Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got to thinking, what if Hillary won against Obama in the primaries and it was Hillary vs McCain instead? Would McCain have had a much better chance? Or would Americans have been just as excited about electing the "first female president" since "historic firsts" were all the rage in 2008?
Or would she have been shut out in the electoral college like 2016? She didn't have Benghazi or the email scandals back then but on the other hand, Obama was seen as a more "youthful" president and that is what made him appealing to many. She also probably wouldn't have attracted as many African American voters.
I got to thinking, what if Hillary won against Obama in the primaries and it was Hillary vs McCain instead? Would McCain have had a much better chance? Or would Americans have been just as excited about electing the "first female president" since "historic firsts" were all the rage in 2008?
Or would she have been shut out in the electoral college like 2016? She didn't have Benghazi or the email scandals back then but on the other hand, Obama was seen as a more "youthful" president and that is what made him appealing to many. She also probably wouldn't have attracted as many African American voters.
What do you think?
It was change.. I don't think there'd have been much of a difference. She'd have won, but probably not quite as big as Obama.
Hillary wouldn't have had as much baggage at that time, either. No email scandal, no Benghazi.. People had mostly forgotten about all the White House Clinton scandals. Whether there would have been another scandal that would have her kicked out after 1 term.. The odds are good with her history, but, we can't know for sure.
Some of the fascinating 'what ifs' that you could think of.. What if Reagan had gone with the plan to have Ford as his VP pick in 80.. Which was scuttled because Ford wanted to be 'co-president'.. What would that have meant 8 years down the road with no Bush 41 and another 8 years after that with likely no Bush 43?
What if McCain had beaten Bush 43 in the 2000 primaries and/or.. What if Gore had won? Would he have been a one-term president? The odds say yes, because it's very rare that a party holds the White House for more than 8 years (Roosevelt excluded) and the only time it's happened in recent times (That I can think of) was Bush 41, which resulted in a single term.
I think the late 2000's was when Hillary was at her peak, if she couldn't win then, she probably can't win ever. Like you said, it was before most of her scandals and she had a decent approval rating back then. Trump and Obama ran similar campaigns, lots of energy and big rallies. Hillary ran the exact same boring campaign as she did this year. Small rallies, boring interviews and speeches, and no energy.
Hilary's problem isn't her political views, it's her. She's not a likable person and she's incredibly boring. She doesn't relate to average people, very similar to how Romney was/is.
Fast forward to the present and her primary against Sanders was really closer then it should have been. Sanders is a likable guy, did the big rallies, had lots of energy, but his politics are simply not mainstream enough and too many of his beliefs are considered more "theoretical" then realistic.
Hillary is a way over rated candidate. It's hard to imagine who will take her place in the 2020 presidential election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.