2008 was very much a Democratic year, but I think something could be said regarding Clinton's effectiveness as a candidate given how she fared in 2016 (and how she lost in 2008 and didn't even perform all that well in 2000).
Had Clinton been the 2008 nominee the game would have changed in a number of ways:
1) Less youth turnout
2) Less African-American Turnout
3) The Antiwar vote is not galvanized the way they were for Obama
4) The Republicans can try to blame the housing/financial crisis on Clinton administration housing policies
5) The right really hates Hillary Clinton. No matter who McCain picks for a running mate, he can count on strong GOP base turnout and unity within the ranks (Obama got 20% of the Conservative vote in 2008)
6) McCain can probably pick Lieberman as his running mate here and get away with it because the base will still come out to oppose Clinton. It definitely doesn't look good when your husband's VP's 2000 running mate is running against you and McCain can more aggressively court independents here.
Could Clinton have dropped the ball in 2008 and gave it to McCain?
Had Clinton been the 2008 nominee the game would have changed in a number of ways:
1) Less youth turnout
2) Less African-American Turnout
3) The Antiwar vote is not galvanized the way they were for Obama
4) The Republicans can try to blame the housing/financial crisis on Clinton administration housing policies
5) The right really hates Hillary Clinton. No matter who McCain picks for a running mate, he can count on strong GOP base turnout and unity within the ranks (Obama got 20% of the Conservative vote in 2008)
6) McCain can probably pick Lieberman as his running mate here and get away with it because the base will still come out to oppose Clinton. It definitely doesn't look good when your husband's VP's 2000 running mate is running against you and McCain can more aggressively court independents here.
Could Clinton have dropped the ball in 2008 and gave it to McCain?