Color me skeptical about this:
As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.If America had woken up last Tuesday morning and magically found Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot in lieu of Barack Obama, might she have won by 11 points? Perhaps. She certainly proved herself to be an exceptionally compelling candidate, even if her execution and staffing decisions were sometimes wanting.
But what would Clinton's numbers have looked like if she had actually endured ... you know ... a campaign?
Would she have handled the financial crisis with as much aplomb as Obama did? Probably. Would she have been so capable and reassuring in the debates? Almost certainly. Would she have had an easier time resonating with working class voters in places like Missouri and West Virginia? Yes.
But would she have managed the media as deftly as Obama did? Perhaps not. Would Republican attacks on Bill Clinton and Kazakhstan been as counterproductive to their cause as their effort to link Barack Obama and Bill Ayers? Maybe -- or maybe not. Would she have matched Obama's field organization and raised as much money? Doubtful.
Would her campaign have had the same steely confidence as Obama's did after the Republican convention bounce? Unlikely. Would she have delivered as strong a speech as Mr. Obama did in Denver? Iffy. Would she have catalyzed near-universal turnout in the black community? No.
If Hillary Clinton had headed the Democratic ticket, would John McCain have been dumb enough to name Sarah Palin as his running mate? One would hope not. Might McCain have been smart enough to hire Mike Murphy rather than Steve Schmidt, campaign on themes of bipartisanship, honor, and good government, and appeal as much as possible to independent voters (as the political climate dictated that he ought to have done in the first place)? Who knows. He just might have figured it out.
And what would Clinton's numbers have looked like after the Republicans had gotten done accusing her of being a socialist, a puppet for her husband, and an all-around conniving you-know-what?
Hillary Clinton might have beaten John McCain by more than Barack Obama did. She also might have lost to him. I doubt you'll find too many Democrats who would be willing to take that trade.
209 comments
Frist?
second?
So she would have probably done better in places like West Virginia, Missouri and Arkansas and worse in Virginia and North Carolina? Is this a reasonable assumption?
When I saw the CBS story, I immediately thought that, if Clinton had actually been the candidate, there would've been a lot of different factors at work.
It might've driven higher Republican turnout and base-support for McCain.
On a separate issue, you should do an article looking at pollster bias and accuracy in projecting the final election results.
Yes, I know it is really just one election, but you can use senate data and presidential data, national data and state data... and get perhaps a sorta decent sample. Updated pollster accuracy statistics would be interesting though.
A lot of Hillary supporters want Hillary to be president, which is why I don't know why you said "I doubt you'll find too many Democrats who would be willing to take that trade". Besides, Hillary and Obama got roughly the same number of votes during the primaries??????????
Hillary would have certainly beaten McCain, only what the margin is remains unknown.
Mark McKinnon, McCain's advertising strategist for the primary campaign, did brilliant work. Where was he in the general campaign? He pledged early on that he would not to work against Barack Obama if Obama was the Democratic nominee. He was, and he didn't. McCain's message derailed, the campaign followed.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/mccain.html
Now that am second, I can ask the age-old SNL question: What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
(Nate, you are undoubtedly too young for this one.)
The style of this article (a series of rhetorical questions followed by answers) is giving me flashbacks to Rumsfeld.
Was there an answer to the ballot design?
It would be interesting to look at a state by state breakdown.
She might have won MO & WV, as well as put AR in play.
But I seriously doubt that she would have won IN, NC, & VA, and CO seems iffy to me as well.
Hillary could win North Carolina too. In May, Hillary led McCain by 6 points in 1 poll while Obama trailed McCain by 8 point.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=89a1b144-de19-4715-bb6f-97b2e817a23b
Obama was behind McCain in NC throughout the year until September. Hillary could very well have won McCain in North Carolina.
She would probably have won Ohio and Florida by double digits, so I don't know why you say Hillary can lose to McCain.
Hillary probably would have done better in W. Virginia, Missouri and Arkansas, but likely would have had a harder time defending the Pacific Northwest, and certainly wouldn't have been able to swing Virginia, North Carolina, or Indiana.
Indiana is also winnable for Hillary. She won the state in the primaries even though Obama and her both competed fiercely in that stae.
Not VA, but CO is also winnable for her.
There's about 18 million Democrats who would take the trade actually...
6 months ago, I would have given Hillary almost a 100% chance of winning. But because of some of the laws Bill signed, when the economic crisis hit, I wonder if she could have separated herself from McCain/Bush as well as Barack did.
Michael,
Any poll asking about Clinton vs. McCain after around March or so (once Clinton was effectively eliminated from the primary race) would show a sizable pro Clinton bias.
The same holds true for any poll matching a hypothetical candidate against a nominated one.
I saw this story this morning, and I was talking to my co-workers about it. Asking a question like that during exit polling is along the same lines of debating who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman. It's ridiculous.
You leave out the really interesting question: who cares whether Clinton would have won by a higher margin. Who would you rather have as President?
And Casey, there's over 18 million Demicrats who wouldn't.
" There's about 18 million Democrats who would take the trade actually..."
There are also a few hundred thousand Democrats who would have picked Edwards. Doesn't mean they're right.
It is likely that she would have gotten more popular votes and fewer elctoral votes.
Michael and Casey - Nate meant, how many democrats would take the trade of electing McCain in exchange for running Clinton. It was awkwardly put, but you need to read more charitably!
I think the "trade" Nate is alluding to is having McCain as President-elect over Clinton or Obama. Let's not rehash the hard-fought primary season. We Dems should be delighted with our election results and leave the infighting to the Repugs.
What-if history is almost always useless. She didn't run in the general election and has made it clear she doesn't plan to run again.
Let's move forward with the impending administration and dispatch with the current one, please.
WV: imals -- headless animals?
Besides the issues of Bill's library donors Hillary is still forcing repubs to foam at the mouth.
Besides an energized base, I do not know if Hillary would have carried Florida - Ohio, yes. Certainly, she would have had trouble in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico - NC, I am not so sure if that really would have worked w/o the same amount of AA support as BO had!? Virginia, probably, WV yes, AR, yes - Indiana, probably not! Overall, she probably would have won but with a smaller EC count, IMHO.
This poll is relevant. Obama did run behind Democratic congressional candidates by an average of 30% or 2 points nationwide (6.5 to 8.5%). While many of these candidates had all the advantage of incumbency, this voting does suggest that BHO may have been weaker than a more generic conventional Democratic presidential candidate despite all of his personal and organizational skills.
Hillary loses NC, VA, CO and possibly Minnesota (she polled poorly there). She would have had to work hard for Oregon. On the other hand, she wins easily in Ohio and Possibly picks up FL, MO, WV.
She would probably have beaten McCain comfortably but with a different map. If she had been the nominee, I personally would have been in a pickle, unwilling to vote for either major-party candidate.
I think it is unfair to say 18 Million Hillary supporters would take the trade. At least a fair number became completely sold on Obama after voting for Hillary (based entirely on anecdotal evidence in CA).
A powerful consideration is that if she would have won she would have taken Senator Obama as her running mate almost without question and therefore would have picked up the true Obama supporters such as myself anyway. I do not question that a Clinton/ Obama campaign would have meant we would have the White House for 16 years almost without doubt. When I saw Barack speak in 2004 I said, "there is our first AA president" as did millions of others but never expected it to be 2004. However, I supported him and worked for him before Iowa. Despite my support of him/ my lack of support of Hillary I knew that policy wise there was not much difference at all and she would be powerful and he would have the appeal to bring along the voters that he did. It would have been a ticket that people would be energized by and no Republican could have dreamed of beating him. They would have rolled out all the anti Clinton stuff and their base and no one would have cared. We would have not have ever heard of Palin. Trig was a difficult subject for me to figure out and wink wink for the rest of you. This debate doesn't count if we do not factor in the Obama appeal to independents, AA, and die hard Dem's such as me who saw a dream unfold.
"Asking a question like that during exit polling is along the same lines of debating who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman."
I think you're making the wrong associations...Batman and Spiderman would be more aking to Clinton and McCain (though I don't know who'd be who). What about Superman? He'd beat either one of those two (oh, wait...he actually did!) --> http://www.artofobama.com/2008/07/29/super-obama-man/
I was very sad when Hillary lost out to Obama, but gradually over time started to like Obama. It was about August that I became completely sold on him, and now I think the best person won, i.e. he's better than Hillary. All of the former Hillary supporters that I know feel the same. The only ones that don't seem to be Rethuglicans trying to cause trouble where there is none (e.g. Michael).
By the way Michael, your side got hammered on Nov 4!
:)
I think that probably eventually Hillary would have own, but it would have been tighter in the end than Obama managed. I think the change issue would have been less of an obvious win for the Democrats. Though I suppose maybe if Sen Clinton had been the nominee then maybe the financial crisis might have awakened the good memories of her husbands presidency.
Overall I am far happier with Obama as President than I would have been with Hillary as President.
Mr. Silver,
I mean absolutely no disrespect, as I believe you are due immense respect for the work you have done leading up to the election.
But you've earned a vacation. Please take one.
This kind of speculative rumination is filling the blogosphere and traditional media, and it is useless.
I suggest a warm beach.
Would this hypothetical Hillary be less of a shitty campaigner than what we saw during her losing primary campaign? Because the Hillary we actually had a chance to nominate turned out to be a really shitty campaigner.
It would have been a much different race had Hillary been on the ticket.
1.) It would have rallied the republican base to a point where they would have walked on broken glass to get to the polls to ensure that the Clintons weren't in the white house again. Sarah Palin apparently energized the republican base, but they didn't show up to the poles. Hillary on the ballot would have corrected that.
2.) She's too polarizing of a figure, she would have completely turned off the independents (remember how Obama was winning them overwhelmingly in the Primaries?) as well as moderate democrats who were sick of Bill and Hillary, not to mention the anti-war folks that weren't too keen on the Clintons and wanted something new.
3.) Her campaign was down right incompetent. I'm shocked that the McCain campaign did not learn anything from the Hillary campaign. McCain seemed like Hillary 2.o. With two completely incompetent campaigns going after each other the election results would be a complete toss-up and might have come down to a single state again instead of widening the field.
4.) Because of Hillary's high unfavorable ratings, people would have been more likely to believe and internalize any negative campaigning against her. Remember, Bush 2000 was at the heart of it an anti-Bill Clinton vote, 2008 was an anti-Bush vote, why vote in a Clinton again? People would go for the alternative in this case, John McCain.
Wow, I'm surprised that so many of you think Hillary would have had a chance of beating McCain. Obama was the great spoiler for the Republicans this year. The Republicans were counting on Hillary being their negative campaign target and poster-girl. Why else did folks like Limbaugh and Coulter start to sing her praises? They even devised strategies to have Republicans cross-over in the primaries to vote for her. Obama barely went negative on Hillary during the primaries; despite the temptations. The Republicans would have had a field day with Hillary. They would have hammered her on crediblity (remember the trip to Bosnia story/video?). She already had polled poorly on the credibility issue so they would have hammered the weak spots; tied her to Bill's "lies under oath" and energized their right-wing base. In response to these attacks, Hillary would have been more likely to respond in kind and would not have appeared as even-tempered as Obama. So no, I think we would be stuck with President McCain today, had Hillary been the nominee.
jes my two cents.
Any Democrat could have beaten any Republican this year. Bush made sure of that.
I would've happily voted for Hillary, but I was a little bit happier to vote for Obama.
Nate hit the most important point: McCain would have chosen a more sensible running mate, as Palin would have made even less sense versus Hillary. And that would have helped him. Also, Hillary would not have been able to come across as bi-partisan and bringing change, due to her long standing negatives dating back to the Clinton years. And McCain would have campaigned accordingly: as a bi-partisan.
That being said, I think the financial crisis would have cemented it for her, just as it did for Obama. Probably even more so, as she had more economic cred than Obama in the primary.
Generally speaking, I think Hillary had a pretty solid and safe electoral map as well, given that she would almost all if not all Kerry states, easily taken Ohio (where Obama really had to sweat it) and picked up Arkansas. However, she also had less potential for the really high ceiling that Obama had due to new states (Indiana, VA, NC, CO, and Iowa).
With the California unprocessed voters, Obama just picked up about 100,000 votes compared to only 50,000 for McCain. It looks like McCain's vote share is about to sink below 46%.
Kudos to Irene for laying it out much more eloquently than my post.
cheers
It's important to note that a poll like that is inherently muddy because it folds in the effectiveness of Obama's campaign. In other words, if McCain happened to be unpopular on November 4, that is not an accident, that is due to the good works of the Obama campaign, and that unpopularity is not an accidental by-product of the Obama campaign, it was one of its explicit ends.
Basically it tells you that in addition to the people who grudgingly voted for Obama (but voted!) because Obama ran an excellent campaign, there were also others for whom Clinton (having not endured a grueling campaign the previous five months) remains an attractive figure.
