TLIAD: Waiting for Obama

I disagree with this too, though I admit that Hillary having a near-identical presidency to Obama's makes for a thoroughly boring timeline.
Of course. Some things will inevitably be similar, but the devil is in the details.
As for race—I gave Hillary a bounce midway into the figures, to account for her weaknesses and the fact that she's a woman. Race has definitely had an affect on Obama's electoral chances though.
The thing is health care reform was always the most logical big-ticket item in '09-'10. Compared to cap and trade, immigration reform, entitlement reform, or education, it actually had fairly solid party unity (especially compared to cap and trade). And it had been perhaps the biggest domestic policy subject during the Democratic Primary.

Hillary herself was always a health care wonk, and her failure in 1993-1994 made her if anything more determined to get it right the second time around. It was her campaign, not Obama's, that generally attracted the top health care people, and it seems very unlikely to me that she wouldn't have made a major push. If anything Obama initially (during the campaign) seemed likelier to emphasize cap-and-trade, education, and good government reforms, with health care as a second-tier priority.

But don't just take my word for it. From Ezra Klein (plus an excerpt from a piece by John Heileman):



And Jonathan Bernstein:

Excellent, thank you. A bit of an OTL misadventure has delayed my pace, but I'll probably still be able to wrap this one up in a day.

Since there is no Healthcare reform, are the GOP more willing to pass a healthcare reform bill? Before Obama, healthcare proposals were debated in the Senate, some even sponsored by DeMint. So my assumption is, that an Obamacare lite bill could be a GOP platform.

Even if this hadn't been retconned, the GOP would never pass HCR on its own. Romney vetoed Romneycare several times, and the GOP HCR in the '90s was a political bill that was not meant to be passed.
 
Of course. Some things will inevitably be similar, but the devil is in the details.
As for race—I gave Hillary a bounce midway into the figures, to account for her weaknesses and the fact that she's a woman. Race has definitely had an affect on Obama's electoral chances though.


Excellent, thank you. A bit of an OTL misadventure has delayed my pace, but I'll probably still be able to wrap this one up in a day.



Even if this hadn't been retconned, the GOP would never pass HCR on its own. Romney vetoed Romneycare several times, and the GOP HCR in the '90s was a political bill that was not meant to be passed.

The issue with race is this: extrapolating from the Stephens-Davidowitz is problematic. It's a decent paper, but his finding wasn't that an alternative candidate would have done 3-4 points better. His model suggested that if the most racist parts of the country were as tolerant as the least racist parts, then Obama would have gotten 3-4 percent nationally. That isn't quite the same thing as saying that a real-life alternative would have done 3-4 points better.

Keep in mind too that this paper was one of a number that tried to estimate the effect of Obama's race on the white vote or the net national vote, and his estimate is on the higher end. Other papers suggested a small negative effect or no effect.

One other interesting paper is this one, which specifically looked at a large panel of respondents and estimated that while race cost about 3 points in the white vote compared to an "average Democratic candidate," it suggested that Hillary would only have done about a half-point better for a variety of reasons. (This paper also suggests that an "average Democrat" would have won a majority of the white vote in 2008, which is on the face