|
|
Post by MacShimidh on Jul 22, 2020 16:34:08 GMT
Let's assume that Clinton ekes out a win against Trump - she clings onto MI, PA and WI for an electoral college result of 278-260. Republicans hold the House and Senate. Would her credibility have been shot from day one? I imagine her reputation among Democrats would have suffered for letting it get so close, just as Theresa May's reputation among Conservatives was irreparably damaged by the 2017 election.
Hours after the election, Trump refuses to concede and starts bleating that it was rigged. The American public, out of a combination of Clinton's unpopularity and the closeness of the result, have some sympathy with him, and lawsuits challenging the result are brought to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Court finds in favour of Clinton, but the episode mortally wounds her authority before she is even sworn in.
After the inauguration, Republicans refuse to work with the "illegitimate president," and every piece of legislation she brings to Congress is voted down. Most notably, they refuse to even consider her nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. There is thus a vacancy on the court for the whole four years, meaning complete deadlock in Washington across the three branches. There are few foreign policy achievements either. There is no rapprochement with North Korea's Kim, and her more interventionist policy in Syria is widely criticised by a growing Sanders-led movement within her own party.
The 2018 midterms are an absolute bloodbath for Democrats. Republicans consolidate their majority in the House, and end up with 60+ seats in the Senate. Impeachment proceedings begin immediately (over email-gate or something else - the Republicans would find something), and although Clinton is not convicted by the Senate, it is the first time in history that more than 50 senators vote to convict. Immensely unpopular by this point, Clinton manages to recover a little thanks to her competent handling of COVID, but the resultant economic downturn finishes her off and she is defeated in a landslide by a resurgent Trump.
Obviously this is a very pessimistic version of events. Could folk see Clinton having a better time as president?
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jul 22, 2020 16:59:35 GMT
My criticism of your scenario is twofold (this is just my thoughts FWIW)
Firstly Clinton wouldn't be wounded from a close run contest against Trump, don't get me wrong she should be but that's not how the vast majority of the US media and the Democratic establishment would treat it, as far as they'd be concerned she won against the orange menace as was expected and that's the end of the matter. Clinton herself wouldn't have any introspection regarding the result whatsoever, to this day she doesn't seem to have accepted why or how she lost instead blaming sexism and Bernie Sanders for her defeat (No Hilary hate to say it but people just didn't like you for a whole host of reasons) So had she won she frankly wouldn't have gave a damn whether it was by a landslide or by a whisker, her destiny had been fulfilled so to speak.
The second issue is the Republicans failure to work with Clinton, illegitimate or not that would have happened anyway, they stonewalled most everything Obama tried to do, that's just how the Republicans are these days, petty whiney blowhards. One thing Clinton has though which Obama didn't was a complete lack of principles, Obama caved in to a lot of what the Republicans wanted, Clinton would have gave them everything so long as she could stay as President. Clinton was a typical technocrat, she didn't want to change America she just wanted to be the one who administrated it, she even boasted during the campaign of her ability to "reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans" once they realise this they'd let her be, sure they'd publically give her a hard time but they'd get most of what they wanted and very little if anything that they didn't want would be made into law. So to take Obamacare as the most high profile area of disagreement, Clinton would have got her very small expansion of the program in exchange for a massive increase in the military budget and a cut in every other department, rinse and repeat for four years. What few pieces of legislation where there wasn't broad agreement or a compromise to be found Clinton would have just used executive orders to get it through.
