NY-Sen 2018 primary: Hillary Clinton vs. Kirsten Gillibrand

[Alben Barkley]

Let's say that in 2018, Hillary decided to try to get her old seat back as revenge for Gillibrand stabbing her and her husband in the back by saying Bill should have resigned the presidency. She's incensed enough by these comments -- from a former protege of the Clintons, no less -- to throw her hat into the ring again. It doesn't hurt that she's sick of sitting on the sidelines while she watches Trump burn the country to the ground, and wants back into the action.

Gillibrand, an incumbent in her own right now who won a sweeping victory in 2012, feels no obligation to step aside for Clinton and intends to hold on to her seat.

Who wins? Is Hillary damaged goods after her 2016 loss, even in New York? Or does she rouse enough anti-Trump sentiment and nostalgia in the Democratic Party to win the primary?

My guess is she probably defeats Gillibrand by a relatively narrow margin, winning the NYC area but doing considerably worse upstate. Kind of like the 2016 NY presidential primary. Although Gillibrand isn't exactly in the Sanders wing of the party, probably most of the progressives along with just anti-Hillary people align with her. But even in 2018, Clinton is too powerful to overcome in New York.

That's just my guess though, perhaps someone who knows more about New York politics specifically thinks differently.

[Left Wing]

Trump might have indicated support for Gilllibrand to beat Hillary in the primary, which would have backfired on Gillibrand. I think Hillary would win.

[Sir Mohamed]

Wouldn't it have more sense for HRC to challenge DeBlasio instead? She would have won that one in 2017 for sure.

[Alben Barkley]

Wouldn't it have more sense for HRC to challenge DeBlasio instead? She would have won that one in 2017 for sure.

She still could next year. Personally I kind of hope she does.

[NewYorkExpress]

Hillary wouldn't have run against Gillibrand. She would have moved to a state with an open Senate seat (Arizona) and run there, and then, if she won, tried to make Gillibrand's life a living hell every day on the Senate floor.

Or she would've tried to take out a Republican incumbent, helped her party and tried to make Gillibrand's life a living hell every day on the Senate floor (For example, she probably could've beaten Dean Heller in Nevada.)

[Alben Barkley]

Hillary wouldn't have run against Gillibrand. She would have moved to a state with an open Senate seat (Arizona) and run there, and then, if she won, tried to make Gillibrand's life a living hell every day on the Senate floor.

Or she would've tried to take out a Republican incumbent, helped her party and tried to make Gillibrand's life a living hell every day on the Senate floor (For example, she probably could've beaten Dean Heller in Nevada.)

I don’t think Hillary could have successfully ran as a carpetbagger in a purple state like AZ or NV. You might say “She did it in NY in 2000!” but that was different for a number of reasons: The state was solid D, Bill was the popular incumbent president at the time, and it was as good a home for her as any — let’s be honest, she was never really an Arkansan, so the only state that could have been more appropriate for her to move to and run from is her birthplace and childhood home of Illinois. Now that she’s lived in New York for 20 years, has lost a presidential election (twice if you count 2008), and the Clinton brand doesn’t carry as much weight anymore, her moving somewhere else to run would likely not work out so well.

Also, I don’t think Hillary is quite as sadistic and vindictive as you make her out to be even in this imaginary timeline. If she ran, it wouldn’t just be to get revenge on Gillibrand, let alone to torture her.