As Nate points out, that's meaningless
meant to say 'akin' instead of 'aking'...sorry! (apologies if this is a repeat, first try at correction does not seem to have gone through)
These hypotheticals are just silly at this point since no one has campaigned against Clinton for months. Clinton was not tested in the primaries on her or Bill's sins at all. The Republicans would not have pulled any punches. It's about the EC map anyway. Clinton would have one the big three PA, OH and FL just like Obama did. She would have won AR and perhaps even MO and WV. But she would have never won IA, CO, VA, NC or IN in a million years.
In the immortal words of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, "The Question is MOOT!"
You can ask people on election day if they would have voted for Hill instead of Obama or McCain in a Hill/McCain election, but that ignores EVERYTHING that had to happen to get people to get there.
In the alternate universe where Hill beat Barry Obama and McCain still won the ReTardlican nomination, Hillary probably takes Obama as her running mate, to continue his energy. McCain probably runs negative early and often and still struggles to find a coherent message, as the Republican brand is in the gutter this go around. Hill/Barry work on the bailout and the economy cohesively, talk about main street and tax cuts for the middle class and taxing profiteers harder, and that kind of populist stuff, and Hill probably wins the debates. And Hill at the top of the ticket probably resonates better in WV than Biden in the second chair, but that still doesn't mean they win there. The AA turnout is big, since they still love Obama and they don't really hate Hillary, and they still don't have a connection to McCain.
Hillary wold have won the election. The margin doesn't matter. In the end, it's not how big you win (q.v. Bush "I've got some political capital and I'm gonna spend it."). It's winning. And helping the downballot folks.
While I appreciate the great GOTV efforts of the Obama team, you might want to figure that this was a bad year to have an R next to your name on a ballot in just about every place that states swing.
And with Hillary, the Dems would've completely lost the CHANGE mantra, which, research has shown, was enormously successful for Obama. All the Repubs would've had to do was say "Sixteen years of Clinton and Bush is enough!" and, magically, McCain would have symbolized CHANGE more demonstrably then Clinton.
This is a polling blog, right?
Here's what the polling reports at this blog are telling me:
Probably the actual voting matched the pre-election polling and 5 million votes were stolen nation wide.
Probably the 10 million new registered voters did vote this year but 5 million votes were 'disappeared' 100 votes at a time all across the country.
Probably the Democrats won much bigger than the results show and...
Probably Obama actually DID win by the very same 11 percent by which current polling shows Hillary WOULD win.
Begich won, Franken won, Miller won.
Every close vote in the nation, Democrats probably DID win, but votes did not make it through the tally.
If they recount Alaska, Begich will win Huge. When they recount Minnesota, Franken will win. When they revote Georgia... they'll have to actually count the votes for a Democrat to win.
I think McCain would have been able to better play up the "Reform/Change" strategy against Clinton. It's hard to "out-change" Obama. I also suspect he would have played towards the middle instead of the base, and probably would have picked someone like Lieberman.
I think Hillary would have won, maybe by similar (if different) margins. I agree that Oregon and Washington would have been only lean Dem states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Colorado would have been much closer. Virginia and North Carolina would have been lean GOP states. Ohio and Florida probably would have been a little easier for Hillary. Missouri would have been lean-DEM. West Virginia and Arkansas might have been toss-ups/lean GOP.
Hillary pretty much dropped out of the GOP's sights by the end of February, and the Obama team didn't attack much because they knew they would eventually win the primaries by that point and would need her supporters, so of course she looked good during the March-June period. Would her favorable ratings have been the highest ever for a candidate the day before Election Day, like Obama (Gallup)? Probably not, as 40-45% of the country has a pretty firm and negative opinion of her.
Of course, Hillary probably would have picked Obama, which I think might have been the strongest possible ticket. Maybe Obama/Gore or Gore/Obama would have been better, as that would be such an obvious anti-Bush ticket.
Really though, there's too many variables to have any sense of where Hillary would have been at other than the macro-view that this was a Democratic-favored year, and Hillary was a strong Democrat...like Obama.
I remember hearing on NPR about the huge support gap for Hillary between women over and under 30 years old.
As a 25 year old woman who hated how Hillary handled Michigan, and how she handled her campaign in general, and who worked with a couple 30+ women who were psychotically pro-Hillary...
Really, do you think the African-American and us young'uns would've turned out in the numbers we did, put in the hours knocking on doors, etc., for Hillary?
To put it simply: I'm a registered independent who votes Democratic 95% of the time. I had the liberty in Michigan to vote in either primary. Since my vote for Obama wouldn't have meant jack, I voted for McCain over Romney. Lesser of two evils.
If McCain 2000 had run vs. Hillary, especially if he picked a pro-choice fiscal conservative Republican, you can bet I'd be agonizing over my vote.
As it was, I made my first ever political donation to Obama.
I think she would've won; I also suspect it would've been scrappier, with McCain playing bipartisanship, Lieberman at his side, and September and October lost to an argument about whether the crisis was her husband's fault (which it wasn't, but that's what she would've been up against). And I know that she would never have woken up to that round-the-world jubilation on November 5th. And she would never have made anyone weep with her acceptance speech. And the bloggers and the journalists would have retired to their notepads and written 'Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton', and asked if dynasticism was all American politics had left.
Michael, you cannot have it both ways, saying Hillary's primary win in Indiana shows she would have won that state and that one poll in NC showed her performing better than Obama against McCain, without also noting that she got destroyed in the NC primary. She would neither have gotten the nearly unanimous black vote nor succeeded in the strong GOTV effort in NC, and that's only assuming that she would have tried to compete there.
The strength of Obama's campaign was that once he was assured of taking back Iowa and NM for the Dems, he could embark on 5 distinct and independent electoral strategies, any ONE of which would have won him the White House: (1) Win Ohio; (2) Win Florida; (3) Win in the West (CO and NV); (4) Win in the Mid-Atlantic (VA and be competitive in NC); and (5) Win a GOTV battle in Indiana (and NC and NE-2 and still maybe in MO). Hillary could really only match him in 1 & 2 (she was stronger in Fla., but would have had less money to spend in that expensive market). Obama was successful in ALL 5 of his strategies, but if the election had been closer (no economic crisis, bad debates or a major international/terrorism incident) having the edge in these electoral strategies could have made the difference.
Pie in the sky, but fun none the less. I suspect the race would have been extremely close and more likely than not McCain would have won.
1. Just mentioning the name Clinton energizes the Republican base. The thought that Bill would get anywhere near the Whitehouse again would have driven them into a frenzy.
2. Hillary would have had a very tough time running against the Maverick. Obama had a sufficiently short time in Washington that the public did not have any trouble accepting that he was more likely to bring change. HC on the other hand has Washington roots back to the Nixon era.
3. HC's health care plan is anathema to the right.
4. I can envision the ads featuring her performance presenting the WJC health plan to Congress. Or perhaps one featuring her right wing conspiracy comments.
5. There may be no Bradley effect, but one wonders about the glass ceiling.
6. What the rabid right says about HC on the net makes their comments about Obama look like compliments.
7. WJC is a real wild card. His performance in the primaries showed that while he could be a tremendous asset, he could also be a huge liability.
All in all, a tough call. HC did prove herself to be a most effective candidate in the primaries. Like Obama she was a much better candidate at the end of the processes.
BTW, if Hillary had won, I don't think she would have picked Obama. Remember back in the summer, the temperature of the times was that a woman and an african american on the same ticket, would be a losing ticket. That would have been too much change at once. Also, Hillary wouldn't have the Hope and Change meme, her campaign didn't have a coherent message remember? McCain's country first didn't happen until Steve Schmidt took over in the late summer. That is, Obama and his people wouldn't be running the show, he would have to go with everything the Clinton campaign came up with and they were about as erratic as the McCain campaign. I think she would have gone with Biden as well, or Edwards (pre-scandel) Also, Obama would have pulled in more crowds and more excitement than Hillary we saw that in the primaries. Not to mention Bill, who knows what other mischief and gaffes he would have committed. Not to mention his overbearing personality. I think if Obama had been offered the veep slot he would have turned it down.
Hoo
Had Hillary won the primary, the Presidency would have been hers to loose.
Then again so was the Primary. There is no position so comanding that it can't be screwed up.
But riddle me this, if Hillary had won, and we were debating how it would have worked out with Obama could any of us got close to the truth?
Palin would not have been chosen. Could we have guessed that McCain would choose a VP that was the subject of an integrety scandle? I certainly concidered her a possibility before that but I assumed she was plausably compitant. Who could have guessed the lack of vetting?
All ways this election has proved truth to be stranger than fiction.
tediss - a female follower of ted.
Thene, that was my biggest problem. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. A democracy just does not have 2 families in the White House (as Pres. or VP) for 36 years straight! (1980-2016)
Yes, Hillary would have won easily, winning the Kerry states plus (at least) Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada, with excellent chances in Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia, and possibilities elsewhere, such as Indiana. As somebody else pointed out in this thread, in the likely case that Obama would have accepted her invitation to be VP, she would have won by an even bigger landslide.
All that being said, we have a superb President-elect right now in Obama and I don't see much to be gained by going back and fighting over this one.
Irene already posted a good portion of my thoughts and others have touched on one of the most important - Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. She would have not done very well at all in the west other than California. By not forcing McCain to spend money there he could concentrate on other areas. Hillary is not a candidate who the "50 state" strategy works well for either.
I also do not think that Obama would have been VP by his choice.
Perhaps I'm being intemperate, but to all those who continue with the "18 million Hillary voters" canard, shut the fuck up. You sound about as intelligent as Sarah Palin when you say that.
How many of those 18 million cracks in the ceiling were just your ordinary Democrats choosing between two very palatable candidates? How many Hillary voters in the early primaries are now Obama supporters after the disgusting negative campaign she ran? I would say that the reality is that there are maybe a million at most diehard, no-one-but Hillary voters, and most of them voted for McCain or stayed home. So this idea that of the 65 million votes Obama got, there is any significant number that would still want Hillary at this point is just silly.
C'mon, people, you can't come on here and mock Republicans for their blind loyalty to Palin disregarding the facts about her support, while continuing to spout your bullshit about Hillary. She's over, done, and now we finally don't have to worry about telling her and her supporters to STFU and go away for fear that the media will blow it out of proportion.
WV: spraz- word used to describe Hillary supporters trying to walk with their heads up their asses.
I agree with Irene. Hillary's negatives were WAY too high, and if she were the nominee, she would have spent two months toe-to-toe with McCain, trading punches. There's no way she would have been as highly regarded as the polls indicated on November 4, had she actually run for president.
Even if Obama had been Hillary's runnning mate, Obama would have been in the traditional VP candidate role: on the attack, rallying the base. Much of his "Presidential" appeal would have been lost.
My guess is that Hillary would have run better in West Virginia, but not well enough to win. She might have appealed strongly to hispanics, though it's hard to imagine anyone performing better with hispanics than did Obama. She would not have won Missouri (remember that Obama beat her there in the primaries), and she would have run weaker in Western states like Nevada and Colorado. She would have not run as well in the red states Obama gained, like Virginia and North Carolina, or even Iowa. She could not win southern states like Arkansas, states that went to her husband once upon a time.
Hillary's appeal was to "traditional" Democratic voters, like you'd find in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. She might have outperformed Obama in all 3 of these states ... but of course Obama won all three of these states.
In short, I cannot think of a single McCain state that Hillary would have won, and I can imagine a number of Obama states that Hillary would have lost. I love Hillary, but there's no way she would have been a better candidate than Obama.
JRS said...
"This poll is relevant. Obama did run behind Democratic congressional candidates by an average of 30% or 2 points nationwide (6.5 to 8.5%). While many of these candidates had all the advantage of incumbency, this voting does suggest that BHO may have been weaker than a more generic conventional Democratic presidential candidate despite all of his personal and organizational skills."
If you include house races maybe. but if you compare State wide Senate Races to the Presidential race which is a much better comparison. Obama slightly out performed Senatorial candidates 6.1% average for Democratic Senators and 6.6% win for Obama.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=3&elect=0&f=0
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Next time provide some references for your argument and it may be more convincing.
52-41, huh? What did the other 7% say, "What a stupid fucking question"?
Ed - no need for such harsh words; there's plenty of rational reasons to like Hillary, and if the election had been purely about domestic policy I may even have supported her myself...but it wasn't. She's far from over, and I for one think she might make a better Senate Majority Leader than Reid (I actually think this year has blunted her polarising nature, which helps).
Kennyb - I think you have a good point about strategy; when begging for superdelegates in June, Mark Penn was crying that only Hillary could win Ohio and Florida so they had to pick her as the nominee. Obama both won those two states and didn't even need them. Hence why I think a Clinton race would've been scrappy; she wouldn't've even tried to win IN, VA or NC, she'd've just aimed for 50%+1 and we'd have the Kerry map + OH and FL. A win, for sure, but not a change.
Back when the only way to get an Obama yard sign was to order one on line I got my for twenty bucks and had it rushed to me. Iowa time. My neighbors got a Hillary sign about the same time. Put it fairly close to mine too. I took mine down a few days after the election thinking that it is time to get past it and the election is over. On election day someone had come through the neighborhood and lifted all the Mc Cain signs in broad day light. Not fair but I imagine it was kids. The Hillary sign is still out there. I have no idea why. So I can say here in Colorado there is at least one dedicated Hillary Fan. I had two other neighbors who were 'undecided' who voted Barack and said they would never have voted Dem for Hillary. That is not to say that they would not have. This is not a scientific poll though and I shall be happy to post if they ever take their Hillary sign down. I wrote about it over the summer and after the convention.
