Later Bill Clinton Presidency (1997-2005)

In this timeline, Jerry Brown secured the Democratic nomination in 1992, but lost to George H.W. Bush in the General Election. Clinton secures the Democratic Party nomination in 1996, defeats Bob Dole in the General Election that year, and defeats George W. Bush in 2000. How would his presidency be different if it spanned into the mid-2000s like this? Would Hillary serve simultaneously as New York Senator and First Lady after 2000? On the flip side, no Monica Lewinsky. In 2004, the election most likely comes down to Gore Vs. McCain like my previous thread suggested.
 
In this timeline, Jerry Brown secured the Democratic nomination in 1992, but lost to George H.W. Bush in the General Election. Clinton secures the Democratic Party nomination in 1996, defeats Bob Dole in the General Election that year, and defeats George W. Bush in 2000. How would his presidency be different if it spanned into the mid-2000s like this? Would Hillary serve simultaneously as New York Senator and First Lady after 2000? On the flip side, no Monica Lewinsky. In 2004, the election most likely comes down to Gore Vs. McCain like my previous thread suggested.

I can't imagine Hillary running for senate while with the term starting while she's still a sitting first lady. More than likely she postpones any campaign until 2004.

I'm interested in what happens in terms of 9/11. Would Clinton have paid more attention to the PDB saying Bin Laden was determined to strike the US?

I mean its easy in hindsight to say he would, but there's never any guarantee.
 
In this timeline, Jerry Brown secured the Democratic nomination in 1992, but lost to George H.W. Bush in the General Election. Clinton secures the Democratic Party nomination in 1996, defeats Bob Dole in the General Election that year, and defeats George W. Bush in 2000. How would his presidency be different if it spanned into the mid-2000s like this? Would Hillary serve simultaneously as New York Senator and First Lady after 2000? On the flip side, no Monica Lewinsky. In 2004, the election most likely comes down to Gore Vs. McCain like my previous thread suggested.

So Dan Quayle does not run for president?
 
In this timeline, Jerry Brown secured the Democratic nomination in 1992, but lost to George H.W. Bush in the General Election. Clinton secures the Democratic Party nomination in 1996, defeats Bob Dole in the General Election that year, and defeats George W. Bush in 2000. How would his presidency be different if it spanned into the mid-2000s like this? Would Hillary serve simultaneously as New York Senator and First Lady after 2000? On the flip side, no Monica Lewinsky. In 2004, the election most likely comes down to Gore Vs. McCain like my previous thread suggested.

1) I can't see Bush 41 won reelection over Brown. What would be the PoD? Perot don't drop of race and Republicans won in in a broke 3-way-race? This could be, I think.

2) With a Bush reelection in 1992 we probably had Dan Quayle as the "crown prince" in '96. I can see Liddy with more chances to be the GOP nomination, than Bob in this scenario.

3) A better response on Middle East, and, probably, no 9/11. Hillary Clinton would continue being a key person on Clinton's presidency, but I'm not right if she had desire to enter on politics. If yes and OTL stays on some points, she could have tried to be Governor of New York in 2006 or 2010.

4) I'm not right if Gore would be veep of Clinton in '96. Evan Bayh, John Kerry or Ann Richards would have more chances, probably. I bet personally, in Bayh, and he'd good chances to be elect in '04.
 
I can't imagine Hillary running for senate while with the term starting while she's still a sitting first lady. More than likely she postpones any campaign until 2004.

I don't think she would primary Chuck Schumer. One option is to run for Senate in her native state of Illinois. State Senator Barack Obama does not challenge her.
 
Bush's second term would have been horrific! The recession of 1992 would drag on. Al Gore would not be Bill Clinton's running mate because Gore wouldn't run for president in 1996. Clinton and Gore being rivals for a short time in 1992 led Clinton to choose Gore. Clinton would have steamrolled Dole and Dubya, even without Gore. Although, in 2004, McCain would have defeated whoever Bill Clinton's vice president was as a consequence. Hillary doesn't run in 2008 because she would have only been a freshmen senator. However, we would see her run in 2012 against Mitt Romney. With no Monica Lewinsky Scandal, the GOP couldn't bother her about any affair her husband had with another woman unless Linda Tripp finds someone else to throw at Bill Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Bush's second term would have been horrific! The recession of 1992 would drag on. Al Gore would not be Bill Clinton's running mate because Gore wouldn't run for president in 1996. Clinton and Gore being rivals for a short time in 1992 led Clinton to choose Gore. Clinton would have steamrolled Dole and Dubya, even without Gore. Although, in 2004, McCain would have defeated whoever Bill Clinton's vice president was as a consequence. Hillary doesn't run in 2008 because she would have only been a freshmen senator. However, we would see her run in 2012 against Mitt Romney. With no Monica Lewinsky Scandal, the GOP couldn't bother her about any affair her husband had with another woman unless Linda Tripp finds someone else to throw at Bill Clinton.

Those are some berry light butterflies.
 
Romney became front runner in 2012 because he was second to McCain in 2008. He's naturally next in line unless ATL Vice President Huckabee takes a shot at the presidency.

How? Why does he run in 2004 (if you're going off of 'next in line')? And why would Huckabee be chosen for VP?
 
How? Why does he run in 2004 (if you're going off of 'next in line')? And why would Huckabee be chosen for VP?
My bad. I was thinking too much from OTL's perspective. You're right. Romney and Huckabee are not likely to run in 2004. I only proposed Huckabee as VP because I was thinking from the perspective of OTL 2008. I think a good vice president for McCain in 2004 would have been Rudy Giuliani. But I realize that ATL 2004 would be nowhere near OTL 2008.
 
My bad. I was thinking too much from OTL's perspective. Your right. Romney and Huckabee are not likely to run in 2004. I only proposed Huckabee as VP because I was thinking from the perspective of OTL 2008. I think a good vice president for McCain in 2004 would have been Rudy Giuliani.

I doubt Giuliani would have much of a career TTL beyond attorney general. The mayoral race in 1993 was fairly close, and Bush's presence in the White House would probably tip it towards Dinkins.
 
John Kerry wouldn't be a good choice for running mate. He had not been elected to the Senate yet and his previous office held was lieutenant governor. So it comes down to Ann Richards and Evan Bayh. Bill Clinton would be making history by choosing Ann Richards as his vice president. Evan Bayh as Vice President works better than the popular notion of Hillary choosing him in 2008. In 1996, he would be leaving his post as governor to be vice president and not as senator. My question is, does Bayh still have his unpopular record with progressives ITTL?
 
John Kerry wouldn't be a good choice for running mate. He had not been elected to the Senate yet and his previous office held was lieutenant governor. So it comes down to Ann Richards and Evan Bayh. Bill Clinton would be making history by choosing Ann Richards as his vice president. Evan Bayh as Vice President works better than the popular notion of Hillary choosing him in 2008. In 1996, he would be leaving his post as governor to be vice president and not as senator. My question is, does Bayh still have his unpopular record with progressives ITTL?

Kerry became a Senator in 1984. He'd be in his second term in 1996.
 
Bill Clinton was contemplating a preempitive war in Afghanistan in 2000. However he didn't carry through lest he leave a new war on his successor's desk.

Since he still has another term, it will be interesting to see what he does.
 
Last edited:
Top