Not sure where to put this.
I know the New York Republicans screwed up in 2000 but I cannot fathom how she won with no prior political office (First Lady isn’t political).
Why did New Yorkers want her to run in the first place? She had no connections there and was a (reverse) carpetbagger. She wasn’t known as a politician so why was she picked to run and why did she win?
ETA: Mods feel free to move this to GD if it fits better there.
She and Bill were pretty damn popular, especially in the northeast.
I’m not kidding. If it had been Bill vs GWB in the 2000 election he would have slaughtered Bush.
Combine that with Bill owing her and enormous favor - no kidding - and the Clinton political and fundraising machine and she had a decent chance right from the get-go. Add in the chaos on the republican side and she won.
Rudy Giuliani was expected to be her opponent on the Republican side. He withdrew and was replaced by a sacrificial lamb and she easily won. Giuliani never had much of a chance anyway, this was the seat that had been held by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and it seemed to be a given that the Democrat would win.
It’s a fair question.
Hillary is a smart woman and she mastered all of the local issues both upstate and downstate. In small groups, she’s also a good listener. She isn’t especially telegenic, but her solid grasp of retail politics carried the day.
Remember that folks often run for the Senate with zero political experience. I daresay Hillary’s immersion in national policy made her more qualified than most running for the US Senate for the first time, though by no means all. Just a little above average.
As for carpetbagging, New York historically hasn’t had much of a problem with that. They elected Robert Kennedy to the Senate for example, though he had no significant ties to the state. New York also has been fond of high caliber individuals like Patrick Moynahan. Hillary the workhorse was a good fit.
I’m not sure why she picked NY state. I don’t think she had any history there. She grew up in IL, went to college in new england, then moved to Arkansas.
I’m not sure what made her pick NY state. I’d be interested to find out.
A seat she thought she could win?
Emphasis mine; the Clintons (both of them) were quite popular and of course the name was well known, but Hillary could afford to outspend opponents by a wide margin despite a lack of local connections. New York is an influential state (even in the Senate where all states have equal representation) and it allowed Hillary to carry the proper patrician image. It turned out to be politically fortuitous that the year she was elected the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred, allowing her to take a front and center position in the War on Terror, but she also worked diligently to build relationships with Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle and during her tenure sat on five committees and sponsored a substantial amount of legislation. (Only three bills and four resolutions that she sponsored passed…I don’t know offhand how that compares to other senators from a career standpoint but it’s pretty good for a first term senator.) Whatever you think about Hillary Clinton–I personally distrust her motives and think she is about as sincere as a Thomas Kinkade–but she showed determination and a willingness to both compromise when necessary and be defiant even to her own party when she found it necessary. Frankly, from a functional standpoint she was an improvement compared to her fellow senator (Chuck Schumer) in terms of actually doing rather than grandstanding.
So, she’s a competent legislator, and a good administrator, as well as being a canny politician. I don’t like her, but I think you have to acknowledge her competence and skill.
Stranger
Clinton was also smart in that she campaigned throughout the state. Too many New York state politicians think of themselves as New York City politicians. She won over a lot of upstate Republican votes in addition to the usual NYC Democratic votes.
Actually, Lazio outspent Clinton.
In either Bill’s or Hillary’s book, they mentioned that they had a discussion about where they wanted to live post presidency. New York made sense for the both of them, both for Bill’s post presidency work and Hillary’s political career.
I think it’s a big mistake to say First Lady doesn’t count as political experience. For all other First Ladies that’s no doubt true. But, I think everyone realizes, in Hilary’s case, that is pretty clearly NOT true. She was working hard on national health insurance reform for years before Obama came to office. And wading deep into political realities, for years, in the attempt.
To pretend otherwise seems exceedingly disingenuous to me.
She was picked to run, because they knew she could win. And they were right.
She won, in part, because no one (okay, so maybe YOU Do!), truly believes you spend eight years in the White House without making valuable political connections. Connections that could prove advantageous to the peoples of New York State!
How is this anything but self evident?
She could win. The downside is that she’s never proven her electoral viability the way that candidates like her husband did, by winning in Arkansas. Her first competitive race was in 2008, and we remember how that went. This one’s not looking so hot either. If the GOP comes up with anything but Trump or Cruz, she’ll be overmatched.
Trump & Cruz have both gotten votes throughout the primary season. Somehow, if the Republicans ignore the folks who cast those votes & nominate someone who hasn’t gotten votes, *he’ll *automatically get more votes than Hilary.
Your logic does not resemble Our Earth Logic.
Indeed. The old girl has claimed that a major reason for her vote in favour of the Second Saddamite War was to give back to Bush for his decency in getting the $20 billion she demanded for reconstructing New York after 9/11.
I’m sure the federal government would have spent some money anyway, even had she not existed; and I’m sure she would have voted for war anyway, because she likes wars; but it’s a sweet story and does credit to them both.
I will say, despite the abuse heaped on him by the people who twice chose him, Bushie seems to have reached across the aisle and been friends with those Democrats who work well with him, such as Obama and the Clintons. He is not a vindictive man.
Unlike stronger leaders such as Nixon and LBJ.
Your hypothesis is reasonable, just unproven. Sure, there will be anger. But this idea that conservative voters will just stay home and let Clinton become President because they are mad at the process, even though they like the nominee, is rather unlikely.
Kasich is broadly acceptable to the party base, to cite one example, and he destroys Clinton in polls. He’d have to lose 7 points or more out of anger at the process to lose to Clinton.
I think an undamaged Giuliani could have beaten Hillary. He was immensely popular in NYC and the rest of the state would have voted for him over Hillary.
IIRC, the polling showed that Guiliani would lose to Clinton. Remember that Giuliani actually had some high negatives in his second term as NYC Mayor before 9/11 happened. And his affair became public.
I suppose he would have competitive, but he wasn’t riding high at the time, and he wasn’t the ‘a noun, a verb, and 9/11’ candidate yet. I had left New York by then but I got the impression that New York wasn’t interested in a conservative Republican at the time. There’s no way to tell what would have happened though, but running against Lazio was virtually the same as Clinton running unopposed. Giuliani would have needed to do much more than run against Clinton scandals, and there’s never been any indication of substance behind his conservative politics.
I assumed that was a big part of it, but NY is a very prestigious and important state (probably 1st or 2nd in the US, behind CA) so I figured that had something to do with it too.
You guys forget that Hillary wasn’t the first - Robert Kennedy was senator from New York when he was campaigning for President. Tom Lehrer said that Massachusetts was the only state with three senators.