Bayh as her running mate would also mean Clinton probably doesn't have 60 Senate votes (since then-Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) would have replaced Bayh with a Republican.)

Clinton during the '08 race also ran worse with independents, African-Americans, and young voters, though better with older white voters. So while her '08 win might have been of a similar magnitude as Obama's, the coalition would have been slightly different. I imagine her winning Missouri, WV, and AR that year (polls had shown her competitive in all three in GE trials), maybe Kentucky, but losing NC and IN (where Obama was boosted by high AA turnout and regional overperformance), and doing somewhat worse in the Upper Midwest. The reason I bring this up is because I could see Norm Coleman (R) surviving, although it's possible Bruce Lunsford would have defeated Mitch McConnell.

But anyway, the net effect is likely fewer than 60 Senate seats, which may mean no ACA or a substantially stripped-down health care bill at most. And without some major legislative wins, it's possible she has lower Democratic approval ratings and draws weaker turnout in 2012. She'd still probably be the favorite, as an incumbent in a (slowly) growing economy, but it might have been tighter, like a 1-2 point popular vote win and a bare Electoral College victory.

On the other hand, if we're talking about structural factors, maybe her response to the financial crisis would have been more pro-active on housing policy and foreclosures. If that yields faster growth, she might be in better political shape than Obama. And if her coalition is from the start less tilted towards low-turnout minorities and younger voters, and draws more from older white voters, maybe the Democratic midterm collapses in 2010 and 2014 are less pronounced.
 
One other thing to remember is that HRC might suffer a primary challenge in 2012. Obama almost did, Kucinich and Sanders were outspoken about supporting a challenge from the left. I believe that one reason Obama wasn't challenged was his high amount of support from minorities, who weren't as supportive of Clinton as they were of Obama. (IMO, this cost her Florida in 2016). Clinton was also less skilled as a politician than Obama, meaning her relationship with progressives might be worse than Obama's. A primary challenge from Kucinich, Sanders, or another notable progressive isn't out of the question - and given how primary challengers tend to weaken the incumbent in the general election (Kennedy in 1980, Buchanan in 1992), it would make Clinton that much more vulnerable in 2012. Possibly enough to tip the scales to Romney.

Conversely, if Romney isn't nominated and a more right-wing candidate like Santorum is chosen instead then this helps Clinton in the general.
 
Clinton has a slight edge, mainly thanks to how the demographics were so heavily slanted in the Democrats favour (really at this point I think a Democrat will need to outright fail spectacularly in office and/or the Republicans will have to do root and branch change to see the GOP win by anything other than the thinnest of margins.) That said... I'd give Romney a chance.

Clinton proved herself in 2008 and 2016 to be a surprisingly poor campaigner given her long political career and in-built advantages that came with her name and family history. It is not just that she lacked Obama's charisma (though she does), she was not quick on her feet in reacting to shocks and seems to have a tendency to underestimate her opponents. Romney is hardly a human lightening rod but against Clinton perhaps he doesn't have to be.

Ultimately if the youth vote and minority vote that surged for Obama in OTL receded enough for Clinton I could see Romney managing it.
 
genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 328 EV
John McCain/Sarah Palin - 210 EV

As stated in a previous post, I imagine Hillary prioritizes foreclosures/mortgages and the economy rather than healthcare reform for her first term. Maybe we see something like this:

genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 292 EV
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan - 246 EV
 
genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 328 EV
John McCain/Sarah Palin - 210 EV

As stated in a previous post, I imagine Hillary prioritizes foreclosures/mortgages and the economy rather than healthcare reform for her first term. Maybe we see something like this:

genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 292 EV
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan - 246 EV

I doubt that Clinton would be able to win Florida while losing Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado.
 
genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 328 EV
John McCain/Sarah Palin - 210 EV

As stated in a previous post, I imagine Hillary prioritizes foreclosures/mortgages and the economy rather than healthcare reform for her first term. Maybe we see something like this:

genusmap.php


Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh - 292 EV
Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan - 246 EV
Wouldn’t Clinton also carry Indiana? That’s her running mates home state.
 
