Alternate Universe: Clinton as the Democratic Nominee
By almost all expert analysis, the 2008 presidential election is over, barring some major unforeseeable catastrophe. Barack Obama will almost certainly win convincingly next Tuesday.
Before that happens, I want to consider what this race would be like right now if the Democratic Party had nominated Hillary Clinton instead of Obama. She was the frontrunner, and was almost corronated several times, but ultimately lost the primary to Obama. Many people were shocked that Obama could defeat the establishment candidate of the Democratic Party, and some have said that was the moment that the general election was also over.
Here are a few observations in (almost) retrospect on the Clinton nomination counterfactual compared with Obama’s current situation:
Sarah Palin never would have been McCain’s VP pick. Without the supposedly disgruntled female Clinton supporters to stretch out to with a vice president, there would have been no reason to pick Palin. Maybe McCain would have picked a young, super-conservative black guy with no experience to appeal to the disgruntled Obama supporters.
Disgruntled Democratic voters would have been more of a problem if Clinton had been nominated. This may be the most speculative of all these. In the past several weeks, polls show that up to 86% of Clinton’s supporters now back Obama. This number is growing and even more are likely to end up voting for him when it comes down to election day. Clinton, as the counterfactual nominee, would have faced a much more severe mutiny from among black voters and young voters. It is unlikely that she would have convinced 81% to come around by this time.
McCain would never have had any trouble rallying his base. The Republican base would have been instantly and fully energized by the idea of battling against another Clinton, especially Hillary. That would have allowed McCain to focus more of his campaign energies and rhetoric on wooing independents. Instead, McCain has had to be two different candidates all throughout the primary and general election.
The Democrats would have been less equipped to focus on the change message. Eventually, Clinton came around to “change” as a central message, but she always emphasized experience. That was never a strategic position looking toward the general election against a candidate like McCain who has all the experience in the world. Change was popular in the primaries and continues to be wildly popular in a country where almost everyone says we are going in the wrong direction. Obama was definitely the best candidate to capitalize on the change message.
Clinton’s focus on a few battleground states would have made the race a lot easier for McCain. Clinton’s advisors mocked Obama’s “50-state strategy” that targeted some deeply red states. Instead, it is likely that Clinton would have focused on Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. Obama’s national press into states like North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Indiana are stretching McCain’s campaign way beyond its resources and abilities to compete.
Clinton would have had difficulty gaining the high levels of support that Obama has from some specific demographics. According to this latest Newsweek poll, Obama receives the support of 29% of white evangelicals, 63% of those who didn’t vote in 2004, and 80% of non-whites. Obama’s trouble group, working class whites, are also leaning toward him now 46%-44%.
Overall, Clinton would probably be in good shape for the election if she had been the Democratic nominee. She advocates almost the same exact policies that Obama does, and she is an extremely talented politician. External factors like the economy and Bush’s terrible approval rating would have benefitted any Democratic politician against McCain and the Republican Party. However, Clinton would probably not be up by as much as Obama is at this point and nobody would be saying that the election is over. It still looks like the Democrats chose the strongest candidate possible for the electoral conditions of 2008.
This one’s for you, Kolby. It’s been a while since we’ve talked about this stuff…
She would have won in a different way, but a win is a win. VA, NC, and CO may not have been competitive, but should would have won other states and OH would be in the bag (I don’t think Obama is going to end up winning it).
More important than any of that, I would have had a much better job….
Yeah, that’s a shame about that last part.
I’m an independent that was pulling hard for McCain in 200 while I was still in school. If there was no Obama my liberal-leaning ideals would have been looking for another Democratic nominee. However, if Hillary had been the choice, I’d have backed McCain.
For me, Hillary’s mentality of winning by crushing the other side outweighs the good she could do. I can’t take the divisiveness. McCain is acting like a party faithful to win, but I believe he’d go back to his old self if elected.
btw, I’m an alum loving the blog. You guys are making me proud. Keep it up!
And gullible folks like this are why Democrats can’t win consistently. Obama’s political tactics are every bit as cutthroat as Hillary’s. He forced potential competition off the ballot from his very first race. His supporters engaged in very questionable caucus tactics in several states during the primaries. These are just hardball political tactics. I don’t have a problem with them. But the idea that Hillary plays in the gutter while Obama seeks only to enlighten and unite is total horseshit. What exactly did Hillary do that was particularly divisive? The fact that she drives the right wing into an irrational rage (as Obama does now as well) isn’t as much her fault as it is a function of the fact that she has been one of the two most visible liberal political figures of the last two decades.
It’s all about image and you know that. Obama is better at politics because he is better at the image game. You’re right that he does many of the same things, but he is able to come out looking good.
As for the rage, two things. The NObama rage is not nearly as vicious as the anti-Hillary rage. Also, even if it isn’t her fault, her divisive label does make her a less effective candidate and it would have made her a much less effective president if elected.
Of course its all about image. Is PC now an all about image liberal hack blog? I though that was what the new blog was supposed to be about. It part of Obama’s political success that he gets away with pretending to be a new kind of politics when he is nothing more than an excellent practitioner of politics as it always has been.
Vis a vis right wing hate, you can’t be serious. I don’t recall Hillary being called a terrorist. Or “kill him” and “traitor” being yelled at Rick Lazio rallies. Much of that is racially motivated and Obama can’t do anything about it, but his background and association have given more than enough fodder for the overactive conservative imagination to run wild.
This is probably just about the only presidential election Obama, or any other black person, could have won. Even an electoral environment that was merely moderately favourable to a Democrat would not have been enough. Obama timed and executed everything perfectly, it looks like.
I agree with Kolby on the scale of the right-wing hate. Pigs will always hate powerful, butch women. But not nearly so much as they hate powerful black men.
Image liberal hack blog? Hahaha. We are agreeing on the image thing, so there is no argument there.
You bring up a good point about the “terrorist” and “traitor” outbursts…
Perhaps I could modify my original statement. The hatred for HRC is very deep and very wide; it extends well into the independent category and many otherwise-reasonable people have an irrational hatred for her as a person. The hatred for BHO is also very deep, but seems to be more confined to the radical right that hates everything anyway. There don’t seem to be as many potential Democratic voters who have that level of hatred for him that they would shout “kill him” at a McCain rally.
How are the potential Hillary-haters the same as the potential Democratic voters she couldnt get? The biggest bloc of swing voters in this election was always going to be the white working class. The white working class was (along with educated white women) the base of Hillary’s primary support. The “moderate” independent suburban voters that some think Hillary would have lost are also the voting bloc least likely to vote based on quasi-rational resentments in tumultuous economic times.
Massive Voter Fraud – Attack On Our Democracy.
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_voter_fraud/2008/10/27/144303.html?promo_code=2A89-1
Wow!!!
Haha. I sure do feel less democratic now. Thanks for letting me know.