YES, but....
But....
Hillary's "Vote" does NOT count the massive character assassination she would have undergone during the campaign.
The sleaze-ball Republicans had books and books full of attack points.
I can think of at least 20 serious points just now!
Her numbers would have fared MUCH worse than the mostly Squeaky Clean Obama.
Put that in your statistical Pipe and Smoke it.
Cheers
William
No way to know how Hillary would have done. I would have voted for her, but I think Obama is a better choice. And I think Hillary would have lost.
I think many independents that voted for Obama would not vote for Hillary. On the other hand, had she run a great campaign -- maybe they would. Based on her poorly run primary campaign there is no reason to think her general campaign would have been any better.
I think the republicans would have had more enthusiasm and better turnout against a Clinton. And Democrats would have had less enthusiasm.
News agencies certainly love to invent stories. It's sad that you have to point out this obvious fact.
This is why a democratic (little d) primary campaign works better than smokey back rooms. The best candidate (as in running a campaign) won the primary season and his better managed, better funded and better executed campaign won in November. It's not an argument that Obama made often, but it was a pretty good one, in my mind.
Young people do not like Hillary Clinton. She is not one of us. She may still have pulled it off, but it would have been tighter and we probably wouldn't be feeling as hopeful about our nation's future as we do right now.
Hillary Clinton is not a transcendental candidate. She is just a continuation of the conservative Reagan era, and would not offer the chance we have under Obama for a clean break and a new, progressive century.
Hillary wouldn't have won IA, NM, NV, CO, and maybe not FL. Palin enegerized a lot of opposition. My Catholic Republican husband said he would have voted for McCain, except for the Palin pick. McCain certainly would have picked differently, maybe Jindal. Jews, the young and minority voters would not have voted the same way or voted. Obama's ground game made the difference too.
The 18 million votes for Hillary were some Rush Limbaugh votes after the Republican primary was settled. The Clintons had too much baggage, and McCain would have stood a real chance.
Who really cares what disgruntled Clinton supporters think anymore?
Who really cares what disgruntled Clinton supporters think anymore?
They're Americans, too?
"Would she have been so capable and reassuring in the debates? Almost certainly."
Yes, but one thing you're forgetting is this: the debates didn't only help Obama because they made him seem steady, capable and reassuring. They also HURT McCain because they made him seem angry and condescending. McCain has no respect for Obama, and indeed the two already had a history of animosity as fellow senators before the campaign got underway. McCain's contempt for the young whipper-snapper came through in full focus during the debates, and that contempt turned a lot of voters off. Would he have seemed that way had he been debating Hillary Clinton? Would he have rolled his eyes? Would he have called her "that one"? Certainly not. John McCain is friends with Hillary Clinton, and he respects her accomplishments. Had he been debating her, I can guarantee you he would have seemed far more affable--thus avoiding firing a massive bullet directly through his foot.
Hillary would have won, but it would have been the same, tired Democratic map. She would not have won VA, CO, NC, or IN, and it would have been a battle to win IA, MN, OR. However, she would have handily won OH, MO, WV, possibly KY and AR, and been somewhere between on FL.
I don't see her beating Obama in EVs, and it would have been very close in popular vote. But the long-term gain from Obama could be very positive. Getting the SW, VA, and NC to move blue could bode for a long-term shift for Democratic contenders. I also personally believe Obama will be a more effective executive, more inclusive, and make more people in the middle, even right-middle, think more plausibly about Democratic leadership.
Anyone who can conclude that Hillary would have beaten McCain more convincingly from exit poll data is an idiot.
It's so important to remember that Hillary had 3 months of universally positive messaging. Obama was praising her to the skies. Biden was praising her to the skies. But also McCain and Palin were. McCain was even running pro-Hillary ads to tie himself to her coattails.
If she only got 52% of the the vote in that environment, imagine what it would have been like if the hate and scorn of the GOP had been focused on her instead of Obama. Obama got 52% despite being called a Terrorist Muslim Marxist on a daily basis.
Also remember that Palin would not have been the GOP Veep vs. Hillary -- they would not have made a (errant) attempt to get the Hillary voter. So it's hard to know what that match up was, but in the end, Palin hurt the GOP and in the hypothetical world, they probably would have had either a dull choice like Pawlenty, which would have hurt the ticket much less, or a different sort of hail mary, like Joe Lieberman, who might have been even worse for the GOP.
When you create hypothetical worlds, you really have to be careful to understand what changes and what doesn't. Simply plopping Hillary into a poll at the end of a campaign where she got nothing but universal praise is really a bad hypothetical.
wv: It might turn you into a "fulspol"
For all those quoting polls to support your argument that Hillary would have won - I think you're missing the point...
Polls aren't a great indicator because she did not go through the general election campaign - and things would have likely played out very different...
I disagree that Hilary would have handled the financial crisis well - she was a gimmicky primary candidate (See: hoping on the bandwagon for a gas tax holiday), and I think she would have agreed to suspend her campaign with McCain - making him look like a leader instead of a baffoon.
I also think McCain would have CERTAINLY picked a different VP - A Clinton on the ticket would have energized the base enough - he might have even chosen Tom Ridge or Lieberman, which would have really made things interesting.
The general campaign changes things. Back when Obama clinched the nomination I recall polls that said he did not have a shot in places like Florida or Ohio - some thought he would have trouble hanging on to Michigan. To use these same, outdated polls as evidence that Hillary would have won ignores the fact that things change in a general election.
Nate,
Have you ever run some numbers on this quest?
Rove's numbers seem to say that 2010 is a sure thing for a GOP comeback.
http://donklephant.com/2008/11/13/quote-of-the-day-59/
And what would Clinton's numbers have looked like after the Republicans had gotten done accusing her of being a socialist, a puppet for her husband, and an all-around conniving you-know-what?
Hillary Clinton might have beaten John McCain by more than Barack Obama did. She also might have lost to him. I doubt you'll find too many Democrats who would be willing to take that trade.
posted by Nate Silver at 12:29 PM on Nov 13, 2008
------------------------
I dont believe African-Americans would had been as energized to vote for her. Clinton being in the general would have meant DNC ignoring Obama's delagate lead, which in turn would of angered many in that community feeling robbed and ignored in the political process. I can bet no way you would of seen 7 or 8 hours lines to vote under those circumstances. She would of gotten high 80 to low 90 support but no where near the numbers Obama had.
In spite of Wolfsons incessant yammering, I doubt Clinton would have beaten McCain. A large portion of her support was hate voters who would then hate the woman instead of the "black guy".
It is moot I know, but don't think for a second that conservative women would cross over in a show of sisterhood. It doesn't work that way in wingnut land.
Clinton doesn't get the minority turnout, less of the youth vote, and a massive loss of white males.
Oh puhlease! Who can tell what would have happened if HRC had run. She is a polarising character.
Barack Obama is my president. Well, I spose he isn't really, he is yours. No, shucks and darnit he is mine!!
Isn't SP in great danger of becoming a mere caricature of herself with all this newly found enthusiasm for the media and her celeb status?
wv=quenes. Arise quenes Sarah. And bugger off quick!!
Sure, Hillary might have won, but instead, the country did.
The results of this poll are doubtful. The most important information missing regards Obama's margin of victory. Exit polls usually exaggarte Democrats' margins. Did this exit poll predict Obama's margin accurately? Were the poll's numberss adjusted in light of the actual results?
Let's assume they were. The poll gives us only three figures out of the eight necessary to estimate whether Clinton was actually the stronger candidate.
Obama Voters
Would have voted for Clinton: 85%
Would have voted for McCain: 6%
Would not have voted: 7%
Would have voted for another candidate: ? (presumably 2% because that is what's left)
McCain Voters
Would have voted for Clinton: 16%
Would have voted for McCain: ?
Would not have voted: ?
Would have voted for another candidate: ?
Let's assume none of McCain's voters would have abstained if Obama was not on the ballot, and that all the lesser candidates would have held on to their voters (we have no choice, since these numbers are not provided in the article). In this case Clinton would have gotten 53.9% of the votes - only 1.2% more than Obama. This, of course, leaves out non-voters who might have voted, either for Clinton or for McCain. It also assumes that the 16% of McCain's voters who said they would have voted for Clinton, would have actually turned out for her. If only half of them would have turned up to vote for Clinton (and we'll do the same for Obama voters who said they would have voted for McCain over Clinton), than Clinton's vote shrinks to just 53.1%, only 0.4% more than Obama.
It is also worthwile pointing out that Clinton probably enjoyed a boost from positive coverage by the conservative media and even Republicans after it became clear Obama would be the nominee (remember McCain's ad slamming Obama for not choosing Clinton as VP?). This made her seem more moderate and centrist. If, instead, Republicans and conservatives had relentlessly focused on attacking her for all those months, her favorables among Republicans and some Republican-leaning voters would have been much lower. Indeed, pitting a candidate who has endured a harsh campaign (e.g McCain) against someone who has not received any negative coverage for a long while (e.g Clinton) would always unfairly and inaccurately favor the latter.
I think the point you make is sound.
Knowing that Obama did win, I don't think many of Hillary's primary supporters would trade a chance of Hillary winning for the gauranteed Obama victory.
A bird in the hand...
Sorry if someone else posted it, but WE'VE GOT NEW POLLS!!
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/10-12. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No special election trendlines)
Chambliss (R) 49
Martin (D) 46
http://www.dailykos.com/
WV: gesses
According to Nate, these GA Senate Run-off polls are pretty much just "gesses".
It should have been Hillary/Obama for 8 followed by Obama/??? for 8 giving us 16 years.
Obama is GREAT - but strategically we made a booboo. We culd have had a generation of power - we still might BUT now we don't have a clear path to it.
These hypotheticals leave me uninterested... Hillary would have been mauled and she never could have run the type of grassroots campaign that O did. It's not her, it's not the people around her... Democratic hacks.
It reflected Obama's world view... empower people...walk the talk of Democracy...he's a believer in the real power of the US...Democracy is his creed.
We need to rediscover that in ourselves... and we will.
Now, more importantly, whose got inside info on the count in Alaska??
I am completely convinced that 10% of Republicans find it rather easy to say they would have voted for Hillary had she been on the ballot.
It is so easy for them to say this because she wasn't on the ballot. If she were on the ballot, they would NOT have voted for her. They would have been all over her like it was 1999 again.
There is a complete lack of sincerity in a Republicans' voice in 2008 when they compliment Hillary Clinton. In two years and four years, they will use her name for fundraising letters and calling her everything but her own name.
This is their way of using veiled methods of race baiting without mentioning race.
Clinton may well have won, but it would have not been with the 50 state strategy, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we would not have picked up as many congressional seats as we did. Her national campaign would have been a lot more like McCain's. the simularities between the McCain GE campaign and the Clinton primary campaign where pretty close. The ideas and policy agendas where markedly different, but the methods was similar.
Mylegacy said...
"It should have been Hillary/Obama for 8 followed by Obama/??? for 8 giving us 16 years.
Obama is GREAT - but strategically we made a booboo. We culd have had a generation of power - we still might BUT now we don't have a clear path to it."
This reason is erroneous. Clinton is a horribly divisive figure. There's no guarantee should would even be able to win reelection, let alone convince a majority of the electorate to continue supporting a democrat in the WH after her two terms.
Obama has the potential to usher in a new democratic era and redefine the debate on our terms. This was a once in a lifetime election, and I believe President Obama is going to have a profound effect on America's future. Thankfully for us we chose the right candidate, because Hillary Clinton doesn't have what it takes.
Can we add "race baiting" to the list of overused and extremely annoying terms of 2008? Right up there with "thrown under the bus" and "game-changer"?
VOTM, you've diluted the meaning of that overused clichè that you probably don't even know what it means anymore.
Pathetic.
Can we add "race baiting" to the list of overused and extremely annoying terms of 2008? Right up there with "thrown under the bus" and "game-changer"?
VOTM, you've diluted the meaning of that overused clichè that you probably don't even know what it means anymore.
Pathetic.
Hillary would've won for certain. The only real "X factor" is Palin. We all know McCain wouldn't choose her...but would his alternate VP save him from defeat?
Probably not. Hillary would've certainly picked Obama as VP. She would've had no chance in VA, IN, and probably NC. She wouldn't have had as much of an advantage as Obama in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Oregon, but she would've had extremely comfortable margins in PA, OH, and FL. She also would've almost certainly taken AR, WV, MO, and also put Kentucky in play.
I think the map would've been Clinton 338, McCain 200
Clinton = What Obama got - VA, NC, NE-02, CO, and IN. + MO, WV, and AR. So a net loss of 27 EVs.
Her PO would've been better or around the same.
Here is why this whole idea is nonsense:
If Clinton had beaten Obama in the primaries, that would mean that she had run a better campaign than she did, and that she was a better candidate than she was. If Clinton had run a better campaign than she did, she may have also beaten McCain.
