But it was hers to lose, that’s the thing. Sorta like Romney in the general. I think she ran a mediocre, if not poor, campaign. She should have handily beaten Obama.
Now, maybe she ran a brilliant Senate campaign, and it was just that one time that she wasn’t so good.
Well, all I know in my case is I’m voting for a decent candidate that has political/legal experience, thinks government should be helping not hindering society, has a budget plan and doesn’t mention God while explaining their plan in full detail.
So, Hillary, you’re getting my vote. 
Political cartoons are the best part of a campaign. Here’s an early one for Hillary. Pretty funny. Lots more to come in the up coming year.
I thought she ran a C+/B- campaign – a D+/C- up until Super Tuesday, and a B+ afterwards. And Obama ran an A/A+ campaign, in my view (in '08). In 2012 I even started a thread about it.
Geographically, Clinton has already got the Midwest, the South, and the East Coast covered by herself. So all she needs is a Californian.
If only Brown were younger.
I’m going to link to Harry Enten’s piece at 538 one more time. The Hillary Clinton Steamroller Rumbles To Life.
At this point in the 2008 race Clinton lead in national and New Hampshire polls, but trailed in Edwards in Iowa. She had between 20% and 40% in each of those three polls in a fairly close three way race. She was in a the lead, but I wouldn’t exactly call it her race to lose.
At this point in polls for the 2016 Democratic primary, Clinton is over 50% in NH, Iowa, and the country as whole. No candidate since we moved to the primary system has been in this good shape this far out. This is her race to lose.
Giving 2008 as a reason she could lose in 2016 ignores a lot of ways in which these two things are different.
Asimovian is available.
Another slimy Clinton, vs a LCD GOP, TBD.
Some choice.
Well, yes, but when you’re the favorite with the institutional support and early donor support, and you “almost” win, that’s not really saying much.
Well, it sorta is: if you make a large handful of strategic mistakes and still come very close to beating somebody who undeniably runs an amazingly orchestrated campaign, you at least prove you’ve got a product that could sell.
Had Clinton run a campaign as well as Obama did in '08, she’d have won. She didn’t. Presumably, she knows that. She’s had eight years to think about how to improve that.
And will she face an Obama quality opponent? I really don’t think so.
Added to that, there’s a very good chance she’s going to inherit a lot of Obama’s campaign infrastructure. Obama, as I understand it, managed to combine his local organizing experience with his Chicago political experience, and this is a heady combination. If Clinton can utilize his strategies and his team, she’s going to be in extra-good shape.
By “the South” you mean “Southern New York”?
The press release had a nice typo: “She’s fought children and families all her career.” Did GWB write that?
C+/B- sounds about right to me but that is poor given her experience and other advantages in 2008. And I am actually not impressed that she stepped up her game after the race was basically lost. Her 2008 campaign reminds me of a sports player/team which underperforms when the game is in the balance but then when it’s lost they lose their inhibitions and raise their game making the final score look close without ever really threatening to win.
Furthermore I think she has the classic persona of the US presidential loser: the conscientious grinder. Or to put it another way she reminds me of Romney, Kerry and Gore much more than Obama, Bill and Reagan.
Finally I have a theory that a presidential candidate who wants to break a major demographic barrier has to be picture-perfect in other regards; think of Kennedy and Obama. Hillary obviously isn’t in that class as a campaigner.
Probably none of this will matter in the primaries but I remain mildly skeptical about her chances in the general. Fortunately for her the Republican field doesn’t look that impressive either.
It was a long time ago, but she was First Lady of Arkansas for twelve years.
Yes, but since she couldn’t win a Senate race down there she cherry picked an easier race. Massachussetts, alas, was not available, but Moynihan was conveniently retiring in NY.
In the context of the discussion I was entering–a discussion of the geographical basis for selecting a VP candidate–your statement is irrelevant.
True. I forgot the context and only responded to the statement. Sorry about that.
As far as VP goes though, I think it’s less that Clinton has roots in a lot of places than that she has roots in none. Except maybe New York and of course DC. I’d be shocked if she won Arkansas like her husband did, having never won office there and never pursued office there, much less any other southern states except perhaps Virginia(which is really just DC nowadays). In any case, I doubt she’ll pick a VP for regional balance anyway. Given the Democrats’ lack of an obvious successor once she’s out of the picture, she’ll probably be under a lot of pressure to pick someone young and promising, like Castro. Or perhaps Cory Booker. Otherwise the 2020 or 2024 nomination fights will be among a crowd of people few have heard of. Which is fine, but party bosses seem to prefer big names, as does the base.