Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:34:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally?  (Read 2844 times)
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2017, 12:38:37 PM »

Clinton has always been simultaneously both a formidable juggernaut with immense advantages and also a deeply problematic candidate (for reasons both fair and unfair).

And, to add to the chorus of previous answers, the answer is no.  She was close in 2008 and could have won the primary and definitely the general then. 

And she was close to winning in 2016.  Her performance in 2016 was embarassing, yes, but she defo could have won had she changed a few things/had a few things broken her way.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2017, 10:24:59 PM »

She could have won and she got more votes than her opponents both times. She was not unelectable because in all the times she ran for President she could have won and was the frontrunner, and did get the most votes. However, she was a flawed candidate, lacking many of the talents such as charisma and not being politically tone-deaf that make for a good candidate. These could have been overcome, and she nearly did, especially with great debate performances, but ultimately she failed. She was not ever unelectable, but she was seriously flawed and as it turned out that did her in.
Logged
TML
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,404


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2017, 11:45:35 PM »

By no means was Hillary unelectable.

Looking back to her initial Senate campaign in 2000, Hillary was viewed by many as a carpetbagger, since she and her family had only taken up residence in New York (the state where she ran) a year before. That is usually considered a disadvantage. However, she managed to win the election by 12%, which was a margin greater than what most observers expected. A major part of her winning strategy involved personally reaching out to many voters in upstate New York (which is mostly rural and where Republicans generally do well in NYS), which won her several upstate counties (Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer) which most observers did not expect her to win, and kept her losing margins in the other counties relatively respectable (her greatest losing margin was 68-31 - roughly 2-1 - in Hamilton County). Furthermore, although her campaign did run attack ads against her opponent, the attacks were mostly focused on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies instead of her opponent's personal character.

It seems to me that in 2016, Hillary failed to adequately duplicate the strategy that worked for her in 2000. IMO, if she had done any of the following things, she would likely have been able to flip at least the three Midwestern states (WI, MI, and PA) which were decided by a fraction of a percent each:

-Spend more time campaigning in the aforementioned Midwestern states (remember, she barely touched Wisconsin and Michigan after the primaries).
-While campaigning, spend more time reaching out to white working-class voters as well as voters in rural areas. Obama stated that he adopted this strategy when he ran for Senate and for President, and while he may not have won the rural vote overall, he did manage to keep margins relatively respectable (in his words, 60-40 or 55-45 instead of 80-20). In Hillary's case, a slight but significant reduction of her losing margins in rural areas would likely have been enough to flip the three aforementioned Midwestern states to her side.
-Focus more on policy points (e.g. promoting Democratic economic policy proposals and the potential positive effects they would bring to voters). Additionally, when running attack ads, focus more on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies (in 2016, there was plenty of stuff on that front) instead of his personal character.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2017, 11:53:00 PM »

By no means was Hillary unelectable.

Looking back to her initial Senate campaign in 2000, Hillary was viewed by many as a carpetbagger, since she and her family had only taken up residence in New York (the state where she ran) a year before. That is usually considered a disadvantage. However, she managed to win the election by 12%, which was a margin greater than what most observers expected. A major part of her winning strategy involved personally reaching out to many voters in upstate New York (which is mostly rural and where Republicans generally do well in NYS), which won her several upstate counties (Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer) which most observers did not expect her to win, and kept her losing margins in the other counties relatively respectable (her greatest losing margin was 68-31 - roughly 2-1 - in Hamilton County). Furthermore, although her campaign did run attack ads against her opponent, the attacks were mostly focused on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies instead of her opponent's personal character.

It seems to me that in 2016, Hillary failed to adequately duplicate the strategy that worked for her in 2000. IMO, if she had done any of the following things, she would likely have been able to flip at least the three Midwestern states (WI, MI, and PA) which were decided by a fraction of a percent each:

-Spend more time campaigning in the aforementioned Midwestern states (remember, she barely touched Wisconsin and Michigan after the primaries).
-While campaigning, spend more time reaching out to white working-class voters as well as voters in rural areas. Obama stated that he adopted this strategy when he ran for Senate and for President, and while he may not have won the rural vote overall, he did manage to keep margins relatively respectable (in his words, 60-40 or 55-45 instead of 80-20). In Hillary's case, a slight but significant reduction of her losing margins in rural areas would likely have been enough to flip the three aforementioned Midwestern states to her side.
-Focus more on policy points (e.g. promoting Democratic economic policy proposals and the potential positive effects they would bring to voters). Additionally, when running attack ads, focus more on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies (in 2016, there was plenty of stuff on that front) instead of his personal character.

New York Senate is a low-stakes game where no one really cares that much. Elizabeth Holtzman was nearly elected to the Senate there in 1980, and Geraldine Ferraro nearly won in 1992, so having a controversial female be elected to the Senate by 2000 was not that surprising.

Hillary could have done those things better, but the fact remains that she should have won in a landslide. No major party nominee (other than Trump) went into his convention with a negative favorability rating, let alone a massive -22 favorability rating. After months of reflecting on the election, it has become clear that this country is so misogynistic it would never elect a female Democrat as president. It would rather elect a patently unqualified reality TV star than the one of the most qualified mainstream candidates in history. Sadly I do not think I can support another woman as the nominee in 2020 as this reality and I do not want to see Trump re-elected.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 13, 2017, 02:06:21 AM »

By no means was Hillary unelectable.

Looking back to her initial Senate campaign in 2000, Hillary was viewed by many as a carpetbagger, since she and her family had only taken up residence in New York (the state where she ran) a year before. That is usually considered a disadvantage. However, she managed to win the election by 12%, which was a margin greater than what most observers expected. A major part of her winning strategy involved personally reaching out to many voters in upstate New York (which is mostly rural and where Republicans generally do well in NYS), which won her several upstate counties (Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer) which most observers did not expect her to win, and kept her losing margins in the other counties relatively respectable (her greatest losing margin was 68-31 - roughly 2-1 - in Hamilton County). Furthermore, although her campaign did run attack ads against her opponent, the attacks were mostly focused on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies instead of her opponent's personal character.

It seems to me that in 2016, Hillary failed to adequately duplicate the strategy that worked for her in 2000. IMO, if she had done any of the following things, she would likely have been able to flip at least the three Midwestern states (WI, MI, and PA) which were decided by a fraction of a percent each:

-Spend more time campaigning in the aforementioned Midwestern states (remember, she barely touched Wisconsin and Michigan after the primaries).
-While campaigning, spend more time reaching out to white working-class voters as well as voters in rural areas. Obama stated that he adopted this strategy when he ran for Senate and for President, and while he may not have won the rural vote overall, he did manage to keep margins relatively respectable (in his words, 60-40 or 55-45 instead of 80-20). In Hillary's case, a slight but significant reduction of her losing margins in rural areas would likely have been enough to flip the three aforementioned Midwestern states to her side.
-Focus more on policy points (e.g. promoting Democratic economic policy proposals and the potential positive effects they would bring to voters). Additionally, when running attack ads, focus more on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies (in 2016, there was plenty of stuff on that front) instead of his personal character.

New York Senate is a low-stakes game where no one really cares that much. Elizabeth Holtzman was nearly elected to the Senate there in 1980, and Geraldine Ferraro nearly won in 1992, so having a controversial female be elected to the Senate by 2000 was not that surprising.

Hillary could have done those things better, but the fact remains that she should have won in a landslide. No major party nominee (other than Trump) went into his convention with a negative favorability rating, let alone a massive -22 favorability rating. After months of reflecting on the election, it has become clear that this country is so misogynistic it would never elect a female Democrat as president. It would rather elect a patently unqualified reality TV star than the one of the most qualified mainstream candidates in history. Sadly I do not think I can support another woman as the nominee in 2020 as this reality and I do not want to see Trump re-elected.

Christ, you're stupid.
Logged
Chinggis
Rookie
**
Posts: 178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2017, 09:42:08 AM »

She was electable in 2008 and would have brought immigration reform to the country. But, Obama didn't act on it and this is what happens when you don't bring in that third ethnic group as a voting block in, you get a GOP control of the gov't.

"The problem isn't our platform or messaging- it's the voters! We need new voters!"

That sound like a healthy plan for our democracy?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2017, 02:47:19 PM »

She was electable in 2008 and would have brought immigration reform to the country. But, Obama didn't act on it and this is what happens when you don't bring in that third ethnic group as a voting block in, you get a GOP control of the gov't.

"The problem isn't our platform or messaging- it's the voters! We need new voters!"

That sound like a healthy plan for our democracy?

     It is striking to me how so many Democrats refuse to self-reflect and instead insist that everyone else is the problem. Sometimes, the fault lies not in your stars but in yourselves.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2017, 01:42:53 PM »

Had she stayed a Senator and not served as SoS, I think she probably would have been much more formidable. The issues that dogged her most - the email server issue, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, they all would have never happened or would have been mitigated significantly had she not taken that executive position. That was the worst blunder of her political career.

Ironic because the consensus view was that becoming SoS made her a more experienced, respectable and presidential statesperson.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.217 seconds with 12 queries.