Hillary Clinton, No Senate Seat

My memory on the details is dim, but I remember how there ewas a degree of anger among NY voters, & doubts from other directions about Clintons chances in her first Senate election. Let imagine a moment she loses to a Republican, Guliani? What are her political options at that point, and what direction does the Democratic party take at that point?
 
She runs against Pataki in 2002 and probably loses again. I don't think she'd be able to run for President in 2008.
 
She could run for Mayor of NYC in 2001 and 2005, then run for governor or the Senate in 2010. She could also run for USHR in either NY, IL, or AR before running for Senate, or run for the Senate/Governor in IL or AR in '02 or '04. If she is a mayor or congresswoman before being a senator, she won't be ready to run for POTUS until '12. If she wins the US Senate Election in IL of '04, that butterflies BHO. In the aftermath of her losing the US Senate Election in NY of '00 and her winning a subsequent election, there will be a time where the Clintons aren't the respected elders of the party
 
Last edited:
She could run for Mayor of NYC in 2001 and 2005, then run for governor or the Senate in 2010. She could also run for USHR in either NY, IL, or AR before running for Senate, or run for the Senate/Governor in IL or AR in '02 or '04. If she is a mayor or congresswoman before being a senator, she won't be ready to run for POTUS until '12. If she wins the US Senate Election in IL of '04, that butterflies BHO. In the aftermath of her losing the US Senate Election in NY of '00 and her winning a subsequent election, there will be a time where the Clintons aren't the respected elders of the party

If she loses two elections, not necessarily in sequence I'd think that would end her options for the presidency. Maybe the Illinois party machine could push her through there. I can't say how NY voter & party anger would carry over to Illinois. Losing to Giuliani, who was not the most competitive of candidates that year might taint her as well.
 
If she loses two elections, not necessarily in sequence I'd think that would end her options for the presidency. Maybe the Illinois party machine could push her through there. I can't say how NY voter & party anger would carry over to Illinois. Losing to Giuliani, who was not the most competitive of candidates that year might taint her as well.
Wait, what's the other election she loses after the US Senate Election in NY of 2000? If she is elected Mayor of NYC in 2001 (which was a fairly close election) and re-elected in '05, she best not run for Senate/Governor until '10 when her two terms as Mayor expire. As a Congresswoman she won't run for Senate/Governor until '06, assuming she's elected in '02. Running for governor in '02 is her best option after losing to Giuliani in ATL '00 and probably what she would do instead of taking on Pataki or primary challenging Dick Durbin. As a governor sworn-in in '03, she'd best wait to run for POTUS until '12.
 
if she loses her political career is over. she would have to start as in the house in an urban district in illinois.
Bill lost the AR Governor's Election in 1980. Was it over for him? With her name recognition, she'll have another chance at getting elected to something else in 2002 and in a rematch against Giuliani in '06 she may a shot at beating him, especially because '06 wasn't a good year for the GOP.
 
Skimming through the literature I see it depends in part on why she loses the first Senate election. If the Democratic party backlash had been better organized or otherwise stronger, and/or she loses to a Republican seen otherwise as a weak contender, then yes her future viability is weak. If the post election perception is the winner was a strong candidate & the election close run then she has a shot elsewhere.
 
Skimming through the literature I see it depends in part on why she loses the first Senate election. If the Democratic party backlash had been better organized or otherwise stronger, and/or she loses to a Republican seen otherwise as a weak contender, then yes her future viability is weak. If the post election perception is the winner was a strong candidate & the election close run then she has a shot elsewhere.
I was wondering what you meant by Giuliani not being the most competitive of candidates, but he obviously was a strong candidate because not only did he appeal to the demographics there (mostly in NYC) he was popular for lowering crime in NYC as mayor and AG (His star power is what led NY Dems to ask her to run in the first place). His divorce and bad health would not be a liability against the Clintons (Bill was having heart problems) and he's actually from NY, so all those combined and he does make a formidable opponent and likely a close election.
 
At the time Giuliani was not universally regarded as a strong candidate. Jimmy Breslin summed it up as "Hillary is the one candadate Giuliani can beat". That during the initial fracas over Hillaries replacement of the local favorite.
 
Bill lost the AR Governor's Election in 1980. Was it over for him? With her name recognition, she'll have another chance at getting elected to something else in 2002 and in a rematch against Giuliani in '06 she may a shot at beating him, especially because '06 wasn't a good year for the GOP.
Bill had a political career beforehand to bounce off of. Hillary was maried to a politician.
 
Giuliani stays in the race. He plays up being a native son running against a "carpetbagger".

Hillary's gaffes get much more airtime now that she's facing somewhat competent - such as when a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan claimed to "have always been a Yankees fan". Or how she's "dead broke", coming out of the White House.

Have the way the Clinton's treated Daniel Patrick Moynihan come out at a bad time. If it had, it could have done real damage to her brand with NY Democrats.

She loses, badly, and decides to head back to her home state of Illinois. She runs for Senate in 2004, but loses in the primaries to some young upstart named Obama, who goes on to be President. Not even Bill can get the DNC to buy into her brand at this point, which is considered too toxic to touch.

She writes a few books, which like OTL, collect dust in discount bins in bookstores across the country, and is pretty much a punchline to political junkies.
 
I'm curious about the effect this would have on broader politics in general. If Clinton can't run in 2008, what does the Democratic field look like? Do most of the people who supported Hillary shift over to someone like John Edwards or Joe Biden, giving them both a better standing against Obama?
 

Deleted member 1487

Frankly if she cannot win her first race she will be pretty well finished politically unless she's going to try to run for a House seat somewhere a few years later. Expecting her to win as mayor of NYC after losing the Senate race is silly.

I'm curious about the effect this would have on broader politics in general. If Clinton can't run in 2008, what does the Democratic field look like? Do most of the people who supported Hillary shift over to someone like John Edwards or Joe Biden, giving them both a better standing against Obama?
I think the field would be exactly as it was, minus Hillary. Remember there were something like 12 candidates in 2008. Obama probably would have had a run off with Edwards and probably won more handily. I don't think any of the more establishment candidates had that much support. Hillary was also boosted by being the first woman running for president on a Democratic ticket so she drew in a number of voters who wouldn't have necessarily coalesced around a politically similar male candidate.
 
Top