2016 if Hillary were male (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 12:59:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  2016 if Hillary were male (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2016 if Hillary were male  (Read 3982 times)
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,748
United States


WWW
« on: March 05, 2017, 08:21:15 PM »

The prospect of her as the first women president was about the most inspiring thing about her. Change her to male and you'd basically have Michael Dukakis. So the map would probably look something like this:



Possibly VA and NM would go to Trump too. NJ, DE, CT and RI would be in single digits. Trump wins the PV. Also, turnout is several points lower, and Trump does somewhat better with Hispanics and women.

However, there is much less chance that he'd have actually been nominated.

This.

I actually thought "Michael Dukakis" after reading the topic, but before reading this post.
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,748
United States


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2017, 09:33:51 AM »

>implying Hillary's gender caused her downfall

I concur with the other posts comparing Mr. Hillary as another Michael Dukakis. Without being a woman, she's just an un-motivating and dull prepackaged politician with a dark record and a dirty past.

If she were male, Hilliard Rodham would likely not be the ex-spouse of a Governor and President.  If that were the case, such a person would likely not have had the Bill Clinton baggage to deal with, and likely would not have had a mysterious "foundation" that turned out to be a huge negative.

All of that is negated by the fact that being a female is what made her candidacy viable.  Let's say that the male Hillary's Health Care role in the Bill Clinton organization got her/him elected to the Senate from NY State in 2000.  And let's say that this Senator, Hilliard Rodham, was actually named Secretary of State.  What then?

Here, you MIGHT have a John Kerry.  Except that Kerry is a Forbes, married to the widow Heinz.  John Kerry MIGHT have won over Trump in 2016, but Kerry is another guy who can't help appearing elitist and making an untimely gaffe.  Hilliard Rodham also would be coming from a demographic that was already in the bag for the Democrats (being from New York).  I doubt such a candidate could be nominated, and I'm far from convinced that such a candidate would have held MI, WI, and PA in 2016. 
Logged
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,748
United States


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2017, 08:28:08 PM »

The votes of Southern African-Americans were delivered to Clinton by an incredibly effective political network of local leaders, church leaders, civil rights figures, who repeatedly emphasize the need for black voters to vote as a bloc and maintain solidarity in order to maximize their influence.  In this game, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton had all the power relationships, all the chips and IOUs, and a history of helping a lot of folks downballot over the years.

That's one thing I'll give Hillary; she cared about the condition of the Democratic Party, and did her share to try to keep it viable.  If only she got the message that her stepping aside was what the Democrats needed to win in 2016, we'd be talking about President Biden right now.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.