Would Hillary be as strong in 2016 if she'd stayed in the Senate?

[oeoyeleye]

Would she be in as strong a position to win the nomination as she is now? Would she even be running?

[Vega]

No, she wouldn't have been in the public eye as much and she would have more of a record to defend.

[Mister Mets]

I don't know.

Being Secretary of State made her an important Obama ally, so Democrats who preferred Obama in '08 are willing to support her now. It was also a position that gave her foreign policy credibility (She's in the room with the cabinet watching footage of Seal Team Six in Pakistan) and kept her out of contentious national debates.

It's difficult to imagine her being better positioned to win the nomination. She'd likely be strong (due to lack of obvious competition and the milestone she'd represent), but not as strong.

On the other hand, she wouldn't have the email scandal, the level of scrutiny over influence-peddling with the Clinton foundation or Benghazi (which isn't as significant) as Senator. She'd have remained a prominent congressional ally of the President, and wouldn't be as rusty in dealings with the press.

[bobloblaw]

Stronger. None of the scandals involving emails or the coming scandals involving her time as SoS and having foreign money funneled to the Clinton Foundation would be happening.

[Gallium]

She'd be weaker. She's been able to completely clear the Democratic field in large part due to her service as Secretary of State. I don't think she'd have been able to manage that if she had stayed a Senator. Aside from her added stature, it's inured her to previously antipathetic Obama supporters (whose campaign staff and apparatus is wholly hers to now use), while allowing her to avoid any intra-party policy conflicts that would have inevitably angered various Democratic factions. The likes of Biden/Warren/Patrick/Booker etc. would probably be more likely to get in the race and I don't think Hillary would be as willing to run without knowing for sure she'd at least get the nomination, considering how brutal her '08 defeat was.

Sure she might have picked up some Benghazi/emailghazi/foundationghazi "baggage" (not that there wouldn't be scandals concocted anyway - USA Today for example has been attacking her for flying around too much as a senator), but Democratic primary voters don't care about that stuff and by the time she's the nominee in 2016 there'll be far bigger issues general election voters care about like the economy and national security.

[TDAS04]

Unlikely.  The Secretary of State job helped her.

[Ebsy]

I have a feeling that all these leaks for this email "scandal" are happening now so that they are out of the way by the time she announces her campaign next month.

[IceSpear]

Strong? What are you talking about? O'Malley and Webb will destroy her in a landslide.

But seriously, she still would've been very strong, but less so than she is now. She probably would've been somewhere between her 2008 numbers and her current numbers.

[RR1997]

Not really sure. She probably would be a better candidate. Benghazi, email, Libya, resigning, and everything else has really pushed her back.

Lololololololol

[pbrower2a]

No. She proved that she could perform adequately in a legislative office, and Secretary of State is about as responsible position as one can get without being a Justice of the Supreme Court short of the Presidency. 

[bobloblaw]

She'd be weaker. She's been able to completely clear the Democratic field in large part due to her service as Secretary of State. I don't think she'd have been able to manage that if she had stayed a Senator. Aside from her added stature, it's inured her to previously antipathetic Obama supporters (whose campaign staff and apparatus is wholly hers to now use), while allowing her to avoid any intra-party policy conflicts that would have inevitably angered various Democratic factions. The likes of Biden/Warren/Patrick/Booker etc. would probably be more likely to get in the race and I don't think Hillary would be as willing to run without knowing for sure she'd at least get the nomination, considering how brutal her '08 defeat was.

Sure she might have picked up some Benghazi/emailghazi/foundationghazi "baggage" (not that there wouldn't be scandals concocted anyway - USA Today for example has been attacking her for flying around too much as a senator), but Democratic primary voters don't care about that stuff and by the time she's the nominee in 2016 there'll be far bigger issues general election voters care about like the economy and national security.

Clearing the Dem field will come back to haunt her.

[ShadowRocket]

I think she'd be weaker. Still the punitive frontrunner, but I more candidates may've been willing to challenge her.

[heatmaster]

Her position as Secretary of State will be a net negative

[Mister Mets]

One more difference is that it's easier for Democrats to oppose a Senator's agenda.

She might have some conflict with the Obama administration, or with fellow Democratic Senators.

A Secretary of State avoids those kinds of fights, which allows for greater popularity within the party.

[stegosaurus]

Given the current state of the US congress, nobody is better off politically for being a part of it. She got out while the getting was good.