Hillary should've ran in 2004

[SilverStar]

She would've won

[AltWorlder]

Wrong forum but probably, yeah, Bush needed to be taken down hard and maybe she was the only one who could really do it.

[BlueSwan]

Nah, 2004 was too early. 2008 was the year for her. She should have run with Obama as her VP and then Obama should have run in 2016. Hillary would have been a great president and Obama would have been much more effective with some experience under his belt.

[Eraserhead]

Bush would have absolutely clowned her.

[SilverStar]

Bush would have absolutely clowned her.

No lol she would've won with at least 296 Electoral Votes,cope

[SilverStar]

Nah, 2004 was too early. 2008 was the year for her. She should have run with Obama as her VP and then Obama should have run in 2016. Hillary would have been a great president and Obama would have been much more effective with some experience under his belt.

Nah 2004 was fine for her,being a Senator from New York in a post 9/11 environment would've been a big asset for her.

[BlueSwan]

Nah, 2004 was too early. 2008 was the year for her. She should have run with Obama as her VP and then Obama should have run in 2016. Hillary would have been a great president and Obama would have been much more effective with some experience under his belt.

Nah 2004 was fine for her,being a Senator from New York in a post 9/11 environment would've been a big asset for her.

She wasn't popular in 2004 though and a run would probably have been viewed as a very cynical move. She was only somewhat more popular in 2008, but 2008 was just a such a great year fro democrats because people hated GWB - and of course because of the economic situation. Hillary's real popularity came when she was secretary of state, which is also why it seemed like a 2016 run was a great idea and nobody serious (Sanders wasn't viewed as a serious candidate initially) dared to challenge her for the nomination.

https://medium.com/@PollsAndVotes/hillary-clinton-favorability-1993-2019-95ab99c35d49

[RGM2609]

She should've ing not choked and run an even mediocre campaign in 2008 or 2016. It's as simple as that.

[Vice President Christian Man]

I doubt she would've won Ohio. Maybe if she won NV+NM she could've had a path, but Bush was in a good spot with most American's. 2000 if Gore didn't run or even 2008 if Obama didn't would've been better years for her and it's more likely she would've won. She ran in the wrong year.

[SilverStar]

I doubt she would've won Ohio. Maybe if she won NV+NM she could've had a path, but Bush was in a good spot with most American's. 2000 if Gore didn't run or even 2008 if Obama didn't would've been better years for her and it's more likely she would've won. She ran in the wrong year.

She would've won Ohio since she would've done better than Kerry in Appalachia and Iowa which was a close Bush win+Missouri and Arkansas

[Del Tachi]

I don't think she could have run.  Bush could have just as easily attacked her as Kerry for being a liberal and a flip-flopper, which was not going to go over well with the '04 electorate.  Nominating Hillary only 4 years after Bill Clinton left the White House would have also felt a bit forced.

2008 was always Hillary's plan.  Bush also looked pretty indestructible for most of 2002, which is when the major Democratic options for president would have been deciding on whether to run.

[holtridge]

Bush would have won. She wasn't ready in 2004. She was in the right place as she was at that time the United States Senate.

[SilverStar]

Bush would have won. She wasn't ready in 2004. She was in the right place as she was at that time the United States Senate.

Bush wouldn't won Arkansas and Missouri over her in 2004.