But hypothetical Clinton aside, the REAL Clinton ran a worse campaign than Obama, given that she lost, and so there is no reason to believe that the real Clinton would have done any better in the general election.
Whoa -- slow down. The article Nate quoted -- and Nate himself -- are misreading this poll when they somehow say it implies greater support for Hillary than Barack.
"52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain."
Ummm. . . . Didn't Obama get 53%? Isn't that more than 52%?
So, what does this poll say -- that if Hillary had run, some McCain voters would have refused to vote? Or would have voted for Ralph Nader?
The "wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain." is a cute, but worthless, way to read this poll if you're wondering about the two Democrats. The lesson from this poll is that every hypothetical Hillary voter, plus another mystery 1%, voted for Obama. Or contrariwise, that If Obama were replaced by Hillary, 1/53rd of Obama's supporters would have peeled off.
It in no way shows weaker support for Obama than Clinton. (plus, everyone else's points about her having to actually go through a campaign)
"Rove's numbers seem to say that 2010 is a sure thing for a GOP comeback."
I have been watching Rove this year. He is not as much a strategist or a policy person as much as he is a tactician. He only really has two tactics: the quick, cheap shot that borders on a complete lie but leaves your mouth bloody.
The other tactic is to go big and attack your best asset and outright lie to distort that history.
He also has a difficult time running from behind. In these instances, he takes the lies from ridiculous to sublime. The voter usually smells this one out and is not moved.
The best strategists in the game right now are David Plouffe (D) and Mark McKinnon (R). Plouffe on the technology side and McKinnon on measuring out how humans react to negative campaigning.
Plouffe was the Obama GOTV master. McKinnon left McCain's campaign once the Bushies were called in because his advice all along was for McCain to be loose and honest for he had nothing to lose.
Too bad they didn't listen.
"As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain."
Didn't Obama get 52.6 percent of the vote?
So Hillary would have possibly received a similar percentage as Obama and McCain supporters are depressed and don't want to admit that they would vote for the guy who already lost the election - that is what I am getting from this story.
I think these numbers reflect Obama's negatives more than Clinton's positives.
Clinton came out of the primary campaign with great positives (in part because Obama did not do much negative campaigning in the primary). IIRC she increased her favorables considerably from the pre-campaign numbers.
She then enjoyed months of being courted and praised.
The campaign that pinned its hopes on calling Obama a terrorist and a socialist would have had a lot more material to work on with Clinton:
+ Palling around with terrorists? Bill Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst and two members of the Weather Underground on his last day in office; he also commuted the sentences of 16 domestic terrorists who set off bombs in New York City. He also pardoned his own brother, a Whitewater figure who had refused to testify against him, and a Democratic congressman convicted of child pornography counts.
+ Socialism? "Hillarycare" used to be synonymous with it. And ["Bill clinton" socialist] gets more than a million google hits already.
+ Many culture warriors find feminists just as scary as socialists. Remember her "baking cookies" comment from 1994?
And then there's campaign finance scandals, travelgate, whitewater, China, and so on.
Clinton can even match the Obama-is-a-muslim whispering campaign; I'd bet just as many people believe that Hillary murdered Vince Foster as believe Barack went to madrassa.
Would people (Vinny!!!) please stop suggesting Hillary would have pulled Arkansas. That is false. No way, no how. Let me repeat, a thousand times - NO!!!
If you think she would have pulled Arkansas, then you don't have a clue about the politics of the state.
wv: weakeda - wikipedia's crappy knock-off alternative
Isn't it worth noting that this is also basically results in a dropoff of McCain support rather than a boost in Hillary's? That is, Hillary would've (potentially) gotten 52-53% of the vote just like Obama did, but McCain's numbers shifted, I suppose, because many of his voters were thinking twice about whether they preferred McCain or Clinton. In other words, they became undecided again. Even if we assume that Hillary ran as compelling a campaign as Obama did, how many of those voters would end up switching to Clinton, and how many would ultimately end up back with McCain? My guess is, the vast majority would have gone back to McCain.
I believe Hillary's PV would be higher because negating racist Appalachia, while not having as much AA turnout, is probably a net gain.
Mule rider:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ar/arkansas_mccain_vs_clinton-591.html
3 different polls showed her with a double digit lead and above the 50% mark.
michael-
"Hillary would have certainly beaten McCain, only what the margin is remains unknown."
Well, no... both remain unknowns, because we have no alternate-universe generator to tell us what would've happened. Sure, we can SPECULATE that Clinton would've beaten McCain, and that's probably a pretty fair assessment, but we don't know for sure. Nate's point is simply that: we know Obama won handily, and even if Clinton could've won even more handily, we don't know that to be certain, and it's possible she could have lost. If a time machine existed and we could go back and make Clinton the nominee, how many people would be willing to overturn the certitude of an Obama victory for just the chance (even a very good one) of a Clinton victory? Not many.
I guess once everything else has been talked about, it's time to trot out Hillary again!
The "trade" Nate is referring to is the certainty of Obama's election for the possibility of Hillary's. And indeed, I'm sure few Democrats would trade a sure thing for such an unknown.
I wonder what percent of the vaunted 18 million would still prefer Clinton to Obama? Studies just released from right above my chair reveal something in the 20-30% range.
The idea that nominating Clinton/Obama somehow "guaranteed" 16 years of Democratic rule is beyond ridiculous. Maybe Clinton would have crashed and burned after one term after Mark Penn and Harold Ickes killed each other on the White House lawn.. Maybe Obama still will crash and burn himself. Maybe Obama will replace Biden with someone young in 2012 who will go on to be a better president that him starting in 2016. Anyone who thinks they can predict 2012 should think back to what we thought in 2004. All we really know is the Democrats get four years now to try and fix the country; let's pray it's enough.
Mylegacy said...
"It should have been Hillary/Obama for 8 followed by Obama/??? for 8 giving us 16 years.
Obama is GREAT - but strategically we made a booboo. We culd have had a generation of power - we still might BUT now we don't have a clear path to it."
I dunno. The Clintons hardly left much goodwill around last time.
The next 8 years are going to be tough. To get through them and leave with everybody screaming for more dem rule will require better than the good President Hillary might have been. It will need something very, very special. In short the transformational President we hope Obama will be.
It is a sad truth on the position America finds itself. Only gambling on inspirational change, and winning, will be enough.
Obama has so far left nothing to chance so I doubt he will do so with his sucession. Biden will be too old in 2016 but the VP slot is not the only path. My guess is that Obama will give 3/4 hopefuls the chance to shine.
The next dem candiate will not be as inspirational as Obama (who could?) but he/she will be better trained.
manterse - a man of few words.
Speak for yourself, Nate, and not for 18 million folks who voted for her, as far as the trade goes. Re the poll, I agree that it's pretty worthless after-the-fact speculation. I just found it interesting that ol' Nate found this 1 data point so threatening that he felt the need to debunk it, when its methodological deficiencies are pretty clear on their face. I guess the residue of the primaries lives on for some folks, including Nate.
I think McCain/Jindal may have given Clinton/Richardson a real shake.
The campaign would not have been kind to Clinton, and she just doesn't have Obama's cool under fire.
Mule Rider:
Racism exists. It isn't as overt as it was in the days of your Grandpa and Daddy. Nope, it is veiled and said mainly within the company of kindred thinkers.
Remember the Sacramento GOP hack who put out the $3 bill with the chicken, watermelon, and grape soda pictures on it with Obama's face in the center?
Or how about 90% of whites in Alabama and Mississippi reflexively voting for John McCain and against their own economic self-interests?
Or the Republican who mocked up an Obama sign with the word that read "Progress" on it with the words "White Guilt" on it?
They talk one way, then they do another, MuleRider. They claim a love of God and memorize the Bible, then use the N-word in kindred company.
I know these people, I grew up with them. They are racists. You can tell them nowadays...they make $27,000 a year in their household and made any excuse under the sun to vote for McCain.
Sorry, Mule Rider. You cannot convince me that race and race baiting did not exist in the 2008 campaign. John McCain getting 45% (as I predicted) in an economy that sucks is a sad indication that we have not truly evolved as a country.
Go ahead, attack me for pointing out the deepest reaches of the psyche of the racist mind. Mind you, that goes for racists of all races, but you will be offended because you think I am only talking about whites who vote Republican.
Maybe racism is deep in your psyche. After all, you were praying for the Bradley Affect (sic) all fall to bring down Obama, so who knows - right?
VOTM
A slight correction to my previous calculation: Clinton would have gotten 54.2% of the vote if the poll's results had been correct, only 1.5% more than Obama. Incidentally, this also proves that the poll's sample was faulty and not adjusted for actual election results, because the poll gave Clinton only 52%. The most likely explanation is that this poll significantly undersampled Obama voters. A less likely possiblity is that it massively oversampled independts.
Or how about 90% of whites in Alabama and Mississippi reflexively voting for John McCain and against their own economic self-interests?
I absolutely looooooooooooooove this argument. It's all about the money, eh? Democrats are a 100% given to provide low income people with better opportunities, and we're just supposed to accept that as reality....is that it?
Maybe they're not voting with their pocketbook. Maybe they're not that concerned with an extra $300, $500, or whatever in tax relief. Maybe there are people who'd much rather NOT get everything handed to them yet make sure some of their other rights are undeniably protected an uninhibited.
And what about those elite Democrats making more than $250,000 who voted against their economic self-interest? I suppose that's all explained away by altruism and a patriotic sense of duty.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
Yeah Mule Rider, I'm sure Appalachia voted so much more republican than in 2004 just because they like McCain more, even though they liked Bush way more.
Think a little.
Why on earth are you discussing this? We can never know what would have happened. Why can't you just be happy you got a good man and a Democrat in the WH and stop scrapping amongst yourselves about something that didn't happen.
Someone at the top said it was a moot point. I think it should be a mute (sic) point.
"I think McCain/Jindal may have given Clinton/Richardson a real shake."
Mark My Words: Bobby Jindal would be the talk of the town candidate up and until the primary, then get single digits.
He stands no chance of getting out of a GOP primary where a shifting proportion of more delegates and power will be going to the Southern states.
All because of race and the GOP's problem with it.
VOTM,
Let the people decide what's best for their own interests, economic or otherwise.
You are race-baiting then if you attack those "90% of Mississipians and Alabamans" who are white and voted Republican and say nothing of the 90%+ of blacks who vote Democratic without budging.
Each group perceives that their respective party is best for them. Why can't you leave it at that? No, you can't, because you are one of the "race-baiters" that you chastised above.
The problem is that you are looking at everything - politics, mainly - through your own rose-colored (or shit-stained, depending on how crude you want the analogy to be) glasses.
You believe that categorically Democrats are the better choice. You budge nary an inch that someone else's perception may be different so you project your own unbending feelings on them. When they don't go along with your undeniable truth, you label them accordingly by some other standard.
In other words, you think it's undeniable that Democrats are a better choice for poor, rural whites in the South (AL and MS, in this case). As such, seeing a majority of them vote Republican inherently makes it a racist vote. I assure you they would have went (and have before) in droves for the Republican even if it was a liberal WHITE Democrat running for office.
Get a clue.
I said this before...
This was the perfect moment in time to run Obama. Any other time, and someone with as little name recognition, as well as with such little experience would have had little shot of going anywhere, regardless of the fact that he was an excellent speaker.
Had the economy not completely tanked, running Hilary would have resulted in a larger win for her I'm certain, even without the Palin pick. The major stuff McCain's campaign tried stating about Obama (we need to know who Barack Obama is!) wouldn't have worked at all with Hilary. And she clearly would have been a change, and a well known name.
The problem is the economy very well could have dragged her down a bit, as Republicans are of course trying to blame it on Bill as it is. So that is an unknown how that would have worked out.
But, running Obama at this point in time was perfect. He really can go in right now with the ability to shake up Washington and do things different, and if he does well as President, I fully expect that it will greatly alter how people look at politicians in the future -- both in the way of who they can be, but also in the way of what they need to do before we make them the face of the country.
The only reason that this was even kind of close (and I think that is being kind to say that) is because McCain was a lot closer to the middle, and there was questions lingering about Obama's experience. I think that next time will be the real interesting election if Obama does even halfway decent. If the right runs a hardcore Republican, and Obama is Obama, I expect a huge blow out.
That's the fun of politics! :)
VOTM,
Damn, VOTM, you really have a problem with race, don't you.
Maybe if you'd stop breaking your neck looking for it in every corner, you wouldn't have to cry "racism" at every turn of the way when you see something you don't agree with.
You can't keep playing the race card. It's sickening.
"You, sir, are a hypocrite."
Woe is me, Mule Rider. I have been called a hypocrite because I (and Vinny) stated facts in voting patterns within traditionally poor, white areas of the country?
I am one of those people making $250,000 a year who supposedly voted against my own economic interests that you speak of, Mulie. Why?
Because I can do math. We have a $10 trillion deficit and $56 trillion in obligations and I am not paying my fair share to make this economy work.
Poor whites in MS, AL, and Appalachia (as Vinny pointed out) voted against Obama more than they voted for McCain. Why is that Mulie? Race, pure and simple.
