The POD is Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. She selects Indiana Senator Evan Bayh as her running mate and goes on to defeat John McCain in the general election. Four years later Clinton/Bayh are up against Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan. Who wins the election?
AHC: Hillary Clinton vs. Romney in 2012
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Probably still Clinton, barring potential butterflies that produce scandals for Clinton/avoid gaffes for Romney. Which could happen of course.
Though the 2012 Republican primaries might yield different results if Hillary is incumbent instead of Barack. Or at least get Mitt to pick some other running mate who plays more to an ant-Clinton angle
Though the 2012 Republican primaries might yield different results if Hillary is incumbent instead of Barack. Or at least get Mitt to pick some other running mate who plays more to an ant-Clinton angle
I am confused. Who is elected in 2008? It is extremely rare for a citing president to loose a primary. So what happened to Obama? Because that could have a HUGE effect on the outcome.
You have given us part of the whole and asked what the whole would result in but we don’t know how we got here.
You have given us part of the whole and asked what the whole would result in but we don’t know how we got here.
Indeed. The First Gentleman would have had access to the White House intern pool for almost four years by this point for example.
A possible alternative candidate would be whoever John McCain picked as VP in 2008. If you subscribe to the theory that one of the reasons for picking Sarah Palin OTL was to appeal to those people annoyed at the Democrats for passing over a qualified female candidate then in this TL he might have picked a minority candidate to exploit irritation at the Democrats passing over Obama. somebody like Bobby Jindal would likely appeal to him, though the same thought processes that led to him picking Palin OTL might result in going for Nikki Haley instead, who at that point was in her first term as governor of South Carolina. Jindal might not run for the nomination in 2012 but Haley probably would.
Obama wasn't President in 2008. As of 2012 he is still a popular Senator from Illinois. And I made it very clear that Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 instead...
If that's the case, I imagine that Clinton's margin of victory in the electoral college would be similar to Dubya's in 2004.
yep - similar PV and EV margin. And fairly similar map - all of the Kerry states+OH+NM+CO+VA+NV. This would be Hillary's ceiling - she wouldn't win ALL of these. She would probably get around 290-295 EVs.
At that point I imagine Clinton would suffer a similar fate to Obama: re-elected, but without any mandate to govern. She'd be a lame duck throughout her entire second term and any new policies would need to be introduced via executive order.
It's also worth asking if Clinton would've approached healthcare any differently from Obama. If her bill fails, she might lose re-election. But if her bill passes and is upheld by the Supreme Court, then that helps her going into 2012.
Would Stupak-Pitts be in Clintoncare ITTL? (provided she pushes for healthcare reform)
Last edited:
Puzzle
Donor
I feel like the events of the past years have shown that Hillary Clinton is a fairly inept campaigner. She might have been able to lurch over the finish line when pushed by Bush fatigue and John McCain, but Romney was a fairly normal candidate who didn’t do badly against an outstanding political talent. Romney probably runs away with it.
I doubt a Romney win would be a landslide, but if Clinton makes the same mistakes she did in 2016 then the election might be his - if only narrowly.
Deleted member 109224
Clinton wouldn't push for health care reform immediately. She was far more cautious a politician than Obama was, had experienced an early healthcare fight before, wouldn't have the same approvals, probably wouldn't have 60 votes (Obama boosted turnout in 2008 and without that I can't see Norm Coleman losing for example), and would be more inclined towards focusing on economic recovery.
Without Obamacare, Democrats likely keep their majorities in the House and Senate. There was a good amount of polling showing that the ACA was a BIG cause of GOP success in 2010. Health policy has a massive status quo bias and before the ACA the memory of the GOP basically screwing
If HRC pursues health policy, it will likely be after 2010 when she is vindicated by retaining Congressional majorities. It will also be more like the Healthy Americans Act of 2007 if I had to guess.
Without Obamacare, Democrats likely keep their majorities in the House and Senate. There was a good amount of polling showing that the ACA was a BIG cause of GOP success in 2010. Health policy has a massive status quo bias and before the ACA the memory of the GOP basically screwing
If HRC pursues health policy, it will likely be after 2010 when she is vindicated by retaining Congressional majorities. It will also be more like the Healthy Americans Act of 2007 if I had to guess.
But the flip side to this is that if Clinton proposes health care reform in 2011 and the act proves unpopular (or a failure, which it very well could without 60 Senate votes), then the political backlash would be in 2012 - when her own job is on the line.
Also, the ACA wasn't the only reason the Democrats lost a whopping 63 seats in 2010. Additionally, the GOP ran against the deficit, the stimulus, and the still-weak economy. I doubt any of that would change under Clinton. So the Democrats might lose less seats, but they would still lose control of the House and Clinton's domestic initiatives will be dead in the water unless the Dems regain control in 2012.
Last edited:
It all depends on the amount of hatred that boils up after the 2008 election. Obama did well early in 2008 because Edwards divided the union/labor vote in the Iowa caucuses. Now, if Edwards if forced out early, Clinton will likely sail through the primaries, the nomination and the presidency, given the economy. Let’s say Obama is VP. Will Trump be as adamant about the birther issue for a VP? The channeled hatred against Obama was racist. Would sexism against Clinton be less severe or worse? I think opponents would be digging up issues from the nineties and thus, their effectiveness would be weaker. In 2012, Romney is not attack-oriented, so I think Hillary wins.
The real question is 2016. Obama is the heir apparent to the nomination. Would Trump have the same level of motivation to come down as hard on his opponents? Would he even get the nomination?
The real question is 2016. Obama is the heir apparent to the nomination. Would Trump have the same level of motivation to come down as hard on his opponents? Would he even get the nomination?
I doubt Obama would be VP (HRC didn't pick her main challenger in 2016, so why would she act differently in 2008? At the time the top VP candidates in the Clinton camp were Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack). Nonetheless, had he become VP and had Clinton been re-elected, Obama probably would've won in 2016.
Not picking Sanders in 2016 is obvious: he used the term "socialist" which was poison to the establishment. As for Obama in '08, he was a relatively "clean" candidate and represented a future of diversity. Look at the campaign posters. The Clinton posters (in Iowa) used the word president. The ones for Obama read "Obama '08," a clear indication he would accept the VP spot.
Not necessarily. Take a look at Biden's 2008 campaign website. It says "Biden: President 2008."
Furthermore, Obama outright rejected the idea of being Clinton's running mate in March 2008: https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2008/04/hillarys-wouldbe-vice-presidents/amp/
After Obama rejected the idea, it was never seriously considered, with Clinton's top two choices being Bayh and Vilsack:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2008/04/hillarys-wouldbe-vice-presidents/amp/
Obama remains in the Senate in 2009. Governor Blagojevich does not get into trouble for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. He gets a third term as governor in 2010. Mark Kirk does not enter the Senate in 2011 and stays in congress until his stroke in 2012. Obama remains a full-time voice in the Senate, in lieu of Kirk's year of absence.