Will Hillary Clinton be a better candidate for President than Obama in 2012?

[Mister Mets]

I'm curious about the sense of the board on one question: Will Hillary Clinton be a stronger candidate for President than the guy who won in the last election?

If so, why? If not, why not?

She can be a weaker nominee, and win. In the right environment against the most mediocre opponent, she can be a weaker nominee and win more of the vote.

[Flake]

Clinton's probably going to outperform Obama 2012 by 2-3%

[Mehmentum]

Its an interesting question, and I don't have a simple answer.

1.) Obama definitely boosted African American turnout.  While AA turnout may not go down to 2004 levels in 2016, its hard to see it staying like it was in 2008 or 2012.

2.) On the other hand, Obama drove away many working class whites (while his race was part of it, there were plenty of other factors).  Are these voters gone for good, or can Clinton win them back?  I'd expect to see at least a slight rebound with the Democrat's performance with whites.

3.) Another factor to consider for a Clinton candidacy is women.  Having appeal with women, who make up the majority of the electorate, is no small advantage.

I'd say the first two factors roughly cancel out, leaving Clinton as the better candidate all else being equal.


 

[IceSpear]

Hillary. Unless the Republicans nominate a very strong candidate, what people that voted for Obama in 2012 are going to switch? There will probably be a very modest dropoff in African American turnout, but that can only take the GOP so far. On the other hand, you can definitely picture whites (particularly white women) who didn't vote for Obama switching over to Hillary. Granted, it's not going to be anywhere near the scale that some people used to think ("Hillary will win WV/KY!!1!!!") but it will likely be more than enough to make up for the turnout dropoff.

[Beet]

A weaker candidate.

First of all, she would have no incumbency advantage. The Democrats will have controlled the WH for another four years, and an ask at eight is always tougher than an ask at four. In 2012, the Tea Party was strong and Obama was running to some extent against that nutty group. The GOP has since settled down and seem at least sane in their intentions, at least according to Boehner.

I was sort of hoping for Hillary to emerge from the cocoon of the foreign service with fire in her belly, but she didn't. She avoided taking on the toughest and best part of her past (2008 campaign) in Hard Choices, a badly titled book so boring that a computer analysis of peoples e-readers found that the average reader got further into Capital in the Twenty-First Century (both books ranked at the bottom of the buy : read ratio). The book tour itself was a gaffe-filled disaster that revealed the bias of the liberal media against her is still rampant. She doesn't seem passionate about much except women's rights, which is all well and good, but the feminist vote is a tiny sliver and she's already near maxed out with us. Progressives hate her. Focus groups dislike her. Online commentators seem to loathe her with a seething hatred. Her poll numbers and favorabilities are steadily dropping. No matter what she does she'll never escape being an appendage of Bill and just another "Clinton" in the minds of many, which is some sort of unforgivable sin. Not to mention, who knows what he did in years past that could come back to haunt them both in new ways.

So in short, I see no reason why she isn't a catastrophe waiting to happen. And only she herself knows better than the rest of us why, despite all of the above, the country needs her as president in 2016...

[Mister Mets]

My take is that Hillary is unlikely to be a better candidate than Obama.

First, Obama ran under fairly good circumstances. In the last century, Incumbent Presidents whose party took back the White House in the preceding election almost always win (Jimmy Carter is the only exception since 1900.) Obama had economic growth, handled a national crisis (Hurricance Sandy) pretty well, and then there's the death of Osama.

Obama's also a stronger campaigner.

Hillary's older and has been around longer (a national figure since 1992), which isn't a strength in a nation that seems to like electing newcomers for President.

Hillary's strength is that she's closely tied to a popular former President, would represent a major milestone as the first female President, and can appeal to Obama's critics and supporters. But national candidates as a rule tend to have tremendous strengths, and my opinion is that Obama was more impressive.

[Lincoln Republican]

Dynamism, exuberance, a gifted orator, able to move a crowd, Obama is by far ahead of Clinton.

As well, in 2008, Obama was new, young, and offered a fresh hope and start for the nation.  And not having so much baggage from the past, he was able to make people believe his message of a new start.