And so it would have been, continuity Obama but even more noise made over less actual activity, in a way I'm glad she lost, I doubt my sanity would have been able to handle the level of sheer delirium emanating from US Conservatives over a Clinton Presidency which would have been near enough identical to the Bush Jr presidency.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 22, 2020 18:10:48 GMT
Let's assume that Clinton ekes out a win against Trump - she clings onto MI, PA and WI for an electoral college result of 278-260. Republicans hold the House and Senate. Would her credibility have been shot from day one? I imagine her reputation among Democrats would have suffered for letting it get so close, just as Theresa May's reputation among Conservatives was irreparably damaged by the 2017 election. No. It would have been what everyone expected. I doubt this. And even if he did, the Republican establishment would think he was an idiot and look forward to nominating someone sensible (John Kasich, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Jeb Bush...) next time. I honestly doubt that Trump would waste his money like this. This would play badly. The lame duck session would probably have voted through Merrick Garland, as Clinton could nominate much worse. But I would expect that Congress would generally be the opposite of progress, as the old joke goes. In the former case, you're probably right: it's her cack-handed reset button at work; but no-one would even have expected it to be on the agenda. In the latter case, I bow to your superior knowledge of left-wing causes celebres, but I reckon nobody much would care. That's how incumbency goes. Well, the Saudi Arabia stuff was real, unlike the conspiracy theories about Russia/fishing expedition. I'm not sure they would have done this though – it would be a bit pointless. I do not see the Republican establishment giving Donald Trump a second chance after losing. No. She would presumably have messed up all sort of little things and been generally dislikable. Sort of the Dr Gordon Brown problem. Jeb Bush in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jul 22, 2020 18:50:31 GMT
As far as who would have been the GOP nominee this year, Jeb Bush wouldn't have stood a chance if Trump had only lost by, in essence, one state (as implied in the OP) and perhaps a few thousand or even hundred votes. Not only did he run a lacklustre primary campaign in 2016 (to the point of it leading to memes), he and his family would have been blamed in part for the defeat by the likes of Fox News due to their lack of support for Trump in the general election.
I would also rule out Kasich and most others on the 'moderate' wing of the party, particularly if Clinton is an unpopular president. I could see Romney running and maybe tacking right again (as he did in 2008/2012) in order to win over the base.
But it most likely would be Cruz, Rubio or maybe someone from the 2014 intake such as Joni Ernst. Rand Paul would almost certainly put his name forward again as he represents a fairly specific brand of Republicanism. They'd be a trillion other candidates too as that seems to be what happens nowadays. And yes, Trump (or maybe one of his two eldest children) would give it another go, having heroically come so close to defeating such a seasoned politician in 2016. Would most likely suffer the same fate as Sanders did this year (i.e. a frontrunner but faltering when it mattered).
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 23, 2020 12:28:18 GMT
but the resultant economic downturn finishes her off and she is defeated in a landslide by a resurgent Trump. I do not see the Republican establishment giving Donald Trump a second chance after losing. Actually, by way of an illustration of how unusual it would be to give someone who had come second in a Presidential Election another go – it's only happened five times since the Civil War – here is (I think) a complete list of people who have done it (people who subsequently became President after having previously lost in bold): - Richard M. Nixon (GOP) – lost 1960, won 1968 and 1972
- Adlai Stevenson (Dem) – lost 1952 and 1956 (last consecutive loser)
- Thomas Dewey (GOP) – lost 1944 and 1948 (last (and only) consecutive GOP loser – and it feels a bit harsh to blame him for losing in the middle of WWII)
- William Jennings Bryan (Dem) – lost 1896, 1900, and 1908 (this is the charming fellow from the Scopes Monkey Trial)
- Grover Cleveland (Dem) – won 1884, lost 1888, won 1892 (last President who won an election after losing the previous one)
- (Martin Van Buren (Dem) – won 1836, lost 1840, lost as a third party candidate 1848) (I'd say this doesn't really count)
- William H. Harrison (Whig) – lost 1836, won 1840
- Henry Clay (National Republican/Whig) – lost 1824 (4th place in a very messy election), 1832, and 1844
- Andrew Jackson (Anti-Fed/Dem) – lost 1824, won 1828 and 1832 (edit: I should really have added that this was a very strange version of "lost" in 1824 – the so-called "corrupt bargain")
- DeWitt Clinton (party labels get very messy here) – lost 1812 and 1820 (the latter election was basically uncontested, but somehow Clinton ended up getting a whopping 1.75% of the vote)
- Charles C. Pinckney (Fed) – lost 1804 and 1808
- Thomas Jefferson (Anti-Fed/Dem) – lost 1796 (and ended up as Vice-President, prompting the 12th Amendment), won 1800 and 1804
- George Clinton (Anti-Fed/Dem) – lost in 1789 and 1792 (he was the highest-polling non-Federalist candidate in both elections – elections before the 12th Amendment were a bit of a mess!)
