Hillary in 2004?

She loses by a bigger margin than Kerry did in OTL.

As others have pointed out, she didn't have the best reputation around this time - a power-hungry first lady that cost the Democrats Congress, and a carpetbagger Senator from a state she never lived in whom everyone pretty much assumed was just so she could run for President at the first opportunity. A lot of Democrats loathed her - the Republicans HATED her, and had dozens of playbooks to wreck any chances of Hilary winning.

In short, she runs, she confirms everyone's beliefs that she's in it for the title, and gets her hindquarter's handed to her by a wartime President whose party all but called him the second coming of Ronald Reagan. I wouldn't be surprised if some Democrats joined in on the slaughter - Zell Miller may have some company at the GOP Convention.

Of course, if she wins, she gets to preside over Katrina, the high mark of the Iraqi insurgency, the various Congressional scandals that effected both parties, though now the Democrats will get more attention since she's in the White House, the housing bubble collapse and the start of the Great Rescission. Republicans win the White House in a landslide in 2008, and likely have filibuster proof majorities in Congress to boot. Hillary would be viewed as our most incompetent President since Herbert Hoover, while George W. joins his daddy HW as a respected one-term President whom many wonder if he could have better led the country during this era.

Winning in 2004 was a poison chalice - she wins, she gets the worst years of the Bush Presidency under her Administration, and like poor W, it is almost entirely beyond her control to prevent or fix. You really have to wonder if Hillary was THANKFUL she didn't run and win in 2004.
 
Bush probably does a little worse in the South (the Clinton brand might make Arkansas, West Virginia, etc. marginally closer) and a little better everywhere else (winning Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, maybe Michigan).

Why would HRC be weaker in the North?
 
Why would HRC be weaker in the North?

I figured the reason John Kerry did so well was because he was seen as a native Northeasterner, whereas Clinton still had the carpetbagger taint. I'm guessing part of the reason he narrowly won New Hampshire was because he came from nearby Massachusetts.

And I picked those states because they were the weakest Democrat wins that year, not neccesarily because of their region.
 
We haven't even begun to discuss how the W '04 campaign is going to swift-boat Clinton; after all, it's not like there isn't a rich vein there to mine....
 
Top