Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 14, 2024, 07:25:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Was Hillary Clinton always unelectable nationally?  (Read 2873 times)
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,812
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« on: March 23, 2017, 04:19:33 AM »

she would have crushed McCain  in 2008




Clinton/Bayh 371
McCain/Romney 167


Even without the crash she beats McCain




Clinton/Bayh 286
McCain/Romney 252

You really think she could've won Arkansas and WV? And winning Ark. while still losing MO/VA/CO, LEL


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_Hillary_Clinton_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#/media/File:McCainClintonMatchup.png

     The file was uploaded in April 2008. Clinton just did not have a realistic chance of winning Arkansas or West Virginia; she would essentially have had to run as Republican-lite to appeal to voters there and that wasn't going to happen.

That's not how WV or AR worked before 12'.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,812
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2017, 02:06:21 AM »

By no means was Hillary unelectable.

Looking back to her initial Senate campaign in 2000, Hillary was viewed by many as a carpetbagger, since she and her family had only taken up residence in New York (the state where she ran) a year before. That is usually considered a disadvantage. However, she managed to win the election by 12%, which was a margin greater than what most observers expected. A major part of her winning strategy involved personally reaching out to many voters in upstate New York (which is mostly rural and where Republicans generally do well in NYS), which won her several upstate counties (Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer) which most observers did not expect her to win, and kept her losing margins in the other counties relatively respectable (her greatest losing margin was 68-31 - roughly 2-1 - in Hamilton County). Furthermore, although her campaign did run attack ads against her opponent, the attacks were mostly focused on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies instead of her opponent's personal character.

It seems to me that in 2016, Hillary failed to adequately duplicate the strategy that worked for her in 2000. IMO, if she had done any of the following things, she would likely have been able to flip at least the three Midwestern states (WI, MI, and PA) which were decided by a fraction of a percent each:

-Spend more time campaigning in the aforementioned Midwestern states (remember, she barely touched Wisconsin and Michigan after the primaries).
-While campaigning, spend more time reaching out to white working-class voters as well as voters in rural areas. Obama stated that he adopted this strategy when he ran for Senate and for President, and while he may not have won the rural vote overall, he did manage to keep margins relatively respectable (in his words, 60-40 or 55-45 instead of 80-20). In Hillary's case, a slight but significant reduction of her losing margins in rural areas would likely have been enough to flip the three aforementioned Midwestern states to her side.
-Focus more on policy points (e.g. promoting Democratic economic policy proposals and the potential positive effects they would bring to voters). Additionally, when running attack ads, focus more on the potential negative effects of her opponent's proposed policies (in 2016, there was plenty of stuff on that front) instead of his personal character.

New York Senate is a low-stakes game where no one really cares that much. Elizabeth Holtzman was nearly elected to the Senate there in 1980, and Geraldine Ferraro nearly won in 1992, so having a controversial female be elected to the Senate by 2000 was not that surprising.

Hillary could have done those things better, but the fact remains that she should have won in a landslide. No major party nominee (other than Trump) went into his convention with a negative favorability rating, let alone a massive -22 favorability rating. After months of reflecting on the election, it has become clear that this country is so misogynistic it would never elect a female Democrat as president. It would rather elect a patently unqualified reality TV star than the one of the most qualified mainstream candidates in history. Sadly I do not think I can support another woman as the nominee in 2020 as this reality and I do not want to see Trump re-elected.

Christ, you're stupid.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.