Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Meanwhile, in the parallel universe where Hillary got nominated...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Meanwhile, in the parallel universe where Hillary got nominated...

    I've been wondering about this lately. Is Obama doing as well as Hillary would have had she been the nominee? Better, even? It seems to me:

    1) If Hillary had been nominated, McCain wouldn't have bothered with Palin, sparing himself serious negative press about his judgment. He probably would have picked Pawlenty, and Minnesota would be in play.

    2) Hillary wouldn't have run Obama's 50-state strategy, for both ideological and financial reasons, and instead run hard at the swing states (there's a good bet she would have tapped Ted Strickland for veep). So Ohio and maybe Florida would have been secure early on, but Colorado might not have turned blue (to say nothing of Virginia). (It's also a fair bet that Obama's 50-state strategy will mean that he has longer coattails than Hillary would have.)

    3) Hillary would not have energized youth or brought in new voters the way Obama has (although we won't know if he truly did that until election day).

    All in all, as it has turned out, I don't see a lot of room to argue that Hilary still would have been a better nominee (though she would also have won). Anyone see it differently?
    "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

  • #2
    1) If Hillary had been nominated, McCain wouldn't have bothered with Palin, sparing himself serious negative press about his judgment. He probably would have picked Pawlenty, and Minnesota would be in play.


    And the right wing wouldn't have been all that energized in a McCain campaign. For all that talk about they really wanted to keep Hillary out, you don't think a black man who speaks of massive government spending would have been considered worse to them?

    Also, of course, the economy would have fallen similarly and who better to remind people to remind voters how much better things were back in the 90s?

    Furthermore, no worrying about the Bradley effect.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

    Comment


    • #3
      Clinton was a big part of bank deregulation though.
      I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
      - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't see much of a difference. They really are both strong candidates. You might have a weaker ground operation and that would've freed up McCain to make a more moderate Veep pick, but Clinton's a lot more fluent on economic issues. She would've been a lot more aggressive on health care and social security. I'm still wondering whether Obama's holding off on these issues until the financial system started to buckle was ridiculously bad strategy or brilliant foresight.

        The more interesting hypothetical, IMO, is if Romney were the GOP nominee.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm still wondering whether Obama's holding off on these issues until the financial system started to buckle was ridiculously bad strategy or brilliant foresight.


          Well, I think "brilliant foresight" may be a bit strong considering that the buckling of the financial system may have easily have waited a couple months instead of happening when it did.
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ramo
            The more interesting hypothetical, IMO, is if Romney were the GOP nominee.
            He'd be down 15, at least.
            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

            Comment


            • #7
              What would Hillary be saying about the economy? Bill is telling the press that the deregulation of 1999 didn't cause the economic crisis. That's Obama's big claim, and probably what's giving him the boost. Hillary wouldn't be able to make the same claim with out McCain attacking her on it.
              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

              Comment


              • #8
                That's Obama's big claim, and probably what's giving him the boost.




                You can't actually believe that, can you?

                Besides, Obama has been claiming deregulation by the Bush Administration for the reason. He's said nothing about what happened under the Clinton Administration.
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                  That's Obama's big claim, and probably what's giving him the boost.




                  You can't actually believe that, can you?

                  Besides, Obama has been claiming deregulation by the Bush Administration for the reason. He's said nothing about what happened under the Clinton Administration.
                  What Bush deregulation? How could you blame deregulation and not be talking about the repeal of GS Act.
                  I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                  - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Because that would mean blaming Democrats as well which would undercut his attacks on McCain.
                    I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                    For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kidicious
                      What Bush deregulation? How could you blame deregulation and not be talking about the repeal of GS Act.
                      Exactly the question a lot of Republicans are asking.

                      Of course the repeal of the GS act really had little to do with this and made the fall a LOT less worse than it could have been (imagine if commerical banks couldn't buy investment banks that were failing and vice versa).
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


                        Exactly the question a lot of Republicans are asking.

                        Of course the repeal of the GS act really had little to do with this and made the fall a LOT less worse than it could have been (imagine if commerical banks couldn't buy investment banks that were failing and vice versa).
                        It allowed commercial banks to own derivatives. That's what it did. There has been an explosion of derivatives. That is the real problem here. It doesn't matter if it's easier for financial institutions to take each other over. That won't solve the problem. You will still have all these derivatives in the economy.
                        I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                        - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DinoDoc
                          Because that would mean blaming Democrats as well which would undercut his attacks on McCain.
                          It hurts McCain much more because Phil Graham designed the bill.
                          I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                          - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think Hillary would be down at this point if she had been the candidate. Obama hasn't lost many Hillary supporters, and I don't think Hillary would be getting all the Obama supporters. He has energized the youth and black voters to actually vote (or so we think at this point)

                            The bigots are as unlikely to vote for a woman or black candidate, so there is little change there.

                            Obama is making up some ground on the religious vote (not the hard cores, but the more moderate), something I don't think Hillary could have done.

                            Hard core republicans and democrats would vote their party with any candidate.

                            When it comes to the middle of the pack voters, Obama seems to be doing well, and I really don't think Hillary could be doing any better.

                            So overall, I think Obama was the better choice.
                            The only problem might be the hidden anti black vote... people could be telling pollsters one thing, but may not actually vote for him in the privacy of the ballot booth.
                            Keep on Civin'
                            RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kidicious
                              It allowed commercial banks to own derivatives. That's what it did. There has been an explosion of derivatives. That is the real problem here. It doesn't matter if it's easier for financial institutions to take each other over. That won't solve the problem. You will still have all these derivatives in the economy.
                              That was already being done. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commerical banks to engage in insurance underwriting.



                              Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering both saving and investment opportunities to their customers. On the retail/consumer side, a bank called Norwest which would later merge with Wells Fargo Bank led the charge in offering all types of financial services products in 1986. American Express attempted to own almost every field of financial business (although there was little synergy among them). Things culminated in 1998 when Travelers, a financial services company with everything but a retail/commercial bank, bought out Citibank, creating the largest and the most profitable company in the world. The move was technically illegal and provided impetus for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

                              Also prior to the passage of the Act, there were many relaxations to the Glass-Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier, commercial Banks were allowed to get into investment banking, and before that banks were also allowed to get into stock and insurance brokerage. Insurance underwriting was the only main operation they weren't allowed to do, something rarely done by banks even after the passage of the Act.


                              Furthermore, even if it allowed commerical banks to own derivatives, do you not believe that investment banks would have owned a ton of derivatives anyway? Meaning that when the housing bubble collapsed, the investment banks would have completely tanked and wouldn't be able to be saved by commerical banks buying them out.

                              Furthermore:

                              "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

                              - President Bill Clinton
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X