We got a crapload of problems the GOP has left this country with from the past 8 years and 45% of Americans wanted more based on the issues alone? BS...no less than 30% of them had race on their mind in their vote.
The GOP has a race problem that will not go away today. They also have a failed economic and foreign policy stance.
BTW, Saxby Chambliss approved a mailer in the rural areas of the state that directly say don't let the blacks of Atlanta permit Jim Martin to steal my Senate seat.
Still don't think Saxby and the southern GOP are racist?
That's one of the absolute worst things in this country and it's tearing this country apart - political correctness.
Heaven forbid a white man have a disagreement - and point it out or take the opposite stand - with a black man (or woman).
It's immediately labelled as institutional racism. Instantly. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Is this what we've come to? Is this how low the discourse has gotten? My God, I pray for this country, because we won't last long if that's causing a divide.
Individual blacks or the black community as a whole can stand up in absolute disagreement against the white community and it's not given a second thought. It's seen as a reasonable difference of opinions.
It's incredibly sad that the same is not afforded in reverse. Such a shame.
And then you wonder why people throw out the hyperbole or reckless conjecture that Barack Obama will pull a Robert Mugabe and take all of the wealth and land away from whites and give it to blacks.....because a significant number of his supporters have perpetuated a whisper campaign of smears through the blogosphere and everywhere else that all whites - particularly those perceived as ones who would actually "benefit" in their opinion from an Obama administration but actually didn't - are inherently racist.
We are doomed with this politically correct bullshit and ever widening ideological divide.
"You can't keep playing the race card. It's sickening."
This is a typical conservative tack when they are confronted with their own demons.
You've lost your argument, so you attack. Your anger and lack of logic comes through as obvious to the rest of the readers here, Mulie.
Good day...
VOTM
The reality is that Barack Obama has been elected president, but if he we a lawyer, as well dressed as he is, trying to hail a cab on 5th Avenue in NYC, he'd be passed up by more cabs than would pick him up.
I had a colleague, an ex-NFL star, far, far better dressed than me, made $300,000 a year, and whenever we needed a cab, he asked me to be the one hailing it, because I'd have much better odds.
Racism exists in myriad ways in this country. Mulerider is clueless as to what blacks go through.
You need to experience what someone has to deal with before recognizing what's involved. Men don't know what women experience; I'm left-handed, and right-handers can't imagine what that is like.
I call bullshit. You don't know what racist is you twit. You're basing racism on the fact that YOU KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT that Barack Obama is THE BEST president FOR THEM.
You can't win any meaningful debate if you can't look at it from myriad angles and dissect this the way it should be looked at.
I'm through with you, if that's the case. I hope, though, before you wallow too much in the bullshit that you check out the Howard Stern piece in Harlem as he interviewed some of Barack Obama's wonderful (and I'm sure non-racist) supporters.
These individuals were black and supported BO for president. Yet they were so blindly partisan and ignorant that they thought such things as:
1) Palin was Obama's VP
2) Obama wanted to stay in Iraq indefinitely
3) Obama is pro-life/anti-abortion
Yes, it's only ignorant, pathetic racist mooks who support the GOP...keep living in your delusional world you prick.
wv: excra - as in, VOTM's argument is really just a pile of excrament
"That's one of the absolute worst things in this country and it's tearing this country apart - political correctness."
Spare us, Mulie.
Political correctness is simply the act of treating people nice with no pre-condition. Your Mama and Daddy should have taught you when you were a kid.
The excuse the right uses of PC and blaming the left for forcing it on people is insincere, at best.
Just be nice to people, Mulie. Is that difficult? I thought you were a Christian. Christ was rather PC by your definition.
We are so far beyond the moot debate that is political correctness in this country. Get in your time machine that has you stuck in 1994 and join the rest of us in 2008.
Good God, Mulie. Why don't you just blame everything on the abandonment of the Gold Standard.
You people have to get over yourselves. Nate is now creating strawmen just to knock them down.
Obama won a fairly broad but modest electoral victory.
Let it go at that.
Whudda, cudda shudda . . . who cares???
BTW it seems everyone is so much more interested in Sarah Palin than in President-Elect Obama. What a maroon!
Mule Rider:
You lost the argument.
Had you read my points, I said that racism was not exclusive to whites.
Now you are just making up stuff.
You sure attack people reflexively with words Christ would not like yet call yourself a Bible-memorizing Christian who can look down on us for tolerating gays.
I know, you are spinning around like the Tasmanian Devil out of anger.
I really don't think Clinton would have chosen Obama as VP. She couldn't have controlled him, especially on the long term.
And even if she would have offered him a place on the ticket, I'm 99.99% sure Obama would have refused.
Obama would have had to give up all his "change" rhetoric, if he would have teamed up with Clinton. And what could he have achieved as VP? Not much.
OTOH, if Clinton would have lost against McCain, Obama would have been handed the Democratic nomination in 2012 on a golden plate. They wouldn't even had to organize any primaries, he would have won in every state. Obama is young, he could easily have waited four years.
Had Clinton won against McCain, Obama would have had a more difficult time in 2016, but I still think he would have given up too much by agreeing to be VP under Clinton.
"Obama won a fairly broad but modest electoral victory." (PeteKent)
"Broad, but modest"? When Bush won in 2004 by less than 3 points, it was declared a mandate by conservatives.
But Obama turning the corner on 7 points and a spread of 8.5 million is "broad, but modest"?
Be fair. Obama won by a wide margin and deserves cooperation on his agenda by the new minority.
You've lost your argument, so you attack. Your anger and lack of logic comes through as obvious to the rest of the readers here, Mulie.
Go beat off, jack ass.
Only in your effed up world did you win this argument. You just want to label people something subhuman so you can sit back in self-adulating fashion like you've got all the answers. How fucking pathetic.
Rural poor whites are automatically racist because they voted Republican YET Obama is better for their economic self interest? Right?
Care to comment on rich blacks who voted Democratic against their individual economic self interest?
Or that fact that blacks as a group went well over 90% for Obama? Of course you'd counterargue that they'd have gone in droves to a white Democratic candidate, which you'd be right. But you'd fail to mention that those rural poor whites would still go overwhelmingly for a Republican candidate.
This is an ideological divide. Not a racist divide. Quit turning it into one.
You also fail to bring up any other secondary and tertiary interest that may (or may not) be driving the direction of the electorate on race.
Ever consider how precious the 2nd amendment is to rural poor Southerners? Ever consider how unkind (some) Democrats have been over the years towards gun ownership? Abortion rights? Last I checked, MS and AL are two of the most conservative in that regard. Last I checked, Obama is one of the most liberal in that regard.
Come on now. I'm throwing out many non-race issues to look at and dissect. Where are you? Oh yeah, you just cry "racist" and claim victory in the argument.
sfergus,
Don't preach to me about racism. You have no clue. I've spent more time in black churches, eaten more meals with black people, had more black people stay the night at my house - and vice versa, and interacted with blacks in so many other ways on so many levels that you can't even begin to keep up.
So don't question my understanding of the black experience you clueless mook.
Thank God PeteKent's here. I know my words are not lost on a complete sea of liberal loons who have all of the undeniable answers in their own delusional and effed up world.
I'm done with this argument and done with this site for a while. This is ridiculous that people can come on here and perpetuate the same old shit day after day, week after week, month after month, et al.
No logic. No reason. No argument. It's the liberal way or the highway.
The champions of enlightenment and informed and open-minded thought are the most close-minded, ideological bigots hellbent on bullying and hate-mongering those who disagree with them.
What a joke.
Mule:
There is no convincing these people of anything. I only post here to let them know that they do not own the world and that there is another viewpoint out there.
Nate and his band are all Stalinists. They care nothing for the truth they only wish to enforce a flawed and destructive ideology that they barely understand on the rest of us. Sean is a good example of what I mean: he is a complete zealot but betrays absolutely no sense of deep knowledge of anything besides Texas Hold 'Em. He is one of a lost generation that I fear will never amount to much and is desperately trying to hold onto to an election that is over, that he won, but as to which he cannot let go. He has nothing better to do, I am afraid.
You and I both do and we had better get on with it!
If the Clintons had prevailed, first thing they would have done was to remove Howard "fifty-state strategy" Dean, and install a McAuliffe clone as DNC chair. Right off they would alienated the liberal blogosphere and Ralph Nader would once again have a receptive audience. And if you think the smears and distractions were bad against Obama, they'd be even worse with Hillary as the nominee, except Mark Penn would have returned fire against Schmidt. I'm guessing voters would be turned off by both sides and turnout would have been significantly lower than 2004. Also, Hillary's unfavorables were already pretty low during the primaries. I can't see how they'd improve during a presidential race. In fact, Hillary's popularity has reached an all-time high following the Denver convention.
I do think a Hillary-Wesley Clark/Joe Biden ticket would have beaten McCain, but no way the base would have been as energised as with Obama as the nominee.
Thanks, Pete, for the kind words! You are a patriot!
Keep the faith, my friend!
And, yes, I find it ironic that they are ten times the dangerous zealots they accuse conservatives of being.
Anyway, way to put it so eloquently, Pete!
As I said, take care and God bless!
kquark,
Thanks for helping me support my argument.
The sites you listed in your posting actually show that Obama underperformed Democratic Senate candidates in a majority of the states where there was a contest. BHO's share of the votes in those states was only 42.5% versus the 51.35% for the Democrat's senatorial candidate. Dick Durbin even out-polled Obama in Illinois.
Your confusion comes from the fact that the 33 senate contests were predominately in republican leaning state. And, Obama received far fewer votes in them than his 52.7% national average.
Thus my point still stands. BHO did not poll as well as other Democrats. This suggests there is evidence that a more conventional Democrat would have won by a larger margin. Perhaps even HRC.
Michael said
"Indiana is also winnable for Hillary. She won the state in the primaries even though Obama and her both competed fiercely in that state."
By this argument, South Carolina was winnable for Obama, since he won the primary there.
The 'four legs of the stool' that vaulted Obama over the finish line were massive turnout + unanimous support from blacks, which held the Pennsylvanias and Michigans firmly in the Democratic column, massive turnout + 2/3 support from Hispanics, which flipped CO, NV, and NM. massive turnout + 2/3 support from young people, which padded Obama's margins across the country and helped flip the tossups like IN and NC. And broad support in the white suburbs, which helped flip VA and CO.
Hillary would have been able to count on only one of the aformentioned factors, Latinos.
This means she would have been forced to defend PA and MI, unlike Obama,
She also would not have been able to mobilize the vast numbers of young people that Obama employed so effectively via the Internet, and his community-organizing based camnpaign structure, to canvass and phonebank for him acrss the swing states.
And she would not have begun to attract the support, and dollars, of myriad Republicans in the waning days of the campaign as Obama did.
To me, in the end, the early analysis by Chris Matthews and others that Hillary had a lower ceiling and higher base for her support, while Obama had a lower base and higher ceiling, held true.
It's just that reality bore out the scenario where Obama 'climbed' up to his ceiling through his flawless campaign and GOTV and presidential temperament during the financial crisis, while we don't know if Hillary would have been as capable as Obama in maximizing her chances, meaning that she may have stuck somehwre between her low ceiling and high base, perhaps at a frighteningly similar 50%+1 purgatory to the one that blew up in Gore and Kerry's faces..
I'm leaving for the day...and possibly for a very long time, but I just had to comment and say to Amar that your quick-hit analysis is one of the best I've seen and spot on, in my opinion. Good job.
It also shows how confident and certain of victory they were inside the Obama campaign that Hillary was never seriously considered for VP. Hillary's campaign, much like McCain's, lost it's cool on at least a half-dozen occasions during the primaries. The contrast between these two campaigns and Obama's was pretty stark. The only thing Hillary & McCain were better at was creating noise and driving news cycles. Obama's campaign ads were also the worst I've ever seen. A total waste of money. The most effective ad this election season was apparently the 3 AM and Celebrity/Paris Hilton-Britney attack ads. Obama must be the first candidate in recent history not to win with a single memorable political ad.
Hillary had already been long-damaged goods by the time she would have started this campaign against McCain...eight years of false rumors made against her during the Clinton years (remember Vince Foster? Travelgate?), followed by 7 more during the Bush years, had solidified her reputation as a ruthless, cold-hearted bieotch, and this was not helped by her questionable behavior during the primary campaigns (Michigan and Florida elections, Bosnia lie, etc.) which only gave credence to the cooked-up reputation imposed on her by the right.
First off, I just have to say I thought Obama would be the best choice way back at the 2004 convention, just so people don't think I'm a Hillary supporter hatin' on Obama. He got my vote in the primary and general election.
That said, Hillary would have won if she were the nominee. I think the political climate was right for any Democrat to win this time, but there are many factors that would have changed the dynamics of such a win. First of all, she would have no trouble defending the Pacific Northwest. I'm not sure who started this rumor in the press that WA and OR are in play, because all a Democrat has to do these days is be on the ballot and they win. I know, I live in WA.
Obviously Hillary wins the African American vote, but I have to imagine the turnout wouldn't be as high. And maybe there's some sort of backlash for her beating the African American candidate, but I couldn't imagine her support being below 80% for that demographic, especially given how well her husband courted the AA vote.