I doubt that Clinton would be able to win Florida while losing Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado.

Indeed. Of all of those I think she'd probably lose Florida first, and given Obama barely carried Florida in OTL 2012 (the margin was 0.88%) and I think Obama probably would have a 2-3% 'lead' on Clinton I don't see her winning Florida.

Wouldn’t Clinton also carry Indiana? That’s her running mates home state.

Indiana went for Romney in OTL by more than a 10% margin. Even with a running mate that is a pretty big gap to bridge unless Clinton in ALT-2012 is doing much better than Obama in OTL.
 
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.

The ACA was a big big big factor in the 2010 defeat and HRC was a more cautious a politician than Obama. Democrats will lose seats, but I don't think enough to lose the majority.

If she gets health reform through in 2011, it will by necessity have to be bi-partisan as she lacks the 60 votes to a totally Democrat. Otherwise, there's no healthcare issue to galvanize opposition.

HRC was also different in that she was a lot more blue-dog focused (at the time) than Obama was and she was much better at the nuts and bolts of politics. Obama rarely ever visited capital hill to lobby for bills the way prior presidents had, (he disliked talking to people, really) whereas HRC was far far more willing to do the work. She was also more policy-minded - I think the fact that Obama ultimately came closer to her ideas on healthcare (such as the individual mandate) than the ideas he campaigned on proves which of the two knew more about what they were talking about in 2008 (a consequence of one being a first-term senator and the other having been in the heart of Washington since 1993).




Also, I keep seeing Evan Bayh listed as HRC's running mate but my understanding was that Ted Strickland was HRC's go-to VP. Why would HRC pull Bayh from the Senate in 2008 when it'd be Republican Mitch Daniels appointing his replacement?



Anyways, HRC's coalition was comprised of more older white voters but fewer young voters, african-americans, and independents. This means in 2008 she likely wins Missouri, West Virginia, and Arkansas and maybe even Montana (obama only lost it by two points) but probably doesn't take North Carolina or Indiana (the latter going blue had a lot to do with the Chicago area in Indiana coming out for Obama). Come 2012, she's likely going to remain in a strong position in Arkansas and Missouri, WV is iffy, and Montana unlikely. Her base being comprised of more older white voters has the distinct advantage of it being a more consistent coalition (less turnout variability).

I think Norm Coleman probably wins, as I've said earlier, so she likely has to focus more on bipartisan work. I really think she'll put a lot more work into managing the recovery (Obama, being inexperienced, wasn't too hands on with it and the stimulus became a pork free for all in a lot of ways) and won't deal with healthcare until at least following the midterms.

Also, she'll likely be more security-minded and I think there's a distinct possibility HRC could take out bin ladin before the 2010 elections, which would be huge.

The state HRC will have the most trouble with that Obama didn't will be Wisconsin, I think. George HW Bush barely lost the state in 2000 and 2004 and without the same amount of support among young voters and african-americans I don't think HRC will be able to conquer the state as much. Trump won it in 2016 despite underperforming significantly in the republican suburbs of Milwaukee, so if you have those republican voters staying Republican here you'll see a tight race there.
 
Last edited:
I doubt that Clinton would be able to win Florida while losing Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado.
My theory is that by making foreclosures the number one priority in her first term, she becomes more popular in Florida similar to how Obama used the GM bailouts to win Michigan/Ohio.
 
If she gets health reform through in 2011, it will by necessity have to be bi-partisan as she lacks the 60 votes to a totally Democrat. Otherwise, there's no healthcare issue to galvanize opposition.

I'll remind you that McConnell and thr Senate Republicans were hell bent on defeating Obama by obstructing every single last thing he tried to do. There's no reason that the right, which arguably hates Clinton even more than Obama, would act differently with HRC in office. That means no bipartisan health bill, or a bipartisan anything, is passed under Clinton.

Why would HRC pull Bayh from the Senate in 2008 when it'd be Republican Mitch Daniels appointing his replacement?

