How would have Hillary done?

[MR maverick]

It really all depends on if you are talking about her winning the nasty primary with Obama, or Lets say Obama had dropped out after losing NH.

If she had won in the nasty way that happened at the end this year then I would say..
NC, IN, CO, and VA would not have been in play.  

One thing to remember is Hillary ran a pretty dull campaign which allowed Obama to sneak up on her.  If Obama had not went on after NH, then Hillary like McCain would have been running dull campaigns which may have benefited McCain barring the meltdown.   Turnout would have not been high with a Hillary/ McCain election.   McCain is a better candidate win running against someone like Hillary.  

[Padfoot]

I imagine the map would look something like this:

I too concur with this map with the exception of Nevada.  It was such a decisive win for Obama and Hillary had a strong showing here during the caucus so I'm pretty sure it would have gone for her.

She certainly wouldn't have been able to pull of Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, or NE-2.  Colorado would be difficult for her but its possible it might have gone her way.  She also would have had a decent shot at Kentucky IMO.

Down ballot Kay Hagan might have lost her Senate race if Hillary were the nominee but I have a feeling Mitch McConnell would have gone down instead.  There probably wouldn't be a run-off in Georgia as decreased black turnout would have assured Chambliss getting over 50%.  With Hillary atop the ticket I highly doubt McCain would have looked twice at Palin.  I'd put my money on him choosing Huckabee instead in an effort to protect Arkansas.  Without Palin to boost the turnout of Alaska conservatives, Begich would have won by now.  I don't think she would have been any better for the end result in Senate.

In the House the possibilities are endless but I don't think too much would change.  The loss of Palin would have brought Young down along with Stevens in Alaska.  But I don't think Sali would have lost in ID-1 with Clinton on the ticket.  Its possible Clinton could have boosted Boswell in KY-2 but I think that would have been canceled out by a Kratovil loss in MD-1.  In Missouri, Clinton might have helped Baker over the top in the 9th but she may have hurt Driehaus in Ohio's 1st where increased black turnout was a factor.  She also would have hurt Nye and Perriello in VA-2 and VA-5 respectively.  But its possible should could have pushed Hedrick over the top in the surprisingly close race in CA-44.

Bottom line, although Clinton's path to 270 would have been slightly different than Obama's I doubt the end results would have been that much different.

[Nym90]

Assume economic events, Olympics and Russia-Georgia still occur.

The more I think about it, the more I think she could have lost based on her over reliance on 'hand me down' strategy from Bill. There would have been no Palin either.

I think she would have been able to win the Gore/Kerry states plus Ohio and that would have been it. A win - but not a new coalition.

I'm not convinced Obama has built a new coalition for the Democratic party. These voters came together for him, the question is whether they will for someone else. And I'm really talking more about his primary coalition than anything else. I don't see that one emerging very often making it difficult for someone like him to get to the general.

Did the New Deal Coalition ever really come together for anyone besides FDR?

Truman lost much of the South to Thurmond.
Stevenson obviously didn't pull the coalition together that well, as he lost the Northeast pretty badly.
Kennedy didn't do too well in the South, but he pulled the Coalition together fairly well.
LBJ didnt' have the South.
By Humphrey, it was pretty much dead.

Carter held together the last remnants of the New Deal Coalition, but even by that time, Nixon had broken it twice in 1968 and 1972.

Good point, but Roosevelt was allowed to run 4 times. I don't think they wil change the constitution, even if he is the one.

Also, Truman got over 400 EVs. I would say the New Deal coalition held up good enough for him. The election is actually a good case for the strength of it. Given all the circumstances he should have lost. For presidential elections it fell apart from that point onwards though.

Also, these were very bad circumstances for the GOP and the loss wasn't THAT bad. They're still left with a pretty strong base of support. The Democrats had a streak of 7 elections where they only got above 50% once. Hell, only above 46% once. The Republicans are not necessarily there just yet.

I assume you mean 300 EVs for Truman, not 400.  He got 303. Still, your point stands.

[panda_priest]

Still, there's always the chance Hillary would have blown it somehow. We made the right choice.

[Lunar]

People who think Kentucky would be a tossup = lol.