Obama beat McCain by a substantial margin among Latino voters, about 2 to 1, but remember that Hillary had much more Latino support than Obama in the primaries. So I have to believe Hillary gets an even bigger percentage of the Latino vote than Obama did.
I think the type of people who would vote against a candidate based on color are likely to be the same ones to vote against a candidate based on gender, so that demographic is irrelevant. However, how many women would have voted FOR Hillary that instead voted for McCain? I’m not talking about conservative women, but the independents.
Then there is the PUMA factor. I'm not sure how many Hillary supporters voted for McCain instead of Obama, but there was a movement to get all 18 million to jump ship. Obviously most of her supporters did eventually come around for Obama, but if Hillary won the primary, I doubt there would have been any kind of backlash among Obama supporters against Hillary supporters in the first place. I would guess his supporters would have accepted defeat more graciously, especially when you consider a lot of people felt it was Hillary's deserved turn for the nomination, when Obama's supporters would be more likely to say, ok, maybe next time.
As much as Palin ended up being a liability to McCain, I doubt a Mitt Romney (being Mormon) or Tim Pawlenty (being dull) could have helped energize his base in the way Palin did. A lot of support went to McCain just because of his selection of Palin, and then it disappeared when people started realizing how lousy a pick she was. With a pick for Romney or Pawlenty, there wouldn't have been any kind of spike; it would have just remained constant. I think the only two VP possibilities that could have helped McCain would have been Lieberman (making McCain truly look like a non-partisan maverick, not because Lieberman would make a good VP) or an actually intelligent, prepared, and non-polarizing Palin. And McCain wouldn't make the Palin pick if Hillary is his opponent anyway.
I think Hillary would have won most of the states Obama did, because remember Obama had at least a 9 percentage point advantage in each of the states he needed to reach just 270 EVs. I have a hard time imagining Hillary loses that much support to McCain flat across the board.
I think the biggest factor that no one has really mentioned is that McCain was just a bad candidate, and anyone else the Republicans could have put up wouldn't have been any better. And could you imagine how negative his campaign would have been if Hillary was the target, er I mean opponent? It would have turned off even more independents.
I think Hillary or just about any Democrat wins, albeit with less enthusiasm than Obama received.
For the VOTM / Mule Rider / Vinny conversation -- "I'm sure Appalachia voted so much more republican than in 2004 just because they like McCain more, even though they liked Bush way more."
I pointed this out before. I don't think it has as much to do with race -- maybe some of it does, but I don't think that is the only reason behind it -- as it does with the sorts of attacks that the McCain campaign used, and the fact that this swatch of the US is known for not being as educated as the 'city folk'. While that doesn't ring true with them all, as a whole I think it is reasonable to say.
Now, if you weren't very educated, and you have on one side a man who is a war hero and was a POW, and other the other side you have a man who 'palled around with terrorists' and had a 'black supremacist pastor', I think those attacks may have stuck there a little (lot) better than elsewhere.
Also, unless I'm mistaken I believe there are more military bases in these areas (I know a friend who trained there), and they have a higher percentage of people in the service.
So it could be very well that 20% of them were racist, and 60% of them heard things they didn't like, and voted with the person they thought would help the military and protect them.
It's easy to talk about what-ifs with Hillary Clinton. She really wasn't beaten up for 18 months. I shudder to think of what the GE would have been like with her and McCain. It definitely would have been uglier. The GOP hates the Clintons, it borders on obsession. They assumed she was going to run and win, they were prepared for her.
Obama would not have been her VP. Black people and first time voters would not have waited even two hours on line to vote for the Democrats. I think this discussion assumes the same type of organizational effort put forth by Team Obama. His campaign was textbook flawless. Clinton never would have come close.
She would have "won" the GE the same way Kerry and Gore did.
Stick to numbers.
A few days ago Nate announced that Obama had 8.6% margin for error, if not more, to capture the electoral college. As I pointed out in a comment, Nate conveniently ignored all the peripheral variables that would have accompanied a massive shift of that percentage. The media would have been all over Obama, asking how a Democrat could blow a national lead in this type of pro-Democratic environment. McCain would have confidently moved into unfriendly territory as opposed to scrambling to defend red states like North Carolina and Indiana. The expansive differences of a late McCain lead would have been so vast any forecast doesn't do them justice. For one thing, Party ID would not have been 39-32 nationally. In small percentage, voters naturally move toward the candidate and party deemed more likely to win.
Now fast forward to today. I wander into a desperate and defensive, and very predictable, anti-Hillary thread that is nothing but conjecture applying situational variables, the same type that were AWOL last week. What is this, Comedy Central?
Also, a thread I saw late last night had similar basic flaws. You don't assess realignment based on congressional seats dragged along. That's simpleton to the max. For one thing, Obama was handcuffed in that regard since his party already picked off the low hanging fruit in 2006, winning 31 seats. Similarly, Bill Clinton in 1992 had no chance at a huge House haul after 1990 redistricting moved dozens of seats to more GOP friendly. The 1994 avalanche was high percentage a natural shift based on 1990 realignment, one cycle delayed due to Clinton's pull in a pro-Democratic cycle of 1992.
Pollster.com today has a more real world view of realignment, including mention of a 1974 study. It is based on young voters aligning with a specific party. That was Obama's greatest advantage this year, the one thing I granted him even though I supported Hillary. Bush repulsed 8 years of young voters. Now Obama has great opportunity to magnetize 8 years. A pro-Democratic voting block of 16 years would have trump card realigning impact on one cycle after another going forward, when they are in middle age and voting dependably.
Mule Rider said: "I'm leaving for the day...and possibly for a very long time, but I just had to comment and say to Amar that your quick-hit analysis is one of the best I've seen and spot on, in my opinion. Good job."
ding, ding, ding! Another classic sign of a Repub losing an argument/debate: run and hide before admitting any responsibility or when you are *completely* wrong. How classic! LOL!!
There's simply no way to tell how Hillary would have done in a general election.
We don't really know if she could have won, but a Hillary campaign would have greatly resembled the 2000 & 2004 campaigns with Ohio & Florida the main targets.
That didn't work out very well for Democrats. McCain barely campaigned in Florida, he would have been able to go all out with Hillary as the nominee because he wouldn't have had to compete in as many states like CO & VA & NV & IA & PA (He wouldn't have bothered with PA because Hillary would have locked it up early, just as Obama did Michigan).
All in all it would have been a much more conventional campaign with a LOT less enthusiasm on the Democratic side.
The debates would have been a snooze fest with both candidates saying "I agree with Hillary/John a lot!"
She polled very badly in a number of mid-western states that Obama won handily: WI, MN, IA, MI.
She was actually trailing in several of them versus McCain when Obama clinched the nomination and they stopped polling.
This was after she hadn't been attacked in MONTHS by EITHER Obama OR McCain! McCain was in the midst of saying all nice things about Hillary in an attempt to peel off her disgruntled supporters.
In fact, McCain stopped attacking Hillary about the time Obama looked like a winner. Obama didn't want to alienate her supporters so he was hamstrung in attacking her. She didn't seem to care about attacking.
Only ONE thing is certain. Hillary would NEVER in HELL have won Nevada or Colorado, and Iowa and New Mexico would have been troublesome.
She was leading in Florida and Ohio, as well as Arkansas. She would have done better (but probably not won) in MO. She'd have terrible trouble in Indiana.
In the end her victory wouldn't bring us the change we need. At best it would be a mild course correction from Bush.
Amar,
I like your analysis too. However, if Mule Rider approves, it must be seriously flawed. Only Pete Kent is more frequently wrong. If either of them project anything, you can be certain the opposite will happen.
I do have a few problems with several points you make though.
HRC would have been able to raise the money that BHO did but it would have come from big donors rather than small contributors.
With HRC, McCain would probably have chosen a safer (boring) running mate or even someone like Ridge or Leberman who would have upset his base and further depressed republican turnout.
There was no massive increase in younger voters over 2004 and therefore one less leg to your stool. AAs and Latinos would have voted for HRC in much the same proportions even if their turnout might have been lower. However, HRC's vote among white males, including the border south, would likely have offset this dropoff.
HRC's strategic campaign lapses were asociated with the fact that she was trying to run a general election campaign during the primaries. These strategies and tactics would probably have worked very well in the right venue.
Thanks, Mule, for your gracious acknowedgement.
the rest of you, other than Mrs. B, can go eat cake!
Did the interviewers ask a follow-up? To wit "And what if Hillary had been a mixed race candidate?"
Hypothetical bullsh*t is not very enlightening.
Pay attention, Hillary acolytes. Nate is not saying Hillary would not have beaten McCain by 11 points (or 1 point or whatever). He's saying the outcome is unknowable, and polling on such a question is meaningless.
Any poll question that asks about a hypothetical situation that contradicts the actual situation is complete garbage. It's like asking people if they would be happier today if they had married someone else. How the hell would they know?
This is pointless speculation. It would have been a much different campaign had Clinton been the Democratic candidate -- and I have full confidence that she would have lost the general election. One of the many keys to Obama's victory -- including that he was simply a great candidate -- was the huge turnout of African-Americans in key states. Clinton never could have generated that kind of turnout. As capable as she might be, she lacks the charisma and decency of Barack Obama. And she's simply not as likable as he is. What people -- and pollsters -- often forget is that as people in a state became familiar with Obama, they liked him and what he stood for. Clinton just does not have that ability, whether it be likability or capability. Had she won the nomination, McCain would probably be President-Elect, a genuinely frightening proposition.
Also, for those saying that the Primaries pick the best person to run, again I argue that they don't. They pick the best person that the base of a party wants to run...
An example, with visuals. This is the spectrum of voters. With there being three rungs of separation between each party. You could argue that the furtherest right would be the Green party, and the furtherest left would be the Libetarian party, or whatever, but there you have it.
|||D|||I|||R|||
Now, using this, the person with the best chance to theoretically win would be here:
|||D|||I|||R|||
|||||||X|||||||
Right in the middle. Now, of course, there are a number of problems with this, and how we have basically gone to a two party system, it's not going to happen. But it means that the best candidate for a Democrat would be the one to be here:
|||D|||I|||R|||
||||||X||||||||
Still a democrat, but not by much. The problem is this doesn't excite the base much, and then the biggest members of that party aren't as enthused about the pick, and there is infighting and whatnot about that person should be doing.
The primaries generally have us make decisions between two candidates on different parts of the spectrum. Here is how I would take Barack versus Hilary:
|||D|||I|||R|||
||B||H|||||||||
Barack was more on the left than Hilary. -BUT- he was closer to the center of the Democrats, and therefore he was the choice that was made.
And it obviously isn't quite this simple because you'd have to do this on a TON of topics, and then average out where they would both fall, but I think it makes my point.
On the other side, you had John McCain, who would normally probably fall here:
|||D|||I|||R|||
|||||||||M|||||
...but the Republicans, to their credit, seemed to make the choice with the person who they felt had the best chance to win.
If all things were equal, this is how the voting probably would have gone:
|||D|||I|||R|||
||B||||||M|||||
McCain wins by a good margin. But, the economic crisis pushed everyone voting more toward the left, as did W, Iraq, and a few other things. So instead on November 4th, I feel like the playing field looked like this:
D|||I|||R|||
||B||||||M|||||
So anyway, to get back to my original point, I don't think that Barack was the best candidate for President that could have been selected, I just feel that the population took a hard swing with their votes toward Barack, and I would expect this will adjust back in four years. However, if the Republicans run a 'Republican ideals' candidate in four years, I expect it will look something like this (note Obama moving to the right three notches too due to familiarity, experience and incumbency):
|||D|||I|||R|||
|||||B|||||||X|
In this case, Barack wins in a landslide. Only someone like McCain would be even able to get close, and I don't see them trying that again.
"HRC would have been able to raise the money that BHO did"
Then why didn't she, during the primaries?
This whole discussion thread is whack. Nate's whole point (which I agree with) is that there's no way of knowing what would have happened if Hillary was the nominee.
Yet that doesn't stop her hardcore supporters and detractors from arguing ad nauseum about it.
Thanks PeteKent, I will go eat cake! Victory cake! I'm thinking chocolate with raspberry filling! Or maybe Lemon! They both sound pretty tasty, wouldn't you agree? You can go eat something else:)
PeteKent
BTW it seems everyone is so much more interested in Sarah Palin than in President-Elect Obama. What a maroon!
This one's for you:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22obama%22%2C+%22palin%22%2C+%22petekent+is+an+idiot%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
I'm sorry, was it you that was saying in another thread that nobody reads newspapers anymore, and it's all on the internet now?
I love that the guy that never backs up his arguments with evidence (other than his insufferable verbosity) and that guy whose rhetorical style consists exclusively of calling people douches and threatening physical violence are complaining that we "care nothing for the truth" and have "No logic. No reason. No argument."
Good bye and good luck! We won't miss you.
Clinton would have lost. (Or won by a smaller margin). The article ignores that 5% of exit poll respondents said they would not have voted and they actually voted 8 to 1 Obama over McCain.
conesoid
Boy, Nate, do you regret the question?