By contrast, in 2016, Clinton is 69 years old, is not a particularly good orator, has been on the national stage by then for 24 years, not especially a good thing.   

[IceSpear]

Dynamism, exuberance, a gifted orator, able to move a crowd, Obama is by far ahead of Clinton.

As well, in 2008, Obama was new, young, and offered a fresh hope and start for the nation.  And not having so much baggage from the past, he was able to make people believe his message of a new start.

You know, I've been saying for quite a while now that you Republicans were singing quite a different tune in 2011 and 2012, only talking about how Obama is SUCH a strong candidate and SUCH a good campaigner in retrospect to try to make Hillary look worse and make yourselves feel better about the loss. Well, I decided to look in your posting history to see if my hypothesis was correct. I now present my findings:

I'd say to Obama:

Hey Barack, now you can join all those millions in the unemployment lines who are unemployed because of you.   

I'd say to Romney:

Hello, Mr. President.

Face it, Obama is all sizzle and no substance.

Even Big Bird and Sesame Street are mature compared to this childish and amateurish ad Obama and the Dems have run.

Obama and the Democrats run their campaign like they run the country.

HEAVILY IN DEBT!

Romney will win.

Obama is the new Jimmy Carter.

Obama is counting on riding to victory on Clinton's coat tails, since he knows he can't do it on his own.

Obama gets nowhere near 303 electoral votes.  That's a fact.  See you November 7th. 

Sign of a losing campaign

Sending Bill Clinton, who is more popular than Barack Obama, at the last minute, to a state, **cough PA cough** that was considered rock solid safe for Obama just 3 or 4 days ago.

Wow, how different from your glowing portrayal of Obama now! I especially liked the part about how Obama was so incompetent he needed to ride Clinton's coattails. How strangely relevant, LOL.

[Lincoln Republican]

Well, I must say that I am utterly flattered that you think that much of my years old postings that you would go to all that work to retrieve them from the archives.

And something you must take into account as well, we were in an election campaign mode at the time, and election rhetoric tends to become exaggerated, not only on forums, but in real life by real politicians as well.

And perhaps my views of some of Obama's performance has improved over time.

However, you left out the post where I said, and I am paraphrasing, that Obama's oratory sometimes brings tears to my eyes, he is that good.
 

[IceSpear]

Well, I must say that I am utterly flattered that you think that much of my years old postings that you would go to all that work to retrieve them from the archives.

And something you must take into account as well, we were in an election campaign mode at the time, and election rhetoric tends to become exaggerated, not only on forums, but in real life by real politicians as well.

And perhaps my views of some of Obama's performance has improved over time.

However, you left out the post where I said, and I am paraphrasing, that Obama's oratory sometimes brings tears to my eyes, he is that good.

Well, no need to be flattered, it took less than 5 minutes. Nevertheless, it's fairly clear the Republican acknowledgement of Obama's strength is a fairly new phenomenon, brought about solely by the fact that they know he won't be running for anything else in the future. In a hypothetical world where Hillary wins in both 2016 and 2020, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of posts from Republicans in 2023 about how she was such an amazing and formidable candidate. "Wow, she had so much experience. Wife of a popular president. First female nominee, so inspiring! There's no way we could've competed. Luckily Dems have nobody else like her around..."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

She will have to pick a good VP to give a leg up on Obama, but she is a better campaigner period than Obama, eventhough she maynot win over 300 electoral votes.

She is a great communicator and has Bill Clinton as well.

[bobloblaw]

Clinton's probably going to outperform Obama 2012 by 2-3%

If so, it will be the first election since 1904 where the incumbent party gets more votes going for their 3rd consecutive win. Even Roosevelt in 1940 got fewer votes than in 1936.

[bobloblaw]

She will have to pick a good VP to give a leg up on Obama, but she is a better campaigner period than Obama, eventhough she maynot win over 300 electoral votes.

She is a great communicator and has Bill Clinton as well.

She lost all caucus states in 2008. She won the primaries. Caucus states are where the voters meet the candidates up close. Primaries are more of TV campaigns (NH excluded).