"Secretly liberal" Hillary from New York who never had an ad or narrative against her accusing her of being liberal does not equal Centrist Bill Clinton with  on the sidelines.

C'mon, she would lose a lot of her blue-collar roots as soon as McCain ran a single ad against her.

[Alcon]

I agree with Morden.  We can't discount the potential "well, I would've voted for Clinton, I swear" phenomenon.  Honestly, a +11 is probably worse than Generic Democrat would have run -- and in such an environment as this, Generic Democrat almost invariably runs better than Real Democrat in theory.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I imagine the map would look something like this:

^^^^^^^

[Lunar]

Missouri = no way.  Nevada = easy dem with solid Hispanic support as we just learned.

[bgwah]

I suppose Nevada might have gone Clinton. I doubt her GOTV effort would have been nearly as impressive, though she did somehow manage to win the caucus there (her only one, so perhaps the Clinton campaign in Nevada was one of her best actually? Who knows). If she did win it, however, I doubt it would've been by more than two or three points. McCain would be much stronger in Nevada against Hillary Clinton.

As for Missouri, I think Clinton would have been a stronger candidate there and considering Obama barely lost it, I think she would've had a >50% chance of taking it. The real question for Missouri is whether low black turn-out in the cities would counter Clinton doing better among rural whites (and thus keeping the state for McCain). I have a feeling she would win it by 1 or 2 points, though.

Clinton would definitely win the West Coast and Upper Midwest with smaller margins than Obama did, but considering how decisively he won them all she would've taken them anyway. Iowa would be the closest and might be down to a 1-2% Clinton victory. So while she would overall probably have a smaller PV margin, I think she would only do 10-20 electoral votes worse than Obama did.

[Gustaf]

Assume economic events, Olympics and Russia-Georgia still occur.

The more I think about it, the more I think she could have lost based on her over reliance on 'hand me down' strategy from Bill. There would have been no Palin either.

I think she would have been able to win the Gore/Kerry states plus Ohio and that would have been it. A win - but not a new coalition.

I'm not convinced Obama has built a new coalition for the Democratic party. These voters came together for him, the question is whether they will for someone else. And I'm really talking more about his primary coalition than anything else. I don't see that one emerging very often making it difficult for someone like him to get to the general.

Did the New Deal Coalition ever really come together for anyone besides FDR?

Truman lost much of the South to Thurmond.
Stevenson obviously didn't pull the coalition together that well, as he lost the Northeast pretty badly.
Kennedy didn't do too well in the South, but he pulled the Coalition together fairly well.
LBJ didnt' have the South.
By Humphrey, it was pretty much dead.

Carter held together the last remnants of the New Deal Coalition, but even by that time, Nixon had broken it twice in 1968 and 1972.

Good point, but Roosevelt was allowed to run 4 times. I don't think they wil change the constitution, even if he is the one.

Also, Truman got over 400 EVs. I would say the New Deal coalition held up good enough for him. The election is actually a good case for the strength of it. Given all the circumstances he should have lost. For presidential elections it fell apart from that point onwards though.

Also, these were very bad circumstances for the GOP and the loss wasn't THAT bad. They're still left with a pretty strong base of support. The Democrats had a streak of 7 elections where they only got above 50% once. Hell, only above 46% once. The Republicans are not necessarily there just yet.

I assume you mean 300 EVs for Truman, not 400.  He got 303. Still, your point stands.

Yes, of course. Not much sleep this last week for me...

[phk]

Whites: 55-45 McCain
Blacks: 75-25 Clinton
Hispanics: 70-30 Clinton
Asians: 65-35 Clinton

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Whites: 55-45 McCain
Blacks: 75-25 Clinton
Hispanics: 70-30 Clinton
Asians: 65-35 Clinton

I'm sorry, but no Republican is getting 25% of the black vote. Hillary would've gotten 85% minimum. They are just too solid a block to split like that.

[phk]

Whites: 55-45 McCain
Blacks: 75-25 Clinton
Hispanics: 70-30 Clinton
Asians: 65-35 Clinton

I'm sorry, but no Republican is getting 25% of the black vote. Hillary would've gotten 85% minimum. They are just too solid a block to split like that.

