How would have Hillary's 2008 map differed?

[TDAS04]

I may have been too generous to Hillary with my map, at least with Kentucky and probably West Virginia too. 

Arkansas, on the other hand, I could easily see as having gone to Clinton in 2008.  Kerry lost it by only 10 points, and its swing against Obama seems to have been a combination of racism and the PUMA effect (female Hillary supporters refusing to back Obama in the general).  According to exit polls, Kerry and Obama both lost the state's men 40-59.  Arkansas women almost backed Kerry (he got 49%), but Obama took only 39%.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Hillary would not have won MT. Obama had special appeal in that part of the country, Hillary was/ is actively disliked there.

[Badger]

Obviously, some of this was underdog sympathy but by the end of the '08 primaries, Clinton was leading McCain, in some cases substantially, in polls of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia. She trailed narrowly (five or less) in four Obama states: CO, IA, NC, WI. The one O state where she trailed badly (nine points) was VA, but Obama was down eight in the same poll.

Now, what happened between May and the election? The economy crashed. This would only have helped Clinton's chances, just as it did Obama's IRL. Arguably it would have helped her more because of her husband's economic record.

I don't think she would have carried Louisiana. She might not have focused on Indiana or the district in Nebraska. But her potential to carry Southern/border states while holding on to most of Obama's map was clearly there based on contemporaneous polling.  

I forgot to check "always remain logged in" box, so my long detailed answer was lost.

To summarize:

With the exception of AR, the polls cited show Hillary usually doing poorly (e.g. KY) or middling (IN & MO) against McCain in the McCain states you mentioned (the only WV poll showed her 5 points up in Feb, fwiw). By contrast, she was regularly and consistently losing most of the Obama states mentioned (see NC, VA, CO, IA, WI).

While the economic crisis that fall would've benefited Clinton as it did Obama, and McCain couldn't have realistically made up the 9+ point margins against Clinton in CO, IA, WI, and even the 6.3% margin in VA probably wouldn't disappear with Hillary, he would've likely made up the teensy margin he lost NC to Obama by. Likewise, Hillary would've never matched Obamas ground game which is what oh so narrowly carried IN and NE-2 for him (both of which even Bubba lost), so those likely go Republican as well.

On the other hand, while Hillary probably couldn't equal the turnout Obama produced in KC and (especially) St. Louis, she'd appeal to voters throughout the rest of the state much better, particularly in the Ozark SW, and thus likely erase McCain's tiny 4000 vote margin in MO. Similarly, the Friends of Bill state just to the south would likely come home for the Clintons again.

So the likely correct answer is: flip NC, IN, & NE-2 Republican, flip MO and AR Democrat, with an outside unlikely chance of WV and/or VA flipping by surprise.

[henster]

Obviously, some of this was underdog sympathy but by the end of the '08 primaries, Clinton was leading McCain, in some cases substantially, in polls of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia. She trailed narrowly (five or less) in four Obama states: CO, IA, NC, WI. The one O state where she trailed badly (nine points) was VA, but Obama was down eight in the same poll.

Now, what happened between May and the election? The economy crashed. This would only have helped Clinton's chances, just as it did Obama's IRL. Arguably it would have helped her more because of her husband's economic record.

I don't think she would have carried Louisiana. She might not have focused on Indiana or the district in Nebraska. But her potential to carry Southern/border states while holding on to most of Obama's map was clearly there based on contemporaneous polling.  

I forgot to check "always remain logged in" box, so my long detailed answer was lost.

To summarize:

With the exception of AR, the polls cited show Hillary usually doing poorly (e.g. KY) or middling (IN & MO) against McCain in the McCain states you mentioned (the only WV poll showed her 5 points up in Feb, fwiw). By contrast, she was regularly and consistently losing most of the Obama states mentioned (see NC, VA, CO, IA, WI).

While the economic crisis that fall would've benefited Clinton as it did Obama, and McCain couldn't have realistically made up the 9+ point margins against Clinton in CO, IA, WI, and even the 6.3% margin in VA probably wouldn't disappear with Hillary, he would've likely made up the teensy margin he lost NC to Obama by. Likewise, Hillary would've never matched Obamas ground game which is what oh so narrowly carried IN and NE-2 for him (both of which even Bubba lost), so those likely go Republican as well.

On the other hand, while Hillary probably couldn't equal the turnout Obama produced in KC and (especially) St. Louis, she'd appeal to voters throughout the rest of the state much better, particularly in the Ozark SW, and thus likely erase McCain's tiny 4000 vote margin in MO. Similarly, the Friends of Bill state just to the south would likely come home for the Clintons again.

So the likely correct answer is: flip NC, IN, & NE-2 Republican, flip MO and AR Democrat, with an outside unlikely chance of WV and/or VA flipping by surprise.

