Bayh as her running mate would also mean Clinton probably doesn't have 60 Senate votes (since then-Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would have replaced Bayh with a Republican.)
Clinton during the '08 race also ran worse with independents, African-Americans, and young voters, though better with older white voters. So while her '08 win might have been of a similar magnitude as Obama's, the coalition would have been slightly different. I imagine her winning Missouri, WV, and AR that year (polls had shown her competitive in all three in GE trials), maybe Kentucky, but losing NC and IN (where Obama was boosted by high AA turnout and regional overperformance), and doing somewhat worse in the Upper Midwest. The reason I bring this up is because I could see Norm Coleman (R) surviving, although it's possible Bruce Lunsford would have defeated Mitch McConnell.
But anyway, the net effect is likely fewer than 60 Senate seats, which may mean no ACA or a substantially stripped-down health care bill at most. And without some major legislative wins, it's possible she has lower Democratic approval ratings and draws weaker turnout in 2012. She'd still probably be the favorite, as an incumbent in a (slowly) growing economy, but it might have been tighter, like a 1-2 point popular vote win and a bare Electoral College victory.
On the other hand, if we're talking about structural factors, maybe her response to the financial crisis would have been more pro-active on housing policy and foreclosures. If that yields faster growth, she might be in better political shape than Obama. And if her coalition is from the start less tilted towards low-turnout minorities and younger voters, and draws more from older white voters, maybe the Democratic midterm collapses in 2010 and 2014 are less pronounced.
Clinton during the '08 race also ran worse with independents, African-Americans, and young voters, though better with older white voters. So while her '08 win might have been of a similar magnitude as Obama's, the coalition would have been slightly different. I imagine her winning Missouri, WV, and AR that year (polls had shown her competitive in all three in GE trials), maybe Kentucky, but losing NC and IN (where Obama was boosted by high AA turnout and regional overperformance), and doing somewhat worse in the Upper Midwest. The reason I bring this up is because I could see Norm Coleman (R) surviving, although it's possible Bruce Lunsford would have defeated Mitch McConnell.
But anyway, the net effect is likely fewer than 60 Senate seats, which may mean no ACA or a substantially stripped-down health care bill at most. And without some major legislative wins, it's possible she has lower Democratic approval ratings and draws weaker turnout in 2012. She'd still probably be the favorite, as an incumbent in a (slowly) growing economy, but it might have been tighter, like a 1-2 point popular vote win and a bare Electoral College victory.
On the other hand, if we're talking about structural factors, maybe her response to the financial crisis would have been more pro-active on housing policy and foreclosures. If that yields faster growth, she might be in better political shape than Obama. And if her coalition is from the start less tilted towards low-turnout minorities and younger voters, and draws more from older white voters, maybe the Democratic midterm collapses in 2010 and 2014 are less pronounced.