Hillary's Moment - did we get it all wrong?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:28:16 PM
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
  Hillary's Moment - did we get it all wrong?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Hillary's Moment - did we get it all wrong?  (Read 2789 times)
Progressive
jro660
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,580


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 11, 2017, 09:08:11 PM »

I've wondered this for a while--did Hillary get it wrong--was her moment really in 2004? Was that her time to emerge?
Logged
NHI
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,140


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2017, 10:13:55 PM »

I've wondered this for a while--did Hillary get it wrong--was her moment really in 2004? Was that her time to emerge?
I actually think so. Bush was vulnerable, and I think she could have played better to WWC voters than any of the 2004 candidates. It would have been a bitterly contested and hard fought campaign, but I think nostalgia for the Clinton years, and the potential for history would have given her the edge.
Logged
Kamala
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,499
Madagascar


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2017, 10:22:29 PM »

Hillary was a much better candidate in 2008 (and would've been in 2004) than she was in 2016. If she has won, though, would she survived 2008?
Logged
Skunk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,456
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2017, 10:25:31 PM »

Hillary was a much better candidate in 2008 (and would've been in 2004) than she was in 2016. If she has won, though, would she survived 2008?

If the recession still happens, no way. If not, it'd probably be a tough campaign and really comes down to who the GOP puts up.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2017, 10:46:34 PM »

We did. Although methinks 2008 was the time. 2004 was like when Bob Dole tried running in 1980, 2008 was like Dole's 88.

In short 2004 was too early, but there was still some charisma to work with.

2008 was the sweet spot, but she underestimated Obama badly...but paradoxically did a much better job at things than she did at ANY point of 2016.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2017, 11:06:56 AM »

Hillary was certainly the strongest campaigner she's ever been between the couple days before New Hampshire 2008 and her concession speech that June. By far.

I also think it's rather compelling to suggest that she would have made better use of the congressional majorities than Obama did in the first two years of that term. On the flipside, many Obama primary voters probably would have acted just as rotten as Sanders voters did had she actually won the nomination, so that would have been quite challenging.

But yes, I'll say it over and over: Hillary's time was 2009-2017. Obama would have fared well as a successor in this environment, and in fact would have been a better president with more years under his belt.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2017, 12:28:13 PM »

No. She would've been the same candidate as Kerry...a northeastern Democratic senator who voted for the war who was now in the awkward position of campaigning against it. And I don't think Clinton nostalgia was running too high in the years following 9/11...his administration was carrying a lot of baggage at the time for possibly mishandling the Bin Laden situation.

If she was meant to be president, it was going to happen in 2008.
Logged
Progressive
jro660
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,580


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2017, 12:35:09 PM »

I've wondered this for a while--did Hillary get it wrong--was her moment really in 2004? Was that her time to emerge?
I actually think so. Bush was vulnerable, and I think she could have played better to WWC voters than any of the 2004 candidates. It would have been a bitterly contested and hard fought campaign, but I think nostalgia for the Clinton years, and the potential for history would have given her the edge.

I agree. I see the contrary points that others make, and I think their disagreements with my theory are valid. But I think Hillary was more in-line with the Democratic base in 2004, one that was not quite yet ready to punish for an Iraq war vote. If you look at her 2000 and 2006 Senate race speeches (there are a few on YouTube), she presents in a way that would lead to her to be a more charismatic presence on the campaign trail that Kerry. I also think she would have creamed Bush in debates to a point where it affected the outcome
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2017, 01:56:13 PM »

2004 was too soon after Bill's Presidency for her to run. It would've been like Jeb! running in 2012 just four years after his brother. Granted a  Hillary run  in 2004 would've faired better than a Jeb! run in 2012, I still think 04 was too soon and 2008 was her chance.
Logged
Progressive
jro660
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,580


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2017, 02:27:59 PM »

2004 was too soon after Bill's Presidency for her to run. It would've been like Jeb! running in 2012 just four years after his brother. Granted a  Hillary run  in 2004 would've faired better than a Jeb! run in 2012, I still think 04 was too soon and 2008 was her chance.

