This isn’t so much a debate as a hypothetical, but I was one of those people in 2008 who thought Obama was too inexperienced and should have waited a couple of election cycles. He’s made some missteps, but overall I’m extremely impressed with the job he’s done.
I still can’t shake the feeling that it should have been Hillary in 2008, and Obama in 2016. In 2008 she’d have been younger and vigorous, she wouldn’t have had all this scandal exposure. By 2016 Obama would be facing Trump with more job experience, a stronger political network, and (probably) no scandal baggage. We’d be talking about a Trump destruction instead of a horse race. Anyhow, that’s how I wish things had shaken out… what say you?
She’s ahead of Trump, but not by a huge amount. How would she have fared against McCain, an honest-to-god war hero, if she’s only just barely beating someone who insults war heroes? She’s a woman running against a blatant misogynist, so it’s no surprise she’s got a significant advantage with female voters. Some of that support might be eroded if she were running against McCain / Palin.
Back in 2008, Obama’s team hit the “change” theme hard, and it worked.
Many people were sick of Bush, and sick of the same old candidates. Obama was the embodiment of different (when it came to national politics) - youngish, black, energetic, hopeful (instead of fear-mongering), and inexperienced. His inexperience could have hurt him. Instead it was seen by many as a sign he could potentially shake things up. It gave him a bit of outsider status. Given the mood at the time, I’m not sure if Hillary’s “Clinton” baggage would have helped her or hurt her. The economy and relative peacefulness of the Clinton era might have made voters see her as a return to better times. Or, they might have seen her as part of the politics-as-usual machine. I know I heard people in 2008 express frustration with having only ever known either a Bush or a Clinton presidency. Given the failures of George W. Bush’s presidency, there was an anti-dynastic sentiment in the air.
Plus, she voted in favor of the Iraq war. That fiasco was fresher in everyone’s minds then. (Indeed, it’s probably one of the reasons Obama beat her in the primaries.)
I’m not arguing that she couldn’t have won. My hunch is that should probably would have. I just think that given the context of the 2008 election she would have had a harder fight on her hands than Obama did and that therefore Obama was the correct choice at the time.
At that, I keep hearing she’s the most qualified candidate ever to run for president. That’s like, the big selling point, right?
Now, there’s little point in pushing back too hard on that, since she has eight years in the Senate and four as Secretary, and Trump has never served in government; but against McCain, who’d gotten re-elected to the House before spending decades serving in the Senate? Back before she had the Secretary-of-State credential, all she could’ve done back then would’ve been to try what Obama did, right?
I’m so tired of hearing her name attached to ‘scandal’. Just because someone is raising questions about something, constantly, doesn’t mean there is an actual scandal. Hell, at this point she should be practically bragging about how everyone has scoured several years worth of her private e-mails and nothing nefarious has been found.
Yes. The left and the media did a superb job in giving Republicans 100% of the blame for the economy when it was a shit sandwich that both sides had a hand in making over the previous years.
Also, as they have done since 1992 Republican voters nominated the wrong candidate for POTUS in '08.
Given those 2 elements I can’t see a scenario in which the Democrat would lose in 2008.
Considering Clinton’s base in 2008 was the white working-class, she’d have won by a bigger margin then Obama did. Racism/xenophobia/cultural disconnect caused Obama to underperform in 2008 given the massive unpopularity of the Bush administration and the economic context. Hillary would have won all the states Obama won plus Missouri, Georgia, and perhaps Arkansas.
[slight hijack]
This!
I think middle of the road, undecided voters need to hear this. These people have that deeply ingrained feeling that she is evil, due to 30+ years of constant implied scandal, accusations of scandal, and millions of dollars of investigation of fake scandal. Tell everyone you know this: Anybody who has been under investigation that long and has had no indictments, probably is not doing illegal stuff. I have convinced a number of Bernie-holdouts and “I can’t vote for Trump, but I am not convinced I want to vote for Clinton” people with this simple argument.
[sorry for the /hijack]
I was also a “Hillary in 08, O in 16” person then. I don’t know what I think now. Would O have been the nominee this year? If Hil had not been running, who else might have been in the Dem primaries this time? If Hil had been POTUS, would congress have stonewalled like it did, and would the Tea Party have arisen? I guess we will see what the anti-feminists do, relative to what the anti-black-man-in-power people did. Maybe this will be the “Crumpets Party”.
Or a Grover Cleveland approach:
Obama 2008.
Hillary 2012. Obama rests for 4 years, lets perspective and lessons learned soak in.
Obama 2016. Hillary rests for 4 years, lets perspective and lessons learned soak in.
Hillary 2020.
No, start with Hillary in 2008, to let Obama (as VP or Sec’y of State) get some experience. Plus, Hillary will be too old in 2020 to run as anything other than an incumbent.
Other than this, I totally agree with the OP, and always have. And McCain was toast after the financial crisis.
I’m certain that Clinton would also have won in 2008. There were too many things going against the Republicans that year. There was the Iraq war, the recession, and a disaffected conservative base upset with Bush not having turned back the clock, among other problems facing any Republican that year. I’m not so certain about 2012. Imagine the email thing being an issue during a 2012 race against Romney. Given that Clinton isn’t as good as a candidate as Obama, I can see her having lost to Romney in 2012.
They aren’t scandals because she’s done something illegal, they’re scandals because a lot of people believe she’s done something illegal. That’s all it takes to make something a scandal.
If Obama isn’t elected twice the whole dynamic on the right changes, especially the unhinged GOP racial backlash and legislative intransigence. There’s no birtherism or secret Muslim conspiracy theories. There would be a different sort of GOP backlash because they hate Hillary with a burning passion, but it’s unclear what form it would take. Maybe Hillary goes down in flames due to scandals, real or imagined. Maybe she’s impeached. Maybe she’s super popular and the electorate is turned off by constant anti-Hillary tin foil stories. Maybe Trump doesn’t even run or get off the ground, without the racial animus of the Obama years. Or maybe he’s just as successful and his platform barely changes.
As far as Hillary’s scandals, they are real … we have a double-standard in this country remember … what men have been doing for decades is just not allowed for a woman … it’s “unladylike”.
Why do you assume that Trump would still be a candidate in 2016, assuming that HRC had been president for the previous two terms? And why assume that Obama would a viable candidate in 2016, assuming he had lost the nomination eight years prior? In my estimation, usually once someone gets that close and loses the nomination, they don’t often come back. (Nixon is a rare counterexample.)
I dont think Hillary will ever forgive Obama for coming in and stealing her nomination back in 2008. I think I remember her once saying back then Obama shouldnt even be a part of the primary field.
It has nothing to do with forgiveness. She’s been around long enough to know that there are no guarantees in politics. Look what happened to all those Republicans earlier this year. Are they supposed to “forgive” Trump or just take the lumps and go on with their lives?