Was Hillary's 2016 primary campaign as bad as DeSantis' 2024 campaign?

[AltWorlder]

From a listicle of bad primaries by Ettingermentum, bolding mine:

Contender #2: Hillary Clinton, 2016

Among the candidates on this list, Hillary Clinton in 2016 is unique in that she actually won her race. In fact, not only did she win her race, she won her race decisively. When all was said and done, she won 34 contests, received a majority of the vote, and beat her main opponent by 12 points. As far as open primaries for the presidency go, this, on paper, isn’t all bad. It was certainly a larger victory than what Barack Obama managed over her in 2008, and you won’t find him anywhere near this list. If you just look at national vote share, you’ll find that she outdid a large number of other successful campaigns, from Trump in 2016 to McCain in 2008 to even her husband in 1992. But you won’t find those campaigns on this list, either. It’s a good example in how not everything in politics can be judged by how things look on paper, because you know, I know, and even Hillary Clinton’s supporters probably know that her placement on this list is entirely warranted.

Still, it’s hard to make a 1:1 comparison between her and DeSantis, because the nature of both campaigns were entirely different. Coming into 2024, DeSantis was merely a strong candidate. He had name recognition, major backers, and a wide appeal, but there was never any point where he downright dominated the field. Hillary, on the other hand, was a lot more than just a strong candidate when she began her 2016 bid. She was the de facto nominee. Nearly every single elected Democrat in the country endorsed her. The entire national network of liberal NGOs, foundations, and PACs lined up behind her. None of the party’s major figures even attempted challenging her. If you wanted to find a comparison, it wouldn’t have been Bush 2000, Reagan 1980, or any other example of a primary dominated by one figure. Hillary wasn’t just a “dominant” candidate at the start of the race. As far as her party was concerned, she was the only candidate. From day one, they treated her like she was an incumbent president.

How can you quantify something like this falling apart? How can you even measure the sheer failure of a coronation transforming into a bloody, 12-round ideological clash? You can try to do it in numbers. You can track how Hillary’s lead started at over 50 points during the summer of 2015, fell by half over the following months, dwindled to single digits by Iowa, and nearly vanished entirely by April. A near-unprecedented collapse. But for as hard as this still can be to fathom, the thing it all stemmed back to was surprisingly simple: a failure to unify her party around her.

Countless unforced errors both before and during the campaign, coupled with an imperious, dismissive attitude in her inner circle, left her completely unable to win over large parts of the Democratic base. As this problem mounted, her efforts to fix it often only made things worse. By the time the primaries came around, she gave up on this entirely and retreated to a divisive defense that prioritized winning a bare majority over everything else. Instead of trying to win over the progressive left by meeting them on their own terms, she mocked their concerns and demonized their movements. Rather than broaden her appeal across the country, she retreated to her strongholds and polarized a race that never needed to be polarized. This approach succeeded in the end, but it was about the worst way that she could have “won.” It forsook what a coronation could have afforded her: excited base and a clean image. Four months later, it was her lack of those exact things that would cost her the entire election.

How can DeSantis, for as poorly as he did, even compare to this? Honestly, I don’t think he can. While his collapse may be similar to Hillary’s numerically—he began only down by 10 and ended down by 50—the challenge he faced was just completely different. DeSantis didn’t have the luxury of an entire party united around him, with only unknown opponents in his way. He faced nobody less than Donald Trump. While I don’t think that this fact excuses everything about his campaign—I wouldn’t be making this list if I thought it did—it definitely does a lot to separate him from Hillary, whose main opponent was an unknown self-described socialist. So, even though she won her race, I find it easy to conclude that Hillary 2016 was worse than DeSantis 2024. Hell, she may even beat him twice. Don’t forget that her 2008 campaign was awful, too.

But this is an easy one. We all know that Hillary is a terrible politician. Beyond the fail queen of American politics, who else is Ron’s peer?

