much in IN or NC. I think VA would have been closer. And CO and NV as well.

Overall, Obama's ground game was just incredible. That's why we see crazy close margins as was the case in MT. NV was an absolute blowout.

Too many factors to say for certain but my guess:

Hillary: Better in the Ozarks/Apalachia (TN, KY, MO, AR, LA) - but all have trended republican in recent years though I think the name is strong in WV and AR moreso than elsewhere
Obama: Better in VA, NC, IN, and possibly CO as well as the upper midwest great lakes state (MN, IA, WI)

Likely wins for both: Northeast states, FL, OH, southwest (NV, NM)

So, in the end we come to a Dem victory for Hillary as well because of the two big prizes (FL and OH) and a few others like AR and WV and maybe one of the others I listed above...Maybe flip an Obama state or two or three (haha, that's fun to say - an "Obama state") and it all comes out to around the same electorally.

Popular vote is tough to say. She may or may not have got as many people excited to register, ground game would have been different, money, etc. But as Awsi said white females definitely would have gone for Clinton is larger numbers (at least in regions listed above).

Both would have won ultimately, but with slightly different paths to victory.

[doyourealize1]

187. She would have defeated McCain handily but probably by a smaller margin

This is not a knock on Obama or Hillary. Obama is as good of a candidate or better than Hillary for the country at this time.

The Newsweek article said that the McCain people were terrified of Hillary. She ran a platform which was more centrist than Obama's, and she would have inevitably avoided the race issue, as well. She still would have slaughtered McCain.

I believe that the racist vote doomed Obama in Missouri. North Carolina and Virginia were won due to high turnout among AA voters. Indiana was won due to its proximity to Illinois. Either Democrat could have won Ohio and Florida. Hillary probably would have won those states by a larger margin.

She would have lost Indiana and NC. She would have won West Virginia and Arkansas. She would have a chance in Tennessee and Kentucky since Bill Clinton was popular there. Another chart showed that the racist vote factored into the vote there, as well.

Thus,

Clinton: +MO (11) +WV (5) +Arkansas (6) +TN (11, for the sake of argument) = +33
Obama: +NC (15) +IN (11) +VA (13) = +39

Even though she would have had a decent chance in Tennessee and Kentucky, my best guess would be that she would have lost in both or one of those places. Obama lost handily in those two places, and I doubt that racists + Bill popularity could make up for both of those states.

[bluetrain]

188. A little bit better than Obama because the fascists wouldn't have chosen a female VP to counter her.

Just a few points better really. The bizarre hatred towards the Clintons (thanks CIA Agent #XXXXX aka Randi Rhodes aka....) would not have decimated her vote count with any significant demographic.

[quaker bill]

189. No way to be sure

but I think she could have lost.

Hillary stated that she was a "fighter", and promised on every occasion to "fight". McCain was looking for a fight. Barack was most careful in refusing to "fight". Instead, he remained calm and simply restated his position. In this manner, he allowed the lies and bs no quarter. He even occasionally made a joke of their attempts to throw mud and anger him. "I can take four more weeks of their attacks, can you take for more years of their policy?" This was ultimately dismissive of the republicans and effective in the extreme.

I did not see Hillary as capable or even intending to try this approach. I am convinced that Hillary would have "fought" just as they did in the 1990s. "Fighting" allows them to frame the debate. Had they been able to frame the debate, been allowed "to make a big election about small things", they might have won. Hillary was quite vulnerable here, and I think would have lost, but at least, the race would have been much closer.

What McCain did not like about Obama was the same thing Hillary did not like about him. Niether could get him visibly angry, this is why we got the favorable result.

[DawgHouse]

190. She would have won handily, same as Obama. n/t

[Hokie]

191. Viriginia? North Carolina? Indiana?

I think those are three states that you can make a very strong argument that Hillary might not have carried. I cannot name one state that Obama did not carry that Hillary would have. Hillary would have won over McCain. I have been telling people this week that the real election this year was decided in June. The Repubugs really hate me when I say this because they know it is true.

[quickesst]

192. Simple...

If she had won the nomination with Obama in the running, it would have been a similar win to his, but with a different looking electoral map. It still would have been a substantial win. On the other hand, and I don't harbor any illusions that honest reactions will be the order of the day, if Obama had not ran, she would have won the nomination easily, and the Clintons would not have been made out to be racist at every opportunity, which would have resulted in the biggest landslide in history. The post-primary demonization of HRC, and her supporters concerning their level of support, which by the way, turned out to be a somewhat delusional perception of Clinton haters, is one subject that bothers me in that Obama supporters claim, without the aid of a crystal ball, that they would have, unlike Clinton supporters, gotten behind her 100%. There would have been no alternative groups akin to those like Puma, and they would have been the most gracious, and supportive group in history. Critical thinking calls bullshit on this premise. You asked, I responded. Given that I was a strong supporter of Clinton, I have to say that in the end, I was thrilled with Obama's campaign, and extremely proud to have cast my vote for him, and by extension, the salvation of this country. Things now are as they should be, but arriving at this moment of unity could have come much sooner, and with a lot less time spent in the sewer. Thanks.
quickesst

[bunkerbuster1]

193. We have to factor in a "bimbo eruption"

To put it coarsely. We have no idea of what kind of stories about Bill would've been ginned up by the Reich Wing Noise Machine, but I suspect she'd have had a tougher time fighting guilt-by-association tactics than did Obama.

Just my gut speaking here.

Of course I would've enthusiastically supported Hillary, I think she could've won, I just think it would've been tougher for her.

[MJkcj]

194. McCain said the economy is fundamentally sound so yeah, he would have lost either way

Interesting question. I supported Hillary in the beginning but switched over to barak at the convention and never looked back. In fact i admired barak in the beginning and remembered his speech at kerry's convention as being inspiring so it was easy for me to fall in love with him once Hillary was out of the picture...

it is interesting to speculated if he could have won against her. He would not have picked Palin so that would have helped him. But, oh wait, he thought the economy was fundamentally sound the week before the bottom fell out on the world market... yep... I think he would have lost anyway

but it would have been a nail bitter

all in all, i am VERY happy with our new president! GoBama!

[Deep13]

197. unknown

[BklynChick]

198. I think she may have won, but not change the map.

[Whoa20]

200. Obama did not change the map,

he won blue states plus a few stock swing states. He won narrow victories in states where Bush was extremely hated. Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico is not changing any map. When Dems win, they win those states. He did not extend the Democrats into any new region. The Dems are still the Northeast/midwest/east coast party. Hillary woulda won all of that, plus added Appalachia, and done so for good. Economic populism is more permanent especially there than young people turning out because Obama's not the status quo, but will be in 4 years.

[galaxy21]

199. Didn't Hillary have very high unfavourable ratings?

Obama made a good point in the primaries: he wasn't starting out with 47% of people saying they wouldn't even consider for him.