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 23, 2020 19:37:43 GMT
Trump didn't expect to win. Most people didn't expect to win. Clinton would have been a normal President, and Trump would have gone back to business & TV. Most things would be normal. There would be no legal challenge to the 2016 result, even if it was 270-268.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 23, 2020 20:55:21 GMT
Trump didn't expect to win. Most people didn't expect to win. Clinton would have been a normal President, and Trump would have gone back to business & TV. Most things would be normal. There would be no legal challenge to the 2016 result, even if it was 270-268. Have you watched the Hillary documentary? I thought it excellent. Perhaps I'm mistaken but there were concerns in her camp that she was losing on Election Day. No film coverage for the day and she sidesteps the question. I read that the Trump camp 'knew' that he'd won by 4pm (EST) because the Democratic vote was not turning out where it mattered. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Jul 24, 2020 7:56:04 GMT
Trump didn't expect to win. Most people didn't expect to win. Clinton would have been a normal President, and Trump would have gone back to business & TV. Most things would be normal. There would be no legal challenge to the 2016 result, even if it was 270-268. Does 'normal' involve a few pointless overseas wars (just as a few previous 'normal' presidencies have done)? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 24, 2020 11:37:36 GMT
Well, one of the reasons so many who might have voted for HRC were wary of her was her highly bellicose stance towards Russia.....
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 24, 2020 13:58:29 GMT
Well, one of the reasons so many who might have voted for HRC were wary of her was her highly bellicose stance towards Russia..... I think you overestimate the importance of foreign policy to swing voters in the Mid West. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 24, 2020 22:30:53 GMT
Trump didn't expect to win. Most people didn't expect to win. Clinton would have been a normal President, and Trump would have gone back to business & TV. Most things would be normal. There would be no legal challenge to the 2016 result, even if it was 270-268. Does 'normal' involve a few pointless overseas wars (just as a few previous 'normal' presidencies have done)? Probably, yes |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 4, 2020 22:09:24 GMT
I think you overestimate the importance of foreign policy to swing voters in the Mid West. That is true, but I said at the time if I was an American I would have voted Clinton against Trump but as a non-American I was relieved to be spared her warmongering and be offered a guy whose idea of war is to give the Russians 24 hours notice that, really sorry, Syrian chemical attacks are not on, so we will be bombing your airstrip tomorrow I honestly don't know whom I would have voted for. I thought they were both awful. I did back in 2016 enjoy how my cousin in Ohio homed right in on how terrible Clinton was and that the only hope was Trump, whilst one of my dearest friends in Connecticut would tell me exactly why Trump was a monster and that America should go for Clinton's boring establishmentism. I'm just sad that the rancour lasted beyond a truly miserable election – I'd hoped that somehow it would go back to normal, and my friends and relatives would just be Americans again. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279 
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Aug 4, 2020 22:35:28 GMT
Twitter would be so boring
There would be fewer democrats in congress
The Republican nominee would be favourite to win
A lot more Americans would still be alive
Hillary would've been impeached 18 times, mostly for wearing the wrong colour of clothing and/or putting too much mustard on a hotdog
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 5, 2020 10:51:26 GMT
I think you overestimate the importance of foreign policy to swing voters in the Mid West. That is true, but I said at the time if I was an American I would have voted Clinton against Trump but as a non-American I was relieved to be spared her warmongering and be offered a guy whose idea of war is to give the Russians 24 hours notice that, really sorry, Syrian chemical attacks are not on, so we will be bombing your airstrip tomorrow Whilst one would instinctively agree with the earlier comment, I posted what I did because I distinctly recall Obama-Trump swing voters in the "rust belt" states being interviewed and actually saying a reason for voting as they did was "he won't get us involved in more foreign wars that are none of our business" (and similar) How much he has lived up to that in office can of course be debated..... |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Aug 5, 2020 15:44:38 GMT
If you bomb the crap out of the middle-east, but don't tell anyone, did you bomb the crap out of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by trekett on Aug 15, 2021 20:26:44 GMT
What do you want, she didn't win, she lost it for Trump. But after him we got a man of whom cannot remember the name of his still living son, and a woman who was the most unpopular candidate in her party.
So it's not what if, not really, it's American politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 16, 2021 5:23:54 GMT
This section is called alternate political history for a reason, its about what I, its about what didn't happen,that's deliberate.
|
|