Early polls showed McCain getting 25% of blacks in Hillary-McCain matchups probably resulting in bitterness from Obama not getting the nod.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Whites: 55-45 McCain
Blacks: 75-25 Clinton
Hispanics: 70-30 Clinton
Asians: 65-35 Clinton

I'm sorry, but no Republican is getting 25% of the black vote. Hillary would've gotten 85% minimum. They are just too solid a block to split like that.

Early polls showed McCain getting 25% of blacks in Hillary-McCain matchups probably resulting in bitterness from Obama not getting the nod.

Yeah, but they'd come around. They are lockstep Democrat voters even if they threaten not to vote for them. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Alcon]

Whites: 55-45 McCain
Blacks: 75-25 Clinton
Hispanics: 70-30 Clinton
Asians: 65-35 Clinton

I'm sorry, but no Republican is getting 25% of the black vote. Hillary would've gotten 85% minimum. They are just too solid a block to split like that.

Early polls showed McCain getting 25% of blacks in Hillary-McCain matchups probably resulting in bitterness from Obama not getting the nod.

Just like all of those McCain voters who really would have voted Clinton, I'm sure.

[Torie]

The margin for Hillary would have been larger I think. But maybe in that race I would have ended up voting for McCain, so it's problematical.

[Dan the Roman]

I think people are dismissing the fact that Clinton-Obama was not an either or equation. Obama winning meant that Clinton could not take the VP position, but a Clinton victory would have almost required Obama in the VP position in order for her to unite the party. That combination had the potential to be far more formidable than is being considered here. It would have combined Clinton's blue collar appeal, and credentials, with Obama's ability to motivate African Americans and to lesser extent young voters. This motivation would not have been to the same extent, but I think people underestimate two things:

1. How much young voters generally dislike the Bush GOP.
2. How meaningful it would be for African Americans to have an African American anywhere on the ticket, even in the number two spot.

In such an environment Obama's policies and background would not have come under such attack, nor would they have received such attention. Furthermore, I think the way Clinton has been attacked has inoculated her against many obvious charges. For fifteen years we've been told she is a Lady Macbeth who is ruthless with her enemies. Who would you rather have facing Ahmadinejad across a table? Lady Macbeth, or a senile old man?

I think McCain v. Clinton/Anyone else would be close, but I think McCain v. Clinton/Obama would have been a landslide on par with what happened.

[Reaganfan]

Assume economic events, Olympics and Russia-Georgia still occur.

The more I think about it, the more I think she could have lost based on her over reliance on 'hand me down' strategy from Bill. There would have been no Palin either.

I think she would have been able to win the Gore/Kerry states plus Ohio and that would have been it. A win - but not a new coalition.

I'm not convinced Obama has built a new coalition for the Democratic party. These voters came together for him, the question is whether they will for someone else. And I'm really talking more about his primary coalition than anything else. I don't see that one emerging very often making it difficult for someone like him to get to the general.

That's the way I feel. Turnout was overhyped and just a little bigger than 2004...the Youth Vote was the same as 2000 and 2004...black turnout was higher...but that was expected. I simply think that many Americans wanted a change, and felt Barack Obama had the best ideas. I don't think it was a certain minority that elected him....I think it was just America in general, as they did to Reagan, Clinton and Bush before hand.

[Lincoln Republican]

With the state the economy had descended to during the campaign, any credible Democrat would have won this election, and certainly including Hillary Clinton.

[Ogre Mage]

As for Missouri, I think Clinton would have been a stronger candidate there and considering Obama barely lost it, I think she would've had a >50% chance of taking it. The real question for Missouri is whether low black turn-out in the cities would counter Clinton doing better among rural whites (and thus keeping the state for McCain). I have a feeling she would win it by 1 or 2 points, though.

I agree.  My guess is that Clinton would have employed a 2006 McCaskill-like strategy of campaigning out in the exurban and rural areas to cut into McCain's base.  It would not have been difficult for her to down a shot and then bang the drum against the McCain-Bush economic policies in front of these folks.  In this climate I think Clinton's turnout in the cities would have been fine.