How would have Hillary done?

[phk]

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

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[tokar]

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

Few things you have to consider:
1) Hillary winning would have disenfranchised african americans, and that would have made african american turnout low.
2) Ditto for youth vote
3) McCain wouldn't have chosen Palin.  Probably would have chosen Lieberman, or Giuliani.
4) Hillary performed well in NH, which should have overcome any sort of "McCain possibility".
5) Hillary is from Scranton, so she would have had no problem winning the PA vote.
6) McCain knowing PA probably wasn't in play would have spent more time elsewhere.

With that said...
ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, DE, DC, MD, MI, OH, IL, MN, WI would have been in the bag for her.
CA, OR, WA and HI are also in the bag.
Arkansas would have been a toss-up.  Might have actually gone to Hillary.  I'd say it would have given Bill's influence.
Florida i would give to Hillary too.
New Mexico would probably come down to the wire and gone to Hillary.

All McCain states minus Arkansas would have been redder, including Missouri.  Thats 165.
Because of the disenfranchised african american vote, North Carolina would have gone to McCain easily.
African American vote I think had some play in VA, so I'd give VA to McCain.
I would give NV and IN to McCain...
I would also give CO and IA to McCain.

That gives me 310-228.

[True Democrat]

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.

[CultureKing]

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

Few things you have to consider:
1) Hillary winning would have disenfranchised african americans, and that would have made african american turnout low.
2) Ditto for youth vote
3) McCain wouldn't have chosen Palin.  Probably would have chosen Lieberman, or Giuliani.
4) Hillary performed well in NH, which should have overcome any sort of "McCain possibility".
5) Hillary is from Scranton, so she would have had no problem winning the PA vote.
6) McCain knowing PA probably wasn't in play would have spent more time elsewhere.

With that said...
ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, MA, NY, NJ, PA, DE, DC, MD, MI, OH, IL, MN, WI would have been in the bag for her.
CA, OR, WA and HI are also in the bag.
Arkansas would have been a toss-up.  Might have actually gone to Hillary.  I'd say it would have given Bill's influence.
Florida i would give to Hillary too.
New Mexico would probably come down to the wire and gone to Hillary.

All McCain states minus Arkansas would have been redder, including Missouri.  Thats 165.
Because of the disenfranchised african american vote, North Carolina would have gone to McCain easily.
African American vote I think had some play in VA, so I'd give VA to McCain.
I would give NV and IN to McCain...
I would also give CO and IA to McCain.

That gives me 310-228.

That seems right to me, though I would give West Virginia and Iowa to Clinton (and maybe Missouri). Many voters after seeing the economy collapse would think back to the Clinton years and vote for Hillary.

[Trevor]

The national exit poll shows that Hillary would have defeated McCain by 11 points nationally.

Clinton 52
McCain 41
Wouldn't have vote 5

Should would have done about as well or better than Obama, she just would have done it in different places.

[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.

[tokar]

The national exit poll shows that Hillary would have defeated McCain by 11 points nationally.

Clinton 52
McCain 41
Wouldn't have vote 5

Should would have done about as well or better than Obama, she just would have done it in different places.

Considering the national polls (the average of them all, at least) got Obama's margin right (~6+), I'll take that value (Clinton+11) with some level of confidence.

Different places, indeed...
She probably would have had larger margins of victories in OH and FL, while picking up a lot more votes in places like WV, KY, TN, LA and AR (all of which went for Clinton in 92 and 96).

[bgwah]

I imagine the map would look something like this:

[memphis]

5) Hillary is from Scranton, so she would have had no problem winning the PA vote.

Hillary is from Chicago.

[Ogre Mage]

bgwah's map looks right except I think Hillary would have won Nevada as well.  She won the primary there and had very strong support from the Hispanic community.  Throughout the campaign she and Obama polled about as equally well against McCain in Nevada.   Once the economic crisis broke the state would have moved in her favor, just as it did for Barack.  She was the first Presidential candidate to grasp the seriousness of the mortgage crisis, which is a huge issue in Nevada.  Plus, she has a clear record of opposing Yucca Mountain.  She would have won.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     She would have won, though much less decisively.

[Lunar]

I imagine the map would look something like this:

I agree, except maybe flipping NV (she has popularity with Hispanics and that state is now solidly Democratic).  I don't think Hillary would win MO either.