But I think a Jeb! run in 2012 would have fared better than a Jeb! run in 2016...so...
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2017, 02:31:36 PM »

2004 was too soon after Bill's Presidency for her to run. It would've been like Jeb! running in 2012 just four years after his brother. Granted a  Hillary run  in 2004 would've faired better than a Jeb! run in 2012, I still think 04 was too soon and 2008 was her chance.

But I think a Jeb! run in 2012 would have fared better than a Jeb! run in 2016...so...

It would've only faired better if Romney sat the race out. If he still runs, Jeb! 2012 is more or less the same as Jeb! 2016.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2017, 02:33:20 PM »

I've wondered this for a while--did Hillary get it wrong--was her moment really in 2004? Was that her time to emerge?
I actually think so. Bush was vulnerable, and I think she could have played better to WWC voters than any of the 2004 candidates. It would have been a bitterly contested and hard fought campaign, but I think nostalgia for the Clinton years, and the potential for history would have given her the edge.

I agree. I see the contrary points that others make, and I think their disagreements with my theory are valid. But I think Hillary was more in-line with the Democratic base in 2004, one that was not quite yet ready to punish for an Iraq war vote. If you look at her 2000 and 2006 Senate race speeches (there are a few on YouTube), she presents in a way that would lead to her to be a more charismatic presence on the campaign trail that Kerry. I also think she would have creamed Bush in debates to a point where it affected the outcome


other then that first debate bush did a pretty good job especially in the third one.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2017, 04:31:22 PM »

2004 was too soon after Bill's Presidency for her to run. It would've been like Jeb! running in 2012 just four years after his brother. Granted a  Hillary run  in 2004 would've faired better than a Jeb! run in 2012, I still think 04 was too soon and 2008 was her chance.

But I think a Jeb! run in 2012 would have fared better than a Jeb! run in 2016...so...

It would've only faired better if Romney sat the race out. If he still runs, Jeb! 2012 is more or less the same as Jeb! 2016.

Nah, not as bad as Jeb! 2016. In 2012, there's no Trump. Trump absolutely bullied Jeb!.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2017, 04:32:48 PM »

Ironically, the position she thought would strengthen her credentials to be President, was the position that caused her to lose it in the first place.

Benghazi and the email situation happened when Clinton was Secretary of State. If she stayed in the Senate til at least 2013, she would have avoided the email server and Benghazi controversies.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2017, 04:54:42 PM »

2004 was too soon after Bill's Presidency for her to run. It would've been like Jeb! running in 2012 just four years after his brother. Granted a  Hillary run  in 2004 would've faired better than a Jeb! run in 2012, I still think 04 was too soon and 2008 was her chance.

But I think a Jeb! run in 2012 would have fared better than a Jeb! run in 2016...so...

I think Jeb! would still lose to Obama about as badly as Romney did, he may even do worse than Romney. Best case for him is that he carries every Romney state plus Florida but still loses.

It would've only faired better if Romney sat the race out. If he still runs, Jeb! 2012 is more or less the same as Jeb! 2016.

Nah, not as bad as Jeb! 2016. In 2012, there's no Trump. Trump absolutely bullied Jeb!.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2017, 06:45:04 PM »

Hillary should have won it in 2008. 2004 was too soon and she was too damaged of a political figure after Benghazi and the e-mail controversy.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2017, 08:24:06 PM »

Hillary should have won it in 2008. 2004 was too soon and she was too damaged of a political figure after Benghazi and the e-mail controversy.

You make the mistake of thinking people didn't trust/like Hillary in 2016 because of her "e-mails" or "Benghazi," lol. They didn't like her because they felt in their hearts that she was an over-ambitious harpy. The faux scandals gave them something to latch onto publicly that could seemingly legitimize their position. But if it couldn't be Benghazi or e-mails, it would've just been something else. There would have been a slew of other bullsh-t in 2004 not named e-mails but still equally as potent. And that's because the trajectory of the e-mail story was more a symptom of her being disliked than an actual cause.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2017, 08:31:11 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2017, 08:35:15 PM by Technocracy Timmy »

She didn't expect somebody to run from her left and win in 2008 (ironically enough a man who had a slightly more conservative record than her). Obama really dragged her on the Iraq war and to a lesser extent with trade deals like NAFTA. I don't think she expected another even more leftist insurgency last year to be so damaging as well. 2008 still makes 2016 look tame though. People forget just how nasty Obama and Clinton were with one another compared to Sanders.

