Obama, who totally kicked butt in the main event (the outcome was only in doubt to us lefties who are just so used to watching the Dem party snatch defeat from the jaws etc etc), had his hands full with Clinton in the primary season.
If we assume she had won the primary, we assume also that she was not desparately thrashing to keep from losing in the latter months of the primary season. The early attitude, which was akin to coronating her as Destined to Be, would have probably continued.
Obama, who would by definition have not won the Dem nom, would presumably have lent his energies to electing the Democratic candidate. I suppose it’s fair to assume that if he did not win that means his excellent local orgs would have been less excellent, whether via cause or via effect. But assume he was at least as inclined to pitch in and stump for her as she was for him
Here is Nov07 electoral map, Kerry & Bush states. Clinton would have won all the Kerry states plus Florida, period, end of story. How much more? Ohio, no doubt, given the economy. New Mexico, pretty easily too, I think.
Maybe many many more. Polling throughout the primary season BEFORE Obama clinched it actually consistently showed Clinton matching up against Bush better than Obama did. That is in part due to the number of folks who had not yet heard much about Obama. (Obama ended up taking states no one had imagined going blue). But they damn well had heard about McCain and Clinton.
I go with what the OP said: solid win for HRC, but not Obama’s margin.
Remember, only a percentage voted for McCain. All of us didn’t - in MS, 43% voted for Obama. And not all of those who voted McCain (or third party) are ignorant bigots.
She would have creamed McCain, probably by even higher electoral and popular margins than Obama. She’d have the same advantages as Obama, and many ofthe rednecks who wouldn’t vote for no black president would vote for her. She’d get Arkansas, for one thing.
As far as Clinton hate goes, Bill left office with a 70% approval rating.
Hillary would have kicked McCain’s butt so bad during the debates (assuming the banking crisis happened the same way) he would have carved a backward “H” in his own face. She would have won different states from Obama (probably less in the West, probably more in Appalachia), but she would have won.
I know what you mean, and I’ve experienced it too. They might dislike Bill but they HATE Hillary with a passion.
I don’t think she would have won. She lacked the fundraising skills of Obama (she was running dry in the primaries, remember) and I don’t think he would have bailed her campaign out. I don’t see her putting Obama on her ticket – not sure who she would have picked, though.
Had McCain picked anyone other than Palin, I think it would have been a rout. Too many skellies in HRC’s closet, and her lack of fundraising would have meant she would have had to take federal funding, so she’d not have the resources to put out all the fires that would have sprung up.
And if y’all thought this election was bad, we would have seen far worse with a Hillary candidacy mud-wise.
If Hillary had been the nominee, McCain would’ve had a much easier time raising money, which would’ve made him a tougher opponent. I think she would’ve won, but not by as much, and we’d all be a lot less excited now.
How many hard-core Hillary haters do you think actually voted for Obama? Really now. Hillary might have lost Indiana as narrowly as Obama won it, but she might have carried Missouri as narrowly as Obama lost it.
The economy would still have been the deciding factor. Hillary would have won Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and we’d still be looking at a Democratic president.
Hillary could have lost the conservative centrists who liked Romney, hated Palin, but were cool with Barack. But she could have gained the working-class whites with good memories of Bubba, who feared that commie unpinko Muslin guy from Indonesia.
I’ve heard people go on about it enough to sort of get it, even tho’ I’m the other way around. (I’ve gone from sheer dislike of Bubba to rolling my eyes at him, while I’m closer to indifferent to her at this point.) I think it’s a mix of sexism & a sense that she’s trying to trade on her husband’s name.
This was (and still is) my primary complaint: she ran for Senate on a resume that consisted of “I married Bill.” Without the personal elements, she was a lawyer and a busybody running for national office. Now that she’s served for eight years, her resume’s okay but I still resent her for seeking office in the first place as a celebrity with high name recognition and excellent fundraising. She will never get my vote for office–and she’s been on my ballot at least three times. I will work tirelessly for her opponent, no matter who he or she or it might be.
We’ve all known some couple where the woman is a bit on the controlling-demanding side and the husband was led to her by his dick but, now, doesn’t know anywhere he can stick it, 'cause she won’t let him.
Of course some guys just have no conscience, but I think most of the times a guy cheats on his wife there’s a reason.
I mean, come on! A married guy who’s just a big, ol’ horndog is gonna get him some–the real thing. Billy was willing to settle for a handjob from a homely, pudgy skank. It smacks of desperation.
Deep down, subconsciously, everybody knew that he only messed with that intern because his wife wasn’t giving him any. The whole scandal, which totally messed up an otherwise great Presidency, was because she couldn’t bring herself to screw her own husband even though the state of mind of the leader of the free world was at stake.
After the story started to come out I felt sorry for Bill because I felt I knew where he was at. I also looked at Hillary in a new way–not a good way.
I think a lot of people felt she was a bit of a bitch, and this was part of the reason why. They’d known women like her before.
Even way down here (far away from New York), her decision to run bothered me. Although she’d lived there for many years, it seemed like she wouldn’t be attuned to the the state or its people - she seemed like a meddlesome outsider, not a New Yorker. Of course that’s just my perception.
Well, it takes one to know one.
All joking aside, I don’t think the Hillary hate is because she “couldn’t bring herself to screw her own husband even though the state of mind of the leader of the free world was at stake”. Why would anybody care if she was having sex with her husband or not?
I wonder if it’s because she tried to do part of the President-ing while he was in office (health care fiasco).
Strong-willed women who are unapologetic feminists rub many people the wrong way. It didn’t help, in Hillary’s case, that she made that “I could’ve stayed home baking cookies” remark; that her secretive leadership style on healthcare reform turned it into a fiasco in 1993-94; that she seemed to be up to her neck in the White House Travel Office scandal; to say nothing of Whitewater, her overnight fortune in commodities trading, the here-one-day, gone-the-next Rose Law Firm records, etc. Then to move to New York solely to run for the Senate seemed, to her critics, as carpetbagging of the worst sort.
Hillary, rightly or wrongly, strikes many people as a bitch on wheels with few redeeming characteristics, and that - plus Obama’s nearly flawless campaign - is why he won the nomination and ultimately the Presidency. If she’d won the nomination, she would’ve motivated a substantial number of Republicans who were cool to John McCain and not particularly opposed to Obama. I really think she would’ve lost to McCain.
I suspect Clinton would have lost Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and maybe Florida. She might still have won, but it would have been a lot closer, and it would have been with no mandate.
Also, if Hillary had been nominated, McCain would not have picked Palin as his running mate. So to the extent Palin harmed the ticket, that effect would be gone.
