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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bush vs Hillary map in 2004:

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




2008:

Clinton/Bayh 372 53%
McCain/Palin 166  46%

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hillary vs Romney 2012 map

Romney/Ryan 279 49.8%
Clinton/Bayh  259 48.5%

While Hillary does very well in the Upper South and Appalachia in 2008, she is not able to hold on to those states in 2012 thus she loses.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Unlikely, Romney wasn't exactly Mr. Charisma or Mr. Out-of-Left-Field!

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

Unlikely, if anything Obama probably would've lived long enough (in Congress) to become what Cory Booker is.

And given how he handled a Democratic majority for two years, and then how he dealt with Congress afterwards, he probably would've been even more vulnerable than Hillary in 2020.

Nah Hillary would have lost by 10-12 points in 2020, while Obama would have only lost by 6-7 .

Reasons why is:

1. The GOP base hates Hillary more then Obama
2. Obama is a much better campaigner then Hillary
3. He wouldnt start out his administration in such a week position as Hillary would have

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Imagine a grizzled and seasoned two term VP Obama running in 2016 to continue Hillary's legacy? Obama would have been very tough to beat in those circumstances.

Obama would have lost his popularity among the liberal base if he was her vp .