I think Hillary would've done better among whites than Obama and made up for the lower black turnout. Obama lost whites (55-43) in 08 I think Hillary could've gotten closer maybe (54-45) or (53-46) that certainty would've made the difference in NC, MO and other states.

[Beet]

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In 2008, people knew the real Hillary. The evil, wicked, ambitious, convictionless witch that we all hated. She would have lost North Carolina and black turnout would have fallen across the country. This delusion that Hillary had a winning charm is just that. A delusion.

You were what? Seven in 2008? I keep forgetting your family background with the Clintons.

This my map...

Obama won NC and came very close in GA because of increased black turnout. Hillary would have gotten standard Democratic black support. Obama won IN because of a very strange parochial surge. You could argue Obama also came so close in MO because of increased turnout in the St Louis suburbs. But I do think Hillary would have got it in the end.

Obama won Colorado by 10%, there's no reason why Hillary couldn't have won it.

So my estimation is Clinton v McCain is Obama 2008 -IN, NC+ MO - popular vote probably quite similar, due to boosted white support in the south to counter the massive margins in the MW. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Obama's performance in the Midwest in 2008 was extraordinary and there's no reason to think that Clinton could have matched it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Clinton would have won all those states, but obviously the Obama margins wouldn't have been there.

[illegaloperation]

Hillary wouldn't push hard in NC or IN like Obama. She still managed to carry MO and AR.

Katrina devastated the Democratic base and LA moved too strongly Republican for Clinton to win.

[Flake]

[solarstorm]

If Clinton had chosen Obama as her running mate, her map would look like this:

Clinton: 403
McCain: 120
Tossup:   15

[solarstorm]

ROFL. You seem to despise the Clintons, don't you?
At least you colored the wang beneath Pennsylvania red.

[IceSpear]

Hillary was a better fit for OH/FL than Obama, no way in hell she would've lost them, especially after the economic collapse.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If Clinton had chosen Obama as her running mate, her map would look like this:

Clinton: 403
McCain: 120
Tossup:   15

lol

[Flake]

Hillary was a better fit for OH/FL than Obama, no way in hell she would've lost them, especially after the economic collapse.

If it makes you feel better:

[Mr. Morden]

I think she would have won the PV by 53-44 and the EV 380 - 158. We have to remember Bush's approval rating were in 20s and the subsequent economic collapse that caused Obama's numbers to surge and McCain's awful response. These events would've likely benefited Hillary just as much and I think Obama slightly underperformed what a generic D would've that year.

I agree that she would have been a strong candidate.  But I can't go as far as you in suggesting that her campaign would have been strong enough to warp the spacetime continuum, pushing the post-2010 census reapportionment back in time to 2008.

[KCDem]

Hillary 363
McCain 175


Based on state-by-state comparison of Hillary vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain polling by state at end of Democratic nominating process. A strange map, needless to say.

[Badger]

Hillary wouldn't push hard in NC or IN like Obama. She still managed to carry MO and AR.

Katrina devastated the Democratic base and LA moved too strongly Republican for Clinton to win.

So the likely correct answer is: flip NC, IN, & NE-2 Republican, flip MO and AR Democrat, with an outside unlikely chance of WV and/or VA flipping by surprise.

[Vosem]

McCain gains back Indiana and North Carolina (and NE-1); Clinton gains Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia -- maybe also Montana. She does slightly better in the popular vote but slightly worse in the Electoral College.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

With the exception of AR, the polls cited show Hillary usually doing poorly (e.g. KY) or middling (IN & MO) against McCain in the McCain states you mentioned (the only WV poll showed her 5 points up in Feb, fwiw). By contrast, she was regularly and consistently losing most of the Obama states mentioned (see NC, VA, CO, IA, WI).

A lot of those polls you allude to already looked outdated by April/May (if there had been a later WV poll, I would've included it). McCain - especially in blue-leaning states - was quite strong early in the cycle; he led Clinton and tied Obama in winter polls of Oregon, for instance.  That's kinda the point I was making with the economy - there are things that would have lifted Clinton's numbers in the Obama states she was losing (namely the recession) but what was going to lift McCain in KY, WV, AR, MO? Aside from AR, even Obama's showing in those states was halfway respectable: he nearly won MO and despite "racist Appalachians" basically held water with Kerry in the other two.

Now, Clinton was hardly certain to carry any of those states. But was McCain, in the teeth of a financial collapse, really going to win VA? A state that had been trending Dem at nearly all levels for several consecutive elections?

Like I said before, I don't know if Hillary would have targeted IN. But her three-point lead in Survey USA's last poll of the state was actually superior to Obama's one-point margin, identical to what he mustered that fall. (In May SUSA also had Clinton stronger in NC.)

I think once you get out of the Upper Midwest, as well as Colorado, the idea that Obama had a special hold on the electorate is hard to sustain. A lot of '08 was simply a national anti-Bush, anti-recession wave that got pushed back around the Mason/Dixon line for obvious reasons. (Certain states exempted, of course.)

