The DNC messed up (Hillary '16 instead of '08)

[Axolotls]

(Hope I've posted in the correct forum, I think so but apologies if it belongs in General Discussion)

Would it not have been better had the DNC nominated Hillary in '08, and Obama this year? I say it would've, and had that happened instead, since many voters were open to/seeking change and something different this time--Trump wouldn't be the incoming president.

While it would've only been 8 years since Bill was in office, a lot of people had Bush fatigue and much disillusionment with the gop so whoever the democrat candidate was in '08 would've been a shoo-in, plus there wasn't the anti-establishment fervor as in this cycle, where being a Clinton didn't sit well with many (the same problem Jeb Bush faced and being part of a dynasty). Don't get mad please but I didn't like Hillary, didn't vote (I live in a deep blue state so it wouldn't matter but even if I was in a swing state, unsure I still could do it as that was a bridge too far)...but 2008 was her only real guaranteed shot, and she would've won.

Obama could've been put "on hold", and he was young and had time on his side. Also unlike Hillary, he had the immense likability and incredible magnetism and great campaigning skills, and lack of baggage and scandal. Does anyone think he would've lost to Trump? I don't. The DNC screwed up big time--and thinking it was a good idea that after 8 years of a democrat president, Hillary of all people was a savvy move and sure thing. Wtf.

[Orsino]

1. The rule, I'm told, is that the nominee is the candidate who gets the most votes.

It wasn't up to the DNC in any practical sense.

I could imagine the sort of damage they would have done by picking the other candidate--no matter that I think she could also have won.

[SFnomad]

5. Re: the most votes

Not always true ... Clinton also got more votes in 2008 in the Democratic Primary. Obama beat her in the delegate count.

[Orsino]

7. And delegates' are the votes that count.

Sure, attempts were made to woo them, and I'm okay with that in the primary, as I was with EC this month.

That party delegates wrnt with Obama was weird, but once they had declared, imagine the outcry and fallout had they flipped.

[NobodyHere]

18. That's only because Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan

[SFnomad]

24. You count the votes that voted ... and with that, Clinton won the popular

And Obama won what mattered, the delegate count.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. According to Wikipedia, Prez O

ultimately beat Hillary in the popular vote, albeit by a slim margin: 18,107,587 (Obama) and 18,045,829 (Clinton).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Popular_vote_table

[SFnomad]

23. Only if you allocate "uncommitted" Michigan votes to Obama ... sorry, that don't work

If you count the votes that voted (and that means not including caucus "estimates&quot ... your link shows Clinton got the popular vote.

17,821,967 (Clinton) and 17,535,335 (Obama)

Even if you add caucus estimates, Clinton still won the popular vote, but by a slimmer margin.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. It also helps that she graciously

conceded even with that and did not put SDs or anyone else on the spot.

I believe that we can agree that the primary campaign in 2016 - even with Hillary's insuperable popular vote lead along with SDs - did not end nearly as graciously.

And that's all that I will say about that.

[SFnomad]

2. The "DNC" didn't nominate Obama or Hillary

And typically the only people that use the term "democrat president" are right wingnuts.

[Axolotls]

8. I'm an independent but left-leaning

[SFnomad]

10. If you say so ...

... and I have no reason not to believe you, but ...

"Democrat President"
"Democrat Party"
"Democrat whatever"

is usually a sign of right wingnuttery. They remove the "ic" from the end of the adjective because they want to point out that the "Democrat Party (uppercase D)" is not really democratic (lowercase d).

[BeyondGeography]

3. Yeah, um, voters

Remember them?

[muntrv]

4. I don't know, but if Hillary was the nominee in 08, that would have inspired

Republican turnout for McCain. I recall repubs wanting Hillary to be the nominee for this reason.

[Axolotls]

9. That would've happened with any gop candidate

Not just McCain...and unlike Trump, McCain didn't inspire enthusiasm.

[Seasider]

6. Not sure Obama would've been as popular in 2016

In 2008, Obama was still riding high from the attention he got in his 2004 convention speech and was viewed as one of the rising stars of the Democratic party. A lot of the glow I think would've faded by 2016 if he continued being a Senator. Yes, he would've had more experience in Washington but also more time in the Senate meaning more things for his enemies to scrutinize him on and much easier to paint him as a Washington insider. For me, I actually would've preferred Hillary in 2008 for a variety of reasons but whose to say we wouldn't have gotten the same results in the General election?

[Axolotls]

11. All that is valid

But Obama had the charisma, engaging personality and campaigning skills which likely would've offset those things. He was exceptional enough to overcome it.

[uponit7771]

12. BULL FUCKIN SHIT !!!! COMEY, Voter Suppression and RUSSIA !! Fuck all the other bullshit FUD is tryi

[Axolotls]

14. That didn't help

Which goes to what I'm pointing out--Hillary was flawed and vulnerable so these these factors took hold and the election was close enough whereas if it was another candidate it shouldn't and probably wouldn't have been. It wouldn't have been close at all with Obama.

[uponit7771]

15. It didn't help RWTP of Comey, Voter Suppression and Russia weren't a factor and that's a good thing

[mtnsnake]

13. It would have been better for Hillary Clinton but not necessarily for Barack Obama

Following 8 pathetic years of Bush Cheney opened the door wide open for whoever the Democratic nominee turned out to be in 2008. In 2016, it was tougher because it wasn't "our turn" to win. The only thing that should have made 2016 a sure win was when Trump became the republican nominee, although we all know how that turned out.

[Axolotls]

16. It was even tougher since Hillary was the candidate

It's true about this cycle being tougher, and that's why Hillary as the nominee was a risky prospect. I don't want to get into it on this thread because it's been gotten into countless times, but aside from Obama being a formidable force if he had been a candidate this year...Bernie was the natural, obvious choice. Some people say there's no way he would've won, he would've gotten clobbered in the general--there's no way to know that for sure and besides, the same exact things were the conventional wisdom regarding Trump.

[LisaL]

17. What does it have to do with DNC? Obama run a better campaign and got the nomination.

[geek tragedy]

19. Welcome to DU.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. It wasn't the DNC.

It was the primary voters in 2008. You see, the Dem party has this rule that the person who gets the most votes in the primaries is the nominee. In 2008, that person was Barack Obama. In 2016, that person was Hillary Clinton.

We can speculate all we want - and I was a Clinton voter in 2008, who got fully behind Obama - and I was for some of the reasons that you mention. But you underestimate the absolute hatred of Hillary that the Reich Wing has always had, although they might not have been as well-organized then.

But Hillary was not the nominee in 2008 and all the speculation in the world will not change the facts.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Obama was the best President of my lifetime.

Frankly, I'm not so sure Hillary would have beaten McCain.

[JI7]

25. the DNC did not nominate . people ran in a Primary. Obama won in 2008 and HIllary won in 2012