She is a lousy campaigner, poor debator and prone to all sorts of gaffs.

Her basic problem is she isnt a born politician and she's VERY VERY uncomfortable with who she is.

[IceSpear]

She will have to pick a good VP to give a leg up on Obama, but she is a better campaigner period than Obama, eventhough she maynot win over 300 electoral votes.

She is a great communicator and has Bill Clinton as well.

She lost all caucus states in 2008. She won the primaries. Caucus states are where the voters meet the candidates up close. Primaries are more of TV campaigns (NH excluded).

She is a lousy campaigner, poor debator and prone to all sorts of gaffs.

Her basic problem is she isnt a born politician and she's VERY VERY uncomfortable with who she is.

What? The fact that did better in primaries than in caucuses shows that she's more popular among the electorate as a whole, rather than the extremely small subset of people that shows up for caucuses. That's a good thing.

[stegosaurus]

Candidates who can't turn out their party's base do poorly and progressives hate Clinton. The Obama campaigns biggest strength was getting out the left wing vote, no way Clinton replicates.

[IceSpear]

Candidates who can't turn out their party's base do poorly and progressives hate Clinton. The Obama campaigns biggest strength was getting out the left wing vote, no way Clinton replicates.

Incorrect. It's not 2007/2008 anymore.

[stegosaurus]

Candidates who can't turn out their party's base do poorly and progressives hate Clinton. The Obama campaigns biggest strength was getting out the left wing vote, no way Clinton replicates.

Incorrect. It's not 2007/2008 anymore.

Candidate Clinton and off-the-radar Clinton are two different monsters. When she goes back under the microscope and has to frequently open her mouth, the dynamic changes. Especially if her plan is to fake being a populist like she did in her Boston speech with Elizabeth Warren. It was uncomfortable to watch.

[IceSpear]

Candidate Clinton and off-the-radar Clinton are two different monsters. When she goes back under the microscope and has to frequently open her mouth, the dynamic changes. Especially if her plan is to fake being a populist like she did in her Boston speech with Elizabeth Warren. It was uncomfortable to watch.

She hasn't been "off the radar" since 2013. Thus the gradual drop in her overall favorables over 2014. But her ratings among Democrats and liberals have remained stellar.

[stegosaurus]

Candidate Clinton and off-the-radar Clinton are two different monsters. When she goes back under the microscope and has to frequently open her mouth, the dynamic changes. Especially if her plan is to fake being a populist like she did in her Boston speech with Elizabeth Warren. It was uncomfortable to watch.

She hasn't been "off the radar" since 2013. Thus the gradual drop in her overall favorables over 2014. But her ratings among Democrats and liberals have remained stellar.

She hasn't been in full campaign mode since 2008. What has she changed since then? As far as I can tell, she didn't do anything between 2009 and now to make the left do a double take. As it stands now, she is once again the inevitable candidate who is polling well on her name recognition. If it actually translates to a landslide primary win, then I'll buy it.

[IceSpear]

Candidate Clinton and off-the-radar Clinton are two different monsters. When she goes back under the microscope and has to frequently open her mouth, the dynamic changes. Especially if her plan is to fake being a populist like she did in her Boston speech with Elizabeth Warren. It was uncomfortable to watch.

She hasn't been "off the radar" since 2013. Thus the gradual drop in her overall favorables over 2014. But her ratings among Democrats and liberals have remained stellar.

She hasn't been in full campaign mode since 2008. What has she changed since then? As far as I can tell, she didn't do anything between 2009 and now to make the left do a double take. As it stands now, she is once again the inevitable candidate who is polling well on her name recognition. If it actually translates to a landslide primary win, then I'll buy it.

The "true progressive" pundits have been crying and whining about her for quite a while now. The problem is their crying hasn't translated to the electorate. And you can't explain away a 90%+ favorability rating among Democrats with "muh name recognition".

Well, prepare to buy it then. It's looking like her only opposition will be coming from O'Malley, Webb, and Sanders. Don't hold your breath waiting for any of them to give her a scare.