Because as pretty much the entirety of her political career shows (1994 health care debacle, 2008 loss to Obama, and the 2016 fiasco), HRC is a sub-par politician prone to making poor choices.
 
Because as pretty much the entirety of her political career shows (1994 health care debacle, 2008 loss to Obama, and the 2016 fiasco), HRC is a sub-par politician prone to making poor choices.

She didn't do that badly in 2008 - Obama's team was smarter in how they targeted superdelegates more effectively. In 2016 she did a great job of clearing the field beforehand of opponents and locking down superdelegates beforehand.

If she's weak at anything, it's being a crummy campaigner.
 
My theory is that by making foreclosures the number one priority in her first term, she becomes more popular in Florida similar to how Obama used the GM bailouts to win Michigan/Ohio.

While that might give her a bump if she's doing badly enough that Virginia and Colorado are going Red I don't think it would be enough to keep Florida Blue, especially given she'd be facing a less enthused youth and minority voting bloc (who won't vote for Romney but might well stay home if they aren't fired up.)
 
I think the 2012 map will look like this

upload_2018-12-12_8-49-32.png


HRC keeps OH, MO, and AR on lockdown and has WV as a toss-up. Weakness with upper-middle class voters, young voters, and african-americans relative to Obama means Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin are toss-ups still.

Florida remains a toss-up and Arizona is a toss-up (weaker African-American turnout but HRC is stronger with retirees of which both states have plenty).

Why is AZ a toss-up in 2012 when it wasn't in 2008? Because there's no McCain in 2012.

Nevada isn't a toss-up due to Reid having a strong machine in the state.



Still, it's kind of a big assumption that Romney-Ryan will be the ticket. McCain might pick a different running mate in 2008 who could go on to be the nominee in 2012.

As mentioned, Bobby Jindal (elected Governor in 2007 and having deputy HHS Secretary) could have been a good pick against HRC in an appeal for a diverse educated coalition.

Alternatively, Mark Sanford could avoid the Appalachian Trail issue and be the front-runner in 2012 as he was widely thought to be.
 
Last edited:
I think the 2012 map will look like this

View attachment 425723

HRC keeps OH, MO, and AR on lockdown and has WV as a toss-up. Weakness with upper-middle class voters, young voters, and african-americans relative to Obama means Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin are toss-ups still.

Florida remains a toss-up and Arizona is a toss-up (weaker African-American turnout but HRC is stronger with retirees of which both states have plenty).

Why is AZ a toss-up in 2012 when it wasn't in 2008? Because there's no McCain in 2012.

Nevada isn't a toss-up due to Reid having a strong machine in the state.



Still, it's kind of a big assumption that Romney-Ryan will be the ticket. McCain might pick a different running mate in 2008 who could go on to be the nominee in 2012.

As mentioned, Bobby Jindal (elected Governor in 2007 and having deputy HHS Secretary) could have been a good pick against HRC in an appeal for a diverse educated coalition.

Alternatively, Mark Sanford could avoid the Appalachian Trail issue and be the front-runner in 2012 as he was widely thought to be.

So what if McCain isn't on the ballot in 2012? Romney beat Obama in Arizona by 9 points! Even in 2016 Clinton lost Arizona to a man who insulted the state's senior senator and scapegoated Mexicans. It's just unrealistic to expect Arizona to be anything other than a safe Republican state if Clinton is running for re-election in 2012.

There's no reason McCain wouldn't pick Palin if HRC his is opponent: he picked Palin to diversify the ticket and generate excitement towards his candidacy. If anything, a Palin Vice-Presidential candidacy is more likely if the Democrats nominate a woman for President. And even if McCain didn't pick Palin, it is highly unlikely that this alternate running mate becomes the nominee in 2012 - never in U.S. history has a failed VP candidate become the presidential nominee four years after losing. (FDR was a failed VP candidate, but he became President twelve years later!).

If Romney didn't pick Bobby Jindal when running against the first African-American President, I don't see why he would pick Jindal when running against the first female President.

I don't see how butterflies would do away with Sanford's womanizing...
 
Top