I hope Hillary does well and justifies continued interest in her career. And, BTW, that holds for the rest of the politicos. Political viability should be a function of public utility, yes? If they are useful and constructive, they keep their job. Otherwise, ciao.
I am more interested in what you think 538 might contribute to the task of goverance now that campaigning is over.
Like at least some of the campaign volunteers i worked with, I wonder if the ground game that we were a part of will help shape and execute the governing strategy. I get a sense of that from the change.gov portal but am not sure how it would work.
In the case of 538, I wonder if you could become part of the feedback loop helping to focus the policy debates. One of the contributions I appreciated most from the 538 team was your pragmatic focus on fact, historical precedent, and lucid scenarios that accounted for the nuances of mass behavior. Surely that could be useful in helping shape the public debate.
p-o-lenty of spermocrats would take that trade, dearie.
Bill Frist?
Everything changes. Palin is not selected as VP and I don't think that steadiness that Obama exhibited that drove so many independents to him was in Hillary's repetoire.
Should have could have would have
Comparing Hillary's standing in the polls with Obama's final election results is nonsense. Obama supporters seem to have selective memories around this, but the fact is that he was running even with McCain right up until the financial crisis. If we'd been enduring a national security crisis rather than an economic one, the results would have been very different. Which isn't to say Obama would have lost, because McCain turned out to be surprisingly inept candidate.
It's also amusing how many Obama supporters keep repeating the mantra that the Republican base would have turned out in droves to oppose Hillary. First, I really don't believe there are millions of people sitting around just waiting to refight battles from eight years ago. Second, the notion that the base would be energized to oppose Hillary, but would be unconcerned about a black candidate with a Muslim name, defies logic. And third, Hillary was gaining momentum as the primaries went on, which I believe is partly due to the fact that people were getting to know her, rather than relying on the media's caricature of her.
Face it, it would have been nearly impossible for any Republican to win this time. Which to me also means that Dems shouldn't get too complacent about the map changing. All of those people who were polling for McCain didn't switch to Obama because they suddenly decided they were Democrats. There's no question Obama was a great campaigner and earned the victory, but the Republicans basically had nothing to offer the country.
Am I the only Democrat that thinks we'd be still drunk and sad because McCain had won? I know HIllary was the 'inevitable' one but I was never sold on her and was not looking forward to her being the nominee. I can tell you she had no ground game when compared to Obama. I was so relieved when Obama emerged as the frontrunner in the primaries and supported him since Jan. I was nervous the entire time waiting for the proverbial shoe to drop or some other politricks to knock him but it didn't. Even after McCain picked Sexy Sarah I was stunned but really disappointed. I took my cues from Obama and kept my cool. And it was a landslide. Even now when I feel antsy about potential potholes and roadblocks, somebody gentle nudges me back. He keeps me on my toes, doesn't take the bait and knows how to play to win. I am going to keep watching and learn from the Zen master. If only law enforcement was this nuanced. This is something we can all apply to our lives in strategizing, making connections and making grounded choices.
I think Hil would have won, yet, really WHO CARES?!
Interesting electoral mapping at Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electoral-results-maps
I haven't read through all the posts yet (I'm a bit late to this discussion) and so don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet. But I think what the exit polls miss is the question of whether the voters who answered "Hillary" to the exit poll's hypothetical question would have turned out had Hillary been the nominee. It is one thing to argue that Republican turnout would have been higher had Hillary been the nominee (this implies that some Republicans were not sufficiently motivated to go to the polls by the presence of Obama or McCain on the ticket). It is another thing to argue that (a) blacks, (b) younger voters, (c) new voters, and (d) previously cynical voters would have both REGISTERED and TURNED-OUT the same for Hillary as they did for Barack.
If Hillary would not have matched Barack in terms of registration and turnout of these core Obama constituents (who presumably would have voted for Clinton over McCain in roughly the same proportion as they did Obama over McCain), then Hillary might not have been able to win North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia -- and possibly even Florida and Ohio (but these were probably states where any drop off in Hillary's registration and GOTV efforts likely would have been offset by the fact that she was more popular than Obama to begin with in those states).
It is also worth noting that by running a true nationwide campaign and competing hard in places like Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Georgia, etc., Obama forced McCain to spread himself too thin. I think Hillary would have run a more conventional campaign, going after the Kerry states plus Ohio and Florida. I doubt she would have tried to cobble together an electoral win based on the Kerry states + Iowa and some combination of New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. I might be wrong, but that's what I suspect would have happened. That would have allowed McCain to basically sit in Ohio and Florida full time.
Spare me that bullshit. The only states Hill would have won that Barack wouldn't have are Arkansas and West Virginia. She would not have won IN,NC,VA, and OR and CO would have been an interesting play. Hills negatives were already so high, it's easy to be presumed to win by larg margins if you.......uhh........idk......aren't getting ATTACKED everyday for 3 months. It's debatable, but no way in hell Hill would have done better than Obama did. She's too partisan a figure.
I don't know if Hillary would have been able to win. My skepticism isn't because I think she would have been a worse candidate or because of a difference in their politics, I just don't think the US is ready for a female president. I think the sexism we saw in the primaries would have been a thousand times worse. And no, I don't think McCain would have picked Palin. I wanted Hillary, in many ways, but I don't know if she could have won.
I didn't see mention of the main reason HRC would lose. Money. Her ATM was tapped out and she did not have the net to bring in a quarter of what Obama did. Barry won Fla and NC by burying McPOW in cash flow.
Assuming she went Fed campaign dough, she would be a hundred mil in the hole because of the cash the RNC had that the DNC didn't.
Lastly, she had to beat Barry in a way that didn't alienate his base. Anyone know how she could do that?
JRS said...
"Amar,
I have a few problems with several points you make...
With HRC, McCain would probably have chosen a safer (boring) running mate or even someone like Ridge or Leberman who would have upset his base and further depressed republican turnout."
Or he could have picked Romney, which would have satisfied the conservative base and buffered him during the economic crisis.
McCain's VP pick is the most unpredictable hypothetical out there.
"There was no massive increase in younger voters over 2004 and therefore one less leg to your stool."
Indeed, there was only a 1% increase in the share of 18-29 voters, however, they went from 52-45 Kerry to 66-31 Obama.
This is the biggest deviation from the overall electorate that the youth vote has ever delivered for a Democratic presidential candidate. EVER.
And when the youth make up 18% of the electorate, 2% more than senior citizens, THAT MATTERS. A LOT.
I failed to mention in my earlier post that Nate himself believes that it, coupled with big black turnout in Cleveland and Miami, may have been the decisive factor in delivering Ohio and Florida to Obama.
"AAs and Latinos would have voted for HRC in much the same proportions even if their turnout might have been lower. However, HRC's vote among white males, including the border south, would likely have offset this dropoff."
It still doesn't change the fact that she would have had to defend PA and MI, which are of course electoral linchpins for any Democrat, and very expensive to advertise in.
"HRC's strategic campaign lapses were asociated with the fact that she was trying to run a general election campaign during the primaries. These strategies and tactics would probably have worked very well in the right venue."
Possibly, but she did not in the primary, and would not have in the general, been able to harness the power of the Internet like Obama did, through his brilliant community-organizing based campaign structure as I mentioned before.
Obama's GOTV/etc. is going to go down in the PoliSci history books as being far and away the best to date, as Nate and his Crew chronicled here on FiveThirtyEight.
...
Anyway, I just wanted to air my response to the few points of contention we had, but thanks for your general praise of my take on this.
I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out in this thread, I don't have time to read thru the whole thing, but I read through alot of it and haven't seen it pointed out how high Hillary's neagtive's were, and have been since the '90s. They were always in the high 40's. That makes it awfully difficult to win a national election, and nigh impossible to outperform a candidate who got 53%. If she would've won, she'd have just eked it out, the scenario of losing the popular while winning the EC being much more plausible. Just a hunch, but I think alot of the new voters who showed up for Obama wouldn't have been there for HRC. Would Nader have been more compelling to the more extreme left wingers? Maybe so. Also, you have to consider what her organization would've been like - as disciplined as Obama's? Considering what happened in the primaries I don't see how that can plausibly be argued. Veeps are another 'what if' black hole, if it was HRC vs. McCain, I'll bet it would've been Lieberman, Crist, or Ridge as the veep candidate. As long as we're indulging in hypotheticals, If it were McCain/Crist vs. Clinton/Obama, I think M/C would've won FL 52-48. McCain/Lieberman would've won FL as well, possibly by a larger margin, but may have lost other states like Arkansas, where the GOP base would've rejected the R veep pick. With McCain/Ridge, PA would've been in jeopardy for the Dems. All in all, though, there are so many different scenarios that it all occupies the realm of fantasy and not fact. Hillary fans whould be concerned about her re-election to the Senate, not getting sucked into the "but what if" black hole of speculation. Hey, while we're at it, I'd say that if the Mets would've kept Willie as the manager, we would've won the World Series, and the Phillies wouldn't have even made the playoffs. You gotta believe.
One of the ways Obama won was by turning out large numbers of 1st time voters among young people and in the black community. Many of those first time voters probably said they would vote for Hillary over McCain. But in many cases they probably wouldn't have been at the polling booth at all if Obama hadn't run.
I think Clinton probably would have won -- Kerry states plus Ohio would have done it. However, she showed in the primary that she could, if given the chance, pull defeat from the jaws of victory...so who knows?
the trade implied was a trade between the certainty of having Obama as the successful president elect as opposed to the chance to have the whole campaign over and the uncertainty it brings.
Obama's chance of being President is now, pretty close to 100%. If we started over, I doubt we would start with HRC at 100 and McCain at zero.
Nate, the polls only shifted to the O-man because of the Wall St. meltdown. The question is "In a universe where Hillary was the nominee, would she get the same luck as the O-bomber did?"
Besides, Natty- if I may momentarily pull yo' head out yo' ass!- the pertinent question POST-ELECTION is "what kind of government is Obama offering?" You might want to read this.
Hillary would have won the same as Obama did. She might have taken a couple of different states, but ultimately it made no difference whatsoever.
I know rabid Obama supporters hate to admit it, but it is so.
The democratic primary was the election for the presidency. Whoever won that was the next president.
McCain would have made the same choices, apart from maybe Sarah Palin... but then again, maybe not. Would have have chosen a different guy to head his campaign? No.
He is a Republican, much as he tries to deny it, and he ran a Republican campaign. He hired Bush's crew, and would have done the same thing against Hillary. It would have been equally ineffective.
The reality is that the democratic election was the national election. That's why it was so hard fought - she knew if she won, she was the next president, as did Obama.
I'm sorry, but however much you want to deny it, it just ain't so.
Obama won the racist black vote; Clinton would have won that vote anyway (but without quite as much turnout) and would have sucked away female Republicans. She also is percieved as a stronger person, because she IS a stronger person.
The reality is that the US was mad at the Republican party.
Incidentally, had Clinton won, we'd probably have seen a Clinton/Obama ticket. She would have definitely asked him, and he would have probably accepted in order to launch himself into the presidency in 2016.
Nate,
Several of your hypotheses are plausible.
Let me add/revise a few.
(1) Had Obama eliminated by the Superdelegates in the 11th hour, a possible scenario then, the black would be saddened beyond measure and a majority would sit out of the election.
(2) Beside the black, voters/ party activists like me who had/has still grievances with the Clintons would not be very enthusiastic about her candidacy, thus effectively erasing the possibility of the kind of ground game Obama had. Result, she would have lost IN and CO due to lack of strong ground game, and would have lost OH and NC due to black votes.
(3) Hillary would have increased a couple of percentage of women votes, but would have alienated more independents, which could have jeopardizes chances in VA and FL.
(4) She would not have the same fund raising machine and muscle, thus would not have been able to compete 10-12 red states and, in turn, would have allowed McCain to take a few more states like IA and NV.
(5) Like you noted, she would not be able to portray herself as an obvious "change candidate," not only she carries a lot of the Clinton baggage but also because she supported the War and she is a long time Washington insider.
(6) Like you said, she would have energized the Republican base spontaneously without McCain's need for seeking a running mate representative of the base. With the spontaneous energetic base, McCain would have chosen somebody who would have a strong appeal to independents.
(7) The MSM in general would not be so nice to her, let alone tanking with her. The liberal blogosphere would be tepidly supporting her, not defending her past and not deflecting McCain's attacks.
(8) The youth vote? Half would not even vote. She'd get 50% of the cast youth votes, not 66%. This would have cost her a couple of states in a close races.
At the end, would she have won? Probably, probably not. Who knows?
But definitely not by the same electoral margin.
Surely you people who are suggesting that Hillary would have fared worse if she had been the victim of negative campaigning are joking? Obama, ran one of the most disgustingly negative campaigns against Hillary I have ever seen:
-He played the race card at every opportunity including suggesting that an innocent comment she made about RFK meant that she was only staying in the race in case Obama was assassinated.
-He never criticized even once the many sexist and misogynistic attacks on Hillary from his supporters which came on the back of a 15 year republican smear campaign against Hillary which Obama quite cynically used to his adavantage.