[Samof94]

From a listicle of bad primaries by Ettingermentum, bolding mine:

Contender #2: Hillary Clinton, 2016

Among the candidates on this list, Hillary Clinton in 2016 is unique in that she actually won her race. In fact, not only did she win her race, she won her race decisively. When all was said and done, she won 34 contests, received a majority of the vote, and beat her main opponent by 12 points. As far as open primaries for the presidency go, this, on paper, isn’t all bad. It was certainly a larger victory than what Barack Obama managed over her in 2008, and you won’t find him anywhere near this list. If you just look at national vote share, you’ll find that she outdid a large number of other successful campaigns, from Trump in 2016 to McCain in 2008 to even her husband in 1992. But you won’t find those campaigns on this list, either. It’s a good example in how not everything in politics can be judged by how things look on paper, because you know, I know, and even Hillary Clinton’s supporters probably know that her placement on this list is entirely warranted.

Still, it’s hard to make a 1:1 comparison between her and DeSantis, because the nature of both campaigns were entirely different. Coming into 2024, DeSantis was merely a strong candidate. He had name recognition, major backers, and a wide appeal, but there was never any point where he downright dominated the field. Hillary, on the other hand, was a lot more than just a strong candidate when she began her 2016 bid. She was the de facto nominee. Nearly every single elected Democrat in the country endorsed her. The entire national network of liberal NGOs, foundations, and PACs lined up behind her. None of the party’s major figures even attempted challenging her. If you wanted to find a comparison, it wouldn’t have been Bush 2000, Reagan 1980, or any other example of a primary dominated by one figure. Hillary wasn’t just a “dominant” candidate at the start of the race. As far as her party was concerned, she was the only candidate. From day one, they treated her like she was an incumbent president.

How can you quantify something like this falling apart? How can you even measure the sheer failure of a coronation transforming into a bloody, 12-round ideological clash? You can try to do it in numbers. You can track how Hillary’s lead started at over 50 points during the summer of 2015, fell by half over the following months, dwindled to single digits by Iowa, and nearly vanished entirely by April. A near-unprecedented collapse. But for as hard as this still can be to fathom, the thing it all stemmed back to was surprisingly simple: a failure to unify her party around her.

Countless unforced errors both before and during the campaign, coupled with an imperious, dismissive attitude in her inner circle, left her completely unable to win over large parts of the Democratic base. As this problem mounted, her efforts to fix it often only made things worse. By the time the primaries came around, she gave up on this entirely and retreated to a divisive defense that prioritized winning a bare majority over everything else. Instead of trying to win over the progressive left by meeting them on their own terms, she mocked their concerns and demonized their movements. Rather than broaden her appeal across the country, she retreated to her strongholds and polarized a race that never needed to be polarized. This approach succeeded in the end, but it was about the worst way that she could have “won.” It forsook what a coronation could have afforded her: excited base and a clean image. Four months later, it was her lack of those exact things that would cost her the entire election.

How can DeSantis, for as poorly as he did, even compare to this? Honestly, I don’t think he can. While his collapse may be similar to Hillary’s numerically—he began only down by 10 and ended down by 50—the challenge he faced was just completely different. DeSantis didn’t have the luxury of an entire party united around him, with only unknown opponents in his way. He faced nobody less than Donald Trump. While I don’t think that this fact excuses everything about his campaign—I wouldn’t be making this list if I thought it did—it definitely does a lot to separate him from Hillary, whose main opponent was an unknown self-described socialist. So, even though she won her race, I find it easy to conclude that Hillary 2016 was worse than DeSantis 2024. Hell, she may even beat him twice. Don’t forget that her 2008 campaign was awful, too.

But this is an easy one. We all know that Hillary is a terrible politician. Beyond the fail queen of American politics, who else is Ron’s peer?

I am not defending her, but she at least got the nomination.
He could have ended up in Hillary's position had Trump not been in the race. 

[MARGINS6729]

No- she won the nomination while so-called ''Never Back Down'' DeSantis threw in the towel after one loss. Ridiculous question.

[Samof94]

No- she won the nomination while so-called ''Never Back Down'' DeSantis threw in the towel after one loss. Ridiculous question.

He was less like Hillary and more like Huckabee, but worse.