What are Hillary Clinton's strengths?

[Mister Mets]

So, I started a thread on Hillary Clinton's weaknesses.

Now, I'll go with the reverse. What makes her a strong candidate?

I don't think it's particularly necessary on this forum, but I'll note the obvious caveat that a candidate can have strengths and still lose the General Election. Dole, Kerry and McCain were war heroes. Dukakis and Romney were successful executives. McGovern and Goldwater inspired the party base.

I'll start.
- She is closely tied to the most popular living President.
- She has an impressive resume. At the very least, she was a Senior Adviser to Bill Clinton. Then she was a prominent Senator. And Secretary of State. The woman understands Washington.
- She would represent a significant milestone as the first female President. And as noted above, she's very qualified.
- Quite a few of the top critics of the Clinton administration are no longer as vocal, either for health reasons or because they've been discredited.
- She's well-positioned for the primary. Those who voted for her (and she got more votes than any primary candidate in American history) are still on her side. Those who supported Obama still acknowledge her work in his campaign and administration. She can appeal to his supporters, and many of his critics.

Does anyone have anything to add, or is there any point where I didn't get it right?

[Ljube]

She is widely considered to be next-in-line for Presidency. The anointed heir.

[pbrower2a]

She has huge experience in public life. She has as intimate knowledge of the Executive Branch as anyone could have without being President. She follows a President who did not get a chance to achieve everything that he wanted to achieve but whose agenda remains popular. (Obama gets low marks now for failing to convince Republicans to support him on legislation; Republicans were going to give him nothing).

She has Senate and Cabinet experience and was effective at both. She is now much more qualified to be President than Barack Obama was in 2008.

She has learned from her defeat in the primaries from the slickest campaigner that there ever was. She already has the Obama campaign apparatus on her side.     

[Lief 🗽]

She's the most popular politician in the country who is eligible to run for president.

[IceSpear]

She's the most popular politician in the country who is eligible to run for president.

Honestly, I think Rand and Huntsman are more popular tbh

Nope.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/rand-paul-favorable-rating

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

She's the most popular politician in the country who is eligible to run for president.

Honestly, I think Rand and Huntsman are more popular tbh

Uh... what?

[Mister Mets]

Some more...

- Democrats seem more perceptive to the typically Republican argument of waiting someone's turn, especially when it's a woman. And it's Clinton's turn now. Part of the rationale is that political figures who have risen through the ranks now include women and minorities, as reflected in House leadership with Pelosi, Clyburn and Becerra. Compare that to Republicans where a fourth-term Congressman is Majority Leader.

- Voters will have had quite a few years to get comfortable of the idea with the idea of Hillary Clinton as President.

- There doesn't seem to be much opposition in the primary. Schweitzer, O'Malley and Webb are the main guys with conventional qualifications making the moves necessary to run for President, and I don't see how they go about winning enough major primary states.

[Jerseyrules]

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)

[Mister Mets]

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)

There are two problems with the Nixon comparison.

Hubert Humphrey was probably more qualified than Nixon. He had four years as Vice President, sixteen years in the Senate (four as Majority Whip), and executive experience as a former Mayor of Minneapolis.

Nixon was also in the out party.

[Jerseyrules]

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)

There are two problems with the Nixon comparison.

Hubert Humphrey was probably more qualified than Nixon. He had four years as Vice President, sixteen years in the Senate (four as Majority Whip), and executive experience as a former Mayor of Minneapolis.

Nixon was also in the out party.

I get what you're saying but they're still pretty similar; perhaps 1972 Nixon is a better comparison.  Hillary's going to run her campaign not as " Hillary Clinton the Democrat" but as "Hillary."  And in American politics, appearance is reality; Nixon appeared more poised, more confident, and more statesman-like than Humphrey, as Humphrey was not in a position to really be able to go out and have his own opinions; not serving in the administration anymore, Hillary's almost certainly going to have more freedom to campaign on whatever she wants to, and may even throw Obama under the bus from time to time if she has to.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)

She's also a about as likable as Nixon, although that's obviously a major weakness

[© tweed]

Does anyone have anything to add, or is there any point where I didn't get it right?

you're missing the major point: money.  she has access to every major Dem donor.  she could run a few hundred million dollar primary (perhaps outspending any upstart progressive like Warren or Sanders that dares to challenge her divine ordinance by ratios approaching 20:1).  she could also get to $1.5-$2B for the general (Obama ended up pulling in $1.1B in 2012).

and none of those numbers include the shady super PACS, which most likely account for more money than the campaigns proper.

[Maistre]

$$$