Is there anything that McCain could have done to make Hillary seem more hated after that?
I think Hillary would have not only won the election but made a great president. I hope Obama will also be a good president but he lost a lot of my respect with the way he methodically trashed Hillary.
And another thing. If Obama is more palatable to the right wing than Hillary would have been, as some here have argued, shouldn't people who consider themselves leftists be worried about that and asking why that is?
If Hillary had divorced Bill Clinton about four years ago, I'll bet she would have won.
...not that I WANTED her to win, don't get me wrong. But, the very idea of a lecherous, half-drunk Bill Clinton lurching through the halls of the West Wing for the next eight years is what turned off a lot of people about electing Hillary -- that's the point.
Nathan is about right. Iridescence: there is a definite sexist tendency on Obama's part and that enabled MCCain to choose Palin and almost steal the presidency with his audacious crapshoot gamble pick.
This thread says more about the hyper-analytical neocortex of some posters than it does about anything else.
What would have happened if Pat Sajak and Barbara Walters were on the ticket?
Holy sheeit! I mean, WE FUCKING WON! WHO CARES ABOUT THE WHAT-iF HILLARY RAN question?
Moot moot moot moot...
or MOOP... like, on the Playa. Any other Burners pay attention to this site? Seriously, what do you think the Obama % was for BRC? What is BRC, you may ask? Black Rock City, baby. Third largest city in Nevada (for a week in late August). Radical expression, community, and self-reliance are a hell of a lot more interesting to me than "what if Hillary was on the ticket"... anyone here dig that?
religious left: should this site give up senate projections for 2010 and concentrate on porning up?
I've never, ever said this about a 538 post but, WHO CARES? Hillary Clinton is not important any more. And thank God for that.
Remember the motto, folks: change a sap like Nate Silver can believe in. Why? When you have Barack Hussein Clinton , who needs Hillary - she's old news as NA Patriot says.
Love to read you Nate - I'm a numbers guy too. I was a Hillary supporter during the primaries, but on the way home from the rally on Election night I told my wife, "No way Hillary would have won this election." I think you make the case that it would have been problematic at best.
I am mystified by these series of comments predicated on the idea that Clinton would have had an easier time in MO than Obama. I am a native Missourian, living presently in St Louis, and I have to say that this seems wildly implausible to my mind. No democrat wins Missouri without a big turnout in St Louis city and County, and I am very skeptical that Clinton could have achieved such a turnout. Certainly her failure to mobilize such a turnout is what cost her the primary here.
Much of this discussion of campaign effects is overblown. Academic prognosticators were able to project the 2008 election outcome without any reference to GOTV, personalities, tracking polls, campaign tactics or media coverage. The final prediction at Pollyvote is the Republican with 47% of the two-party vote. Most of these projections were made long before the general election campaign got underway.
The fact is that a generic Democrat was always likely to win this presidential election. Despite his personal charisma, campaign skills and the enthusiasm of his supporters, BHO actually trailed the average margin for Democrats running for Senate, congressional and statewide offices.
Thus, all things being equal and barring a major event this Fall that never happened, HRC would probably have won this year's presidential election. So would many other possible Democratic nominees.
With HRC in the race, there would be no Palin or Palin-backlash. McCain VP would have been a lot stronger and could have cost the democrats the race. End of Story
Aaron,
You Story seems to be a short one with very few words or ideas. Evidently, Sarah Palin was more important to the outcome than the Democrats advantages in party ID, two wars, budget deficits, a financial meltdown, unemployment, GOTV, a charismatic candidate, a weak opponent and so on.
Palin probably energized the republican base, raised money, inspired volunteers and provided the GOP campaign with the only excitement it produced as much as she turned off independents and democrats. Any other republican, including Romney, would have helped McCain less.
Hillary would have lost because McCain would have been able to play the "change" card effectively against her. Especially if he picked Jindal as his running mate. (He sure wouldn't have chosen Palin.)
Face it, PUMAs. Obama was the better GE candidate, like we told you all last spring.
Any other republican, including Romney, would have helped McCain less.
Wrong. Jindal would have energized the fundies and the pundits. And the fundie/pundits (the fundits).
Andrew,
Show me some evidence that McCain was seen as a change agent or that Jindal had any potential popular appeal. None of the opinion polling that I saw at the time showed either to be true.
In fact I would be surprised if the national republican base, spokesmen or pundits would have warmed to a vice-presidential candidate of color. And, old JM was so closely tied by the democrats to Bush that the only change that was believable for him was a diaper change.
This election was a partisan victory. The only difference between the plausible Democratic candidates in 2008 would have been one of the size of the final margin.
I can tell you for certain, being on a college campus, there is no way in hell thousands of college students would've knocked on doors, make calls, and all that for Hillary Clinton. A lot of the GOTV work was done by young people. In the end, they might have turned out to vote for Clinton but volunteering their time to knock on doors in neighboring states? Definitely not.
African-Americans would still be pissed off about Bill Clinton's stupidity during the primary. It might be offset by a greater female support.
And while Clinton might've asked Obama to be VP, it's very unlikely that he would've accepted. He had already said that he was only interested in the top spot, and his wife also said that there wouldn't be a second run if he lost. She probably wouldn't have even picked Obama for VP because obviously, that's too much light at the bottom of the ticket.
So that leaves Hillary with a boring, less inspiring running mate. And also, McCain would've ended up with some boring moderate running mate. He might've still thrown a hail mary by picking a black VP though it likely would've been as effective as choosing Palin to lure women.
70,000-100,000 crowds for Hillary? Probably not. And also, while Hillary is a strong debater, she probably would've been judged harsher. Obama only needed to prove that he was presidential material and hold his own because he was the newbie compared to McCain. Clinton would've needed much more than that.
Financial crisis reaction? Clinton's campaign would've exploded during that (given she stuck with her same primary team). She likely would've followed McCain into suspending, delayed debates, and then someone from her campaign would get fire. Face it, her campaign team sucks ass and unless she took a stand and hired completely new people, they likely would've imploded in the General as well.
McCain could also run more as a moderate because the Republican base would have no trouble turning out to vote against a Clinton. He could even make the argument that he is more bi-partisan and a more uniting force than Hillary Clinton (Regardless of how you feel about her, she is NOT a very uniting figure).
Independents-- given the choice of Hillary or McCain would more likely go for McCain who has a long history of winning indies.
Fundraising-- Hillary would've maxed out all her big donors by August. She probably would've stayed with Public Financing, therefore less financial advantage.
Attacks-- the McCain camp was actually relatively careful in attacking Obama. Sarah Palin brought out the Ayres thing before the campaign fully agreed on it. The Socialist crap would've been easier to stick on Hillary because of her health care debacle. Then, there's all that baggage that she and Bill have. You better believe that when the Republicans are 5 points down, they'd drag out ALL of it.
Would she have won? Who knows. She was certainly not a great candidate in the primaries and would've had to do a lot better in the General. Her campaign team was stupid and needed replacing. Youth and black turnout would've been mediocre at best.
Obama will be a better President anyways so it's all irrelevant at this point.
"JRS said...
This poll is relevant. Obama did run behind Democratic congressional candidates by an average of 30% or 2 points nationwide (6.5 to 8.5%). While many of these candidates had all the advantage of incumbency, this voting does suggest that BHO may have been weaker than a more generic conventional Democratic presidential candidate despite all of his personal and organizational" skills.
November 13, 2008 12:56 PM
JRS. You are so wrong. Barack never underperformed generic Democrats by himself. So did Clinton. If you remember, all during the Democratic primary, both Clinton and Obama, were never more than 1-3 points apart from John McCain (no matter who was winning).
The real issue was John McCain. Both Hillary and Obama beat Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, (or the Generic Republican) by 14-19 points, except McCain. It was McCain who was considered bi-partisan, and not your typical republican, why Obama (or Hillary) wouldn't of beat McCain by a larger margin compared to other "Generic" republicans.
Lastly. I don't think Hillary would of won the sweeping geographic victory Obama did.
"PeteKent said...
You people have to get over yourselves. Nate is now creating strawmen just to knock them down.
Obama won a fairly broad but modest electoral victory.
Let it go at that.
Whudda, cudda shudda . . . who cares???
BTW it seems everyone is so much more interested in Sarah Palin than in President-Elect Obama. What a maroon!"
A seven point victory is not a "modest victory" Pete Kent (especially considering, everyone told us "it's a divided country, all elections are close now"), McCain-Palin got thumped by 7 points and 200 electoral votes!
ChrisO said...
"Comparing Hillary's standing in the polls with Obama's final election results is nonsense. Obama supporters seem to have selective memories around this, but the fact is that he was running even with McCain right up until the financial crisis."
Chris O. Stop Cherry picking. McCain only had a post convention, VP pick bounce, that lasted two wks. That's it! Out of 5mos of the GE campaign, McCain only led for a stinkin 2wks. That's it; a stinkin 2wks!
Also, John McCain's own Palin pick ruined him. According to fox news, his poll numbers starting going down, after the Couric interviews, 5 days before the Lehman Bros news ever hit the press. The Financial stuff's a myth!
Also, if McCain would of handled the financial situation better, and didn't get trounced so much in the debates, that would of helped him as well. Shoulda, would, coulda! Obama was just a much better candidate!
Assmole elect said...
"Nate, the polls only shifted to the O-man because of the Wall St. meltdown. The question is "In a universe where Hillary was the nominee, would she get the same luck as the O-bomber did?"
Hey Assmole. Stop spreading this story, about the financial crisis, and McCain leading.
McCain's lead, was only a result of the post convention/VP pick bounce, that lasted for 2 wks, out of a 5mo campaign. That's it, just 2 measly weeks.
McCain lost because of Palin, how he handled the wall st crisis, his negative campaigning and the debates. Those were the main reasons.
Fox, has already documented that it wasn't the financial crisis, that doomed McCain it was his pick of Palin, which co-incedently 5 days before Lehman Bros (and the polling proves this).
For the record JRS.
Obama beat Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Jindal, etc., by 14-19 points (much bigger margins than the average senate, house vote you keep quoting).
Obama's margin, was very similar to Clinton's, Vs McCain during the Democratic primary. The reason why, was McCain was the only Repub, that polled close to either democrat, because he was seen as less partisan by many voters (unlike his GOP compatriots).
I think Hillary would have had a good chance of 'losing' the election. Not against McCain, but against election fraud. Pretty much the same way Kerry got taken. Not quite as badly but the same way.
I admired Bill a lot as Prez and Hillary as a Senator. But I have also seen her lose her cool and publicly degrade people. Obama never did that. Hillary has a temper problem and likes to run her mouth too much. She's mean. You saw how she ran against Obama.
But there were a combination of things that got us an Obama win. Grassroots, clean slate, the word 'change' meshing with historical color and worldy figure, temperament, clearheadedness, and being smart in regards to combating election fraud tactics.
Another important factor was Obama being black. This heightened the awareness of people's hateful and racist attitudes. We saw seemingly good people showing their bigotry. And since they are all in the Republican party, that pretty much helped do in John McCain. If Hillary had ran, this would not have happened.
Be realistic. I wouldn't call this a 'fair' election. A fair one would have brought the same outcome no matter who ran for Democrats. This election was an extreme one with uncanny timing in history. Republicans didn't have a chance against Obama. They are incapable of holding their racist tongues for very long.
Wolfson and Ickes didn't and still don't understand the electorate in this cycle - THAT'S WHY THEY FUCKING LOST with an "unbeatable" candidate to a better if relatively unknown one. Nobody better lay a campaign on their butterfingers. They couldn't win a sanitation commisioner race without polarizing a tired-of-that-shit electorate
http://carlroeder.blogspot.com/
With both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama reflecting on an unfortunate employer-based healthcare system, perhaps Ms. Clinton would best be used in that capacity. Whether empirical or anecdotal and autobiographical, the realities are rather stark and unfortunate.
I am satisfied with the way things turned out, however as a former supporter of Hillary Clinton's I will always wish it could have turned out slightly differently.
I do not think there is a question whether Hillary would have won or not. She would have obliterated McCain. How badly? We will obviously never know.
What I do know is this: Had Hillary been the candidate at the beginning of the race that she was at the end, then the country would have had its first female President.
C'est la vie...
I hope that she does take this position (SOS) and I hope that in 2016 we (the nation) will be ready...because I know she will be.
I think the biggest difference would have been the breakdown of the message of "change". Like John McCain, fairly or unfairly, Hillary would NOT have represented change in the same way that Barack Obama does. McCain's message of being a "maverick" may have played out as a bit more believable, if he presented Hillary and Bill as "more of the same"...not sure how his voting record matched up during the Clinton years, but that could have had a huge impact too.
One of Obama's biggest assets was also his possibly biggest weakness - namely his lack of "record". He was successful in turning that into a positive because of the need for change. Without it, I'm not sure the youth would have shown up at the polls.
"There are also a few hundred thousand Democrats who would have picked Edwards. Doesn't mean they're right."
Who's talking about right or wrong? No one knows what the "right" decision was for this election. Nate's post clearly states that there are few Democrats who would take that chance. In fact, there's a ton who would absolutely take that chance.
Post a Comment