Would it have made more sense for the Democrats to nominate Hillary in 2008?

[moderatevoter]

I didn't get a chance to write the full description in the title, since I reached my character limit.

What I'm asking here (and this is something I've discussed with IceSpear before):

Recently, there's been a lot of discussion about the 'death of White Democrats in the South.' While many argue that this was inevitable, and it probably was, would nominating Hillary in 2008 have slowed down this trend? And if so, would it accordingly have made more sense to nominate her in 2008? Of course, one could make the argument that Hillary would have been better in 2008 because she had more experience than Obama.

EDIT: Also, looking at this ideologically. If the goal was to move the Democratic party to the left, would it have made more sense to have Hillary first, and then Obama, as opposed to the other way around?

[justfollowingtheelections]

There's no guarantee Hilary would have won in 2008 or 2012, so no.

[Rockefeller GOP]

FWIW, I think Hillary very easily wins AR, WV and MO in 2008, probably picking up KY as well and maybe LA.  However, just as it did with President Obama, Southern Democrats' fortunes in the region would have heavily depended on how Hillary's Presidency went.

[IceSpear]

There's no guarantee Hilary would have won in 2008 or 2012, so no.

Don't be ridiculous. She definitely would've won in 2008, particularly after the financial crisis. The only debate is if she would've done so by a bigger margin than Obama (and I think she would have, since Appalachia was still open to white Democrats at the time). 2012 could plausibly have gone differently though.

Anyway yes, as you mentioned, I've always thought it should've been Hillary 2008/Obama 2016, for all the reasons you mentioned plus age. It wouldn't have been a problem for Obama in 2016, but it's a slight one for Hillary now.

[Skill and Chance]

There's no guarantee Hilary would have won in 2008 or 2012, so no.

Don't be ridiculous. She definitely would've won in 2008, particularly after the financial crisis. The only debate is if she would've done so by a bigger margin than Obama (and I think she would have, since Appalachia was still open to white Democrats at the time). 2012 could plausibly have gone differently though.

Anyway yes, as you mentioned, I've always thought it should've been Hillary 2008/Obama 2016, for all the reasons you mentioned plus age. It wouldn't have been a problem for Obama in 2016, but it's a slight one for Hillary now.

I agree that she would have won bigger than Obama in 2008, probably by an Ike 1952 margin.  But she would have likely lost to a competent R in 2012.  Any base problems would have been fatal to a Democrat in the 2012 environment because independents just weren't satisfied with the economy.  Unless you think the economy would have recovered faster under Clinton, she wouldn't have made it to a 2nd term.  Whether Obama could beat the incumbent R in 2016 is unclear.

[henster]

Hillary would've focused on the economy and wouldn't have got so caught up with health care (maybe passed much smaller reforms) She would've also probably had better relationship with congressional Rs and got through tax reform, she probably would've had a fair shot at re-election.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

FWIW, I think Hillary very easily wins AR, WV and MO in 2008, probably picking up KY as well and maybe LA.  However, just as it did with President Obama, Southern Democrats' fortunes in the region would have heavily depended on how Hillary's Presidency went.

Winning AR, Mo, WV easily? Perhaps by a point or two, but definitely not by a comfortable  margin.

[GLPman]

There's no guarantee Hilary would have won in 2008 or 2012, so no.

Don't be ridiculous. She definitely would've won in 2008, particularly after the financial crisis. The only debate is if she would've done so by a bigger margin than Obama (and I think she would have, since Appalachia was still open to white Democrats at the time). 2012 could plausibly have gone differently though.

Anyway yes, as you mentioned, I've always thought it should've been Hillary 2008/Obama 2016, for all the reasons you mentioned plus age. It wouldn't have been a problem for Obama in 2016, but it's a slight one for Hillary now.

Agreed. Hillary would have won in 2008. Hell, almost any Democrat would have won in 2008. Beyond that, though, there's really no telling if Hillary would have won in 2012, since we don't know what her presidency would have been like. In the long run, regardless of whether Hillary won in 2012 or not, it probably would have made more sense to nominate Hillary in 2008 and Obama in 2016.

[Mister Mets]

Hillary would almost certainly have won in 2008. She'd have done a bit better with certain groups (voters who went for Kerry in his two point loss by higher margins than Obama in his seven point win.)

The trends that hurt Democrats in the South were going to happen no matter what, and there's certainly an argumen tthat Obama was better able to take advantage of the demographic trends that helped the party.

[ShadowRocket]

I'm not sure things would really be that different. Hillary would've won in '08, and I think in '12 as well, but I'm not sure she would've accomplished much more than Obama has. It also wouldn't have taken long for the GOP to paint her as also some far left-wing socialist and she has generally been, rightly or wrongly, perceived as more liberal than Bill which I think would've fed into that perception. So I'm not sure the Democrats would be in a better position with white working-class voters in this scenario.

Not to mention I'm not sure Obama would be in as strong of a position for 2016 as she is in now. As a presumably two-term Senator in this scenario, he wouldn't be as much of a fresh face as he was in 2008, and wouldn't have been able to cultivate an "above politics" image that Hillary was able to do as SoS. I also doubt he would also clear the Dem field as Hillary is currently. He'd probably be the clear frontrunner, but I think there would still be some major contenders willing to challenge him.