[IceSpear]

With the exception of AR, the polls cited show Hillary usually doing poorly (e.g. KY) or middling (IN & MO) against McCain in the McCain states you mentioned (the only WV poll showed her 5 points up in Feb, fwiw). By contrast, she was regularly and consistently losing most of the Obama states mentioned (see NC, VA, CO, IA, WI).

A lot of those polls you allude to already looked outdated by April/May (if there had been a later WV poll, I would've included it). McCain - especially in blue-leaning states - was quite strong early in the cycle; he led Clinton and tied Obama in winter polls of Oregon, for instance.  That's kinda the point I was making with the economy - there are things that would have lifted Clinton's numbers in the Obama states she was losing (namely the recession) but what was going to lift McCain in KY, WV, AR, MO? Aside from AR, even Obama's showing in those states was halfway respectable: he nearly won MO and despite "racist Appalachians" basically held water with Kerry in the other two.

Now, Clinton was hardly certain to carry any of those states. But was McCain, in the teeth of a financial collapse, really going to win VA? A state that had been trending Dem at nearly all levels for several consecutive elections?

Like I said before, I don't know if Hillary would have targeted IN. But her three-point lead in Survey USA's last poll of the state was actually superior to Obama's one-point margin, identical to what he mustered that fall. (In May SUSA also had Clinton stronger in NC.)

I think once you get out of the Upper Midwest, as well as Colorado, the idea that Obama had a special hold on the electorate is hard to sustain. A lot of '08 was simply a national anti-Bush, anti-recession wave that got pushed back around the Mason/Dixon line for obvious reasons. (Certain states exempted, of course.)

You make some good points. The problem is that a lot of people are comparing apples and oranges, that being Clinton's early 2008 polls with the Obama final result map. In a lot of those states where Clinton was trailing that Obama won, Obama was trailing at the time as well.

I'm just curious, does anyone think the economic collapse helped Obama more than it would've helped Hillary (or generic D, for that matter)? It seems pretty obvious to me that it would've helped a...uh...lighter Democrat a lot more, but there's no way to prove it. Does anyone disagree with this?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There was a lot of talk after the crash about the bill signed by Bill Clinton lifting Glass-Steagal as being a cause of the crash.  Hillary vs Obama in terms of there advantage would be one of experience vs. change, and as Obama's campaign showed 2008 was generally more a season for the latter. Competing with Hillary, McCain might have been more able to make a claim upon the mantle of reform.

[Kevinstat]

How does she win the Democratic nomination in this scenario?  Does she still lose the pledged delegate count in the primaries and have the super delegates bail her out?  Does she win the primary race unambiguously?  That would have at least some bearing on how strong she would be going into the general election.

What was the final pledged delegate count in the primaries?  I think I remember hearing that enough superdelegates committed to Obama before the closing of the polls in South Dakota that a minimal Obama performance in the state would put him over half the total delegates, so he would be declared the nominee at the time the polls closed there.  Are we sure Obama won more pledged delegates (not counting super delegates, who largely flocked to Obama during the period before the Texas-Ohio Tuesday) than Hillary?  I supported Obama at the time but didn't feel great about the way it all ended.

[Mr. Morden]

How does she win the Democratic nomination in this scenario?  Does she still lose the pledged delegate count in the primaries and have the super delegates bail her out?  Does she win the primary race unambiguously?  That would have at least some bearing on how strong she would be going into the general election.

What was the final pledged delegate count in the primaries?  I think I remember hearing that enough superdelegates committed to Obama before the closing of the polls in South Dakota that a minimal Obama performance in the state would put him over half the total delegates, so he would be declared the nominee at the time the polls closed there.  Are we sure Obama won more pledged delegates (not counting super delegates, who largely flocked to Obama during the period before the Texas-Ohio Tuesday) than Hillary?  I supported Obama at the time but didn't feel great about the way it all ended.

Obama won a slim majority of the pledged delegates:

link

[Kevinstat]

How does she win the Democratic nomination in this scenario?  Does she still lose the pledged delegate count in the primaries and have the super delegates bail her out?  Does she win the primary race unambiguously?  That would have at least some bearing on how strong she would be going into the general election.

What was the final pledged delegate count in the primaries?  I think I remember hearing that enough superdelegates committed to Obama before the closing of the polls in South Dakota that a minimal Obama performance in the state would put him over half the total delegates, so he would be declared the nominee at the time the polls closed there.  Are we sure Obama won more pledged delegates (not counting super delegates, who largely flocked to Obama during the period before the Texas-Ohio Tuesday) than Hillary?  I supported Obama at the time but didn't feel great about the way it all ended.

Obama won a slim majority of the pledged delegates:

link

Thanks.