2004: Hillary Clinton vs. George W. Bush

[Stranger in a strange land]

During this year's primary campaign, I frequently heard the talking heads and the punditocracy saying that Hillary should have run in 2004, and that her campaign would have been perfect for that environment. I tend to agree but only to a point. How would Hillary have fared in the nomination fight, and if she had won, against Dubya in the general election? Discuss with maps.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Incredibly low turnout in the general election because people feel it is not worth voting against Bush simply to get another Clinton.  Map looks very similar to 2004

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Incredibly low turnout in the general election because people feel it is not worth voting against Bush simply to get another Clinton.  Map looks very similar to 2004

Oddly enough, I agree with DWDL, except, I'd give Arkansas to Hillary.

[Lief 🗽]

Something like this, maybe? It's strange, because I think Clinton would have been a better candidate than John Kerry, but I just don't see her winning in 2004.

[ottermax]

2006 would have been perfect for Hillary.

[Freezer69]

Clinton: 270
Bush: 268

[bhouston79]

Here's my prediction:

Personally, I think Hillary would have been a slightly stronger candidate nationally than John Kerry.  For one thing, she wouldn't have allowed herself to be swiftboated.  She would have performed better than Kerry in the South, and in the Midwest, but she still would have lost all the Southern states except Arkansas.  She would have flipped Arkansas and West Virginia as well.  She would have carried all of the Gore states, but she would not have flipped New Hampshire as John Kerry did.  Also, I think that Bush could have sneaked an electoral vote out of Maine with Clinton on the ticket due to the fact that she is Southern and more Centrist than Kerry was.

Electoral Vote

Clinton  290
Bush     248

Popular Vote

Clinton  50.1 %
Bush     48.8 %
Others    1.1 %

[The Populist]

[Daniel Z]

Bush still wins

Bush: 293
Clinton: 245

[Ogre Mage]

I think Hillary would have lost because after just 4 years in office she just was not ready yet and was still trying to establish herself and get comfortable in her new role as a politician.  Now, if Hillary had won election to the Senate in 1996 and then mounted a challenge to Bush in 2004 I think she would have won.

[bhouston79]

I think Hillary would have lost because after just 4 years in office she just was not ready yet and was still trying to establish herself and get comfortable in her new role as a politician.  Now, if Hillary had won election to the Senate in 1996 and then mounted a challenge to Bush in 2004 I think she would have won.

With all due respect, I don't think that experience would have been any more of a decisive factor in 2004 than it was this year.  If the experience argument didn't work against Obama, then how would have it worked against Hillary Clinton in 2004.  She certainly didn't have any less experience in 2004 than Obama did when he ran this year.  Hillary may have lost in 2004 just like John Kerry did for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that experience would have been one of them.

[Meeker]

The Hillary Clinton of 2004 is vastly different than the Hillary Clinton we know today. The Hillary of 2004 would've been slaughtered. The Hillary we know today could've won.

[Psychic Octopus]

I say Hillary would have won, because Kerry ran a terrible campaign.

[Ogre Mage]

I think Hillary would have lost because after just 4 years in office she just was not ready yet and was still trying to establish herself and get comfortable in her new role as a politician.  Now, if Hillary had won election to the Senate in 1996 and then mounted a challenge to Bush in 2004 I think she would have won.

With all due respect, I don't think that experience would have been any more of a decisive factor in 2004 than it was this year.  If the experience argument didn't work against Obama, then how would have it worked against Hillary Clinton in 2004.  She certainly didn't have any less experience in 2004 than Obama did when he ran this year.  Hillary may have lost in 2004 just like John Kerry did for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that experience would have been one of them.

2004 was a very different election.  It was a national security election with the nation still largely transfixed on 9/11 and Iraq.  Hillary at that time had been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 2 years and was still in the process of developing a deep understanding of defense issues.  She was also trying to develop an independent identity from Bill Clinton.  IMO, a major moment which crystallized her independence was when she (decisively) won reelection in 2006 -- a sign the voters of NY clearly approved of her work as a senator.  Obama, in contrast, had the luxury of fashioning his own national narrative because he arrived on the scene as a blank slate.

Polls showed many people concerned about Obama's lack of experience, but by 2008 the Republican brand had grown so monumentally unacceptable that people were more than willing to take a chance. 

[Red Willow]

 

Bush would have castrated Hillary back when he was still popular. She would have lost the male vote by even more than Kerry.

Bush-389
Hillary-149

Bush-54%
Clinton-43%

Of course now Hillary would kick his dumbass all the way back to Texas.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Clinton 270
Bush 268

[pbrower2a]

Clinton: 300
Bush: 238

Hillary Clinton could never be Swiftboated, as could be the politically-weak John Kerry.