Would Hillary have had a better shot of winning it all had she run in '04?

[glenn1]

I believe Hillary's mindset at the time of the '04 race was that she could use a bit more "seasoning" than her 4 years in the Senate, and that Al Gore might take another shot at it with a "we wuz robbed" campaign. Well, I think it's fair to say that Obama has made the experience consideration moot, and Al didn't run. Lord only knows, Hillary would have probably been a better candidate than Kerry, and the memories of the economy during Bill's presidency would have been a lot fresher.

 

[Farang]

Only a special type of person can make the experience issue moot, and Clinton isn't it. Also national security was the number on issue last campaign, meaning a woman could not get elected (not my personal feeling that one shouldn't, but I think Bush's macho stance was a big factor in his victory).

 

[nageov3t]

she probably would have won the primary but lost to GW.

anyone who's ever lost an election to GW is irredeemable in my eyes.

 

[daveymark]

hillary would have been demolished. no experience is only good if you have some other quality that makes you appealing.

 

[compuwiz1]

Nah, Bush & co would have rigged the elections no matter who was running.

 

[Pabster]

No. Her negative numbers have been sky-high for over a decade. In fact, I'd argue she would have had it worse, because the polarization from 2000 would have been fresher in people's minds.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No. Her negative numbers have been sky-high for over a decade. In fact, I'd argue she would have had it worse, because the polarization from 2000 would have been fresher in people's minds.

Yep.

GWB would have received more votes.

She was just as disliked then, and would have had even less experience.

2004 was a "war" election, and the Iraqi "war" was not nearly as unpopular. What wouldv'e been her platform - "I can manage a war better than GWB" ?

While that might be far easier to say now, I don't believe it was back then.

IMO, she needed the election to have been held in like '06. War unpopular, too soon for Obama to run, etc.

Timing is everything.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Pabster
No. Her negative numbers have been sky-high for over a decade. In fact, I'd argue she would have had it worse, because the polarization from 2000 would have been fresher in people's minds.

Yep.

GWB would have received more votes.

She was just as disliked then, and would have had even less experience.

2004 was a "war" election, and the Iraqi "war" was not nearly as unpopular. What wouldv'e been her platform - "I can manage a war better than GWB" ?

While that might be far easier to say now, I don't believe it was back then.

IMO, she needed the election to have been held in like '06. War unpopular, too soon for Obama to run, etc.

Timing is everything.

Fern

Considering that Kerry almost beat Bush, and never made much of a case as to why he was running except he was asked to, she might have done better. As much I dislike her, the idea of giving Bush the finger would have had enormous appeal. I'd have gone with her then.

It's really hard to know.