But if she ran a poor campaign, McCain would be running with Pawlenty or something and could have been more competitive in the upper Midwest, Florida, and/or even Oregon.  We have to assume Hillary wouldn't win by as large of a margin

[Jeff from NC]

Didn't the early head-to-head hypotheticals have her winning Kentucky as well, or am I going crazy?

[Trevor]

Didn't the early head-to-head hypotheticals have her winning Kentucky as well, or am I going crazy?

The last Rasmussen poll for Kentucky had it at:
Clinton 51
McCain 42

At the very least Kentucky would have been a toss-up considering how bad the economy is and the electorate in KY is almost 50% dem.

Clinton would have won NV, CO is a different story though.  I also think she could have won MO because, unlike Obama, she would have strongly appealed to white women.

[Mr. Morden]

The national exit poll shows that Hillary would have defeated McCain by 11 points nationally.

Clinton 52
McCain 41
Wouldn't have vote 5

Should would have done about as well or better than Obama, she just would have done it in different places.

Considering the national polls (the average of them all, at least) got Obama's margin right (~6+), I'll take that value (Clinton+11) with some level of confidence.

Such polls are meaningless, because people weren't exposed to an actual Clinton-McCain campaign.  They can only make guesses as to how they would have reacted to such a campaign.  No one has been running negative ads against Hillary Clinton for the last six months, so it doesn't surprise me that she might have inflated numbers right now.

[Mr.Phips]

I dont think Democrats would have picked as many House and Senate seats with Hillary. 

[phk]

The national exit poll shows that Hillary would have defeated McCain by 11 points nationally.

Clinton 52
McCain 41
Wouldn't have vote 5

Should would have done about as well or better than Obama, she just would have done it in different places.

Considering the national polls (the average of them all, at least) got Obama's margin right (~6+), I'll take that value (Clinton+11) with some level of confidence.

Different places, indeed...
She probably would have had larger margins of victories in OH and FL, while picking up a lot more votes in places like WV, KY, TN, LA and AR (all of which went for Clinton in 92 and 96).

With Iraq off the backburner, Clinton would have done well.

[Lunar]

Didn't the early head-to-head hypotheticals have her winning Kentucky as well, or am I going crazy?

Yeah if McCain never called Hillary a liberal (like what happened during the Dem. primary) she might actually win Kentucky.  Good luck with that.

[Ogre Mage]

But if she ran a poor campaign, McCain would be running with Pawlenty or something and could have been more competitive in the upper Midwest, Florida, and/or even Oregon.  We have to assume Hillary wouldn't win by as large of a margin

Florida?  I see no possible circumstance where she would be a weaker candidate in that state than Obama.  The state was an excellent demographic fit for her (seniors, Jews, Hispanics, transplanted New Yorkers) and while they were both in the race she ran much stronger there against McCain than Obama did.  Obama didn't inch ahead in that state until the economic crisis broke; Hillary was leading there back in April and May.  Her longstanding emphasis on the home foreclosure crisis would have played well there too.  She would have locked up that state easily once the crisis broke.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_clinton-417.html

[Lunar]

But if she ran a poor campaign, McCain would be running with Pawlenty or something and could have been more competitive in the upper Midwest, Florida, and/or even Oregon.  We have to assume Hillary wouldn't win by as large of a margin

Florida?  I see no possible circumstance where she would be a weaker candidate in that state than Obama.  The state was an excellent demographic fit for her and while they were both in the race she ran much stronger there against McCain than Obama did.  Obama didn't inch ahead in that state until the economic crisis broke; Hillary was leading there back in April and May.  She would have locked up that state easily once the crisis broke.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_clinton-417.html

She would be a stronger candidate than Obama in Florida.

I clearly said "if she ran a worse campaign"  and "wouldn't win by as large of a margin [as 6%]"- implying that she got bogged down more than Obama did overall   Like if the Republicans ran ads against her accusing a molested child of making up her story (this is truthy from her attorney days) and it stuck or something.

[panda_priest]

I think she would have won all the Obama states along with MO, MT, AK, WV and maybe KY.

[Ogre Mage]

I think she would have won all the Obama states along with MO, MT, AK, WV and maybe KY.

You actually mean AR (Arkansas), right?   AK is the abbreviation for Alaska.  There is no chance that Hillary would have won there.  She would not have won Montana either.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mt/montana_mccain_vs_clinton-613.html

[panda_priest]

SOrry, AR