She also supposedly changed her electoral strategy going into 2016 as a result of Trump. She was gonna run a more populist left campaign but with Trump she turned her narrative into Trump being fundamentally unfit for the office of the Presidency.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2017, 09:51:17 PM »

She didn't expect somebody to run from her left and win in 2008 (ironically enough a man who had a slightly more conservative record than her). Obama really dragged her on the Iraq war and to a lesser extent with trade deals like NAFTA. I don't think she expected another even more leftist insurgency last year to be so damaging as well. 2008 still makes 2016 look tame though. People forget just how nasty Obama and Clinton were with one another compared to Sanders.

She also supposedly changed her electoral strategy going into 2016 as a result of Trump. She was gonna run a more populist left campaign but with Trump she turned her narrative into Trump being fundamentally unfit for the office of the Presidency.

Fundamentally unfit because he said a bunch of nasty stuff, instead of idk Trump University or job stiffing at that.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2017, 11:05:02 PM »

Hillary was certainly the strongest campaigner she's ever been between the couple days before New Hampshire 2008 and her concession speech that June. By far.

I also think it's rather compelling to suggest that she would have made better use of the congressional majorities than Obama did in the first two years of that term. On the flipside, many Obama primary voters probably would have acted just as rotten as Sanders voters did had she actually won the nomination, so that would have been quite challenging.

But yes, I'll say it over and over: Hillary's time was 2009-2017. Obama would have fared well as a successor in this environment, and in fact would have been a better president with more years under his belt.
This her best time was 2008.
Logged
60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED
ahugecat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 868


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2017, 01:25:51 AM »

Hillary should have won it in 2008. 2004 was too soon and she was too damaged of a political figure after Benghazi and the e-mail controversy.

You make the mistake of thinking people didn't trust/like Hillary in 2016 because of her "e-mails" or "Benghazi," lol. They didn't like her because they felt in their hearts that she was an over-ambitious harpy. The faux scandals gave them something to latch onto publicly that could seemingly legitimize their position. But if it couldn't be Benghazi or e-mails, it would've just been something else. There would have been a slew of other bullsh-t in 2004 not named e-mails but still equally as potent. And that's because the trajectory of the e-mail story was more a symptom of her being disliked than an actual cause.
For me, it's her desperation to become a feminist icon when she is anything but.
Logged
catographer
Megameow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,498
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2017, 02:50:28 AM »

Hillary should have won it in 2008. 2004 was too soon and she was too damaged of a political figure after Benghazi and the e-mail controversy.

You make the mistake of thinking people didn't trust/like Hillary in 2016 because of her "e-mails" or "Benghazi," lol. They didn't like her because they felt in their hearts that she was an over-ambitious harpy. The faux scandals gave them something to latch onto publicly that could seemingly legitimize their position. But if it couldn't be Benghazi or e-mails, it would've just been something else. There would have been a slew of other bullsh-t in 2004 not named e-mails but still equally as potent. And that's because the trajectory of the e-mail story was more a symptom of her being disliked than an actual cause.
For me, it's her desperation to become a feminist icon when she is anything but.

Just the plain facts of her accomplishments makes her an icon of feminism and women's rights, regardless of whether she won feminists over.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,353


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2017, 03:12:03 AM »

Bush vs Hillary map in 2004:



Bush/Cheney 285 51%
Hillary/Kerry 253 48%




2008:




Clinton/Bayh 372 53%
McCain/Palin 166  46%
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2017, 03:59:20 AM »

Hillary was a much better candidate in 2008 (and would've been in 2004) than she was in 2016. If she has won, though, would she survived 2008?

She wins in 2008, and Romney defeats her in 2012.
Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2017, 08:48:09 AM »

I wish she had won the primaries because Obama would be president now and we'd still have 7.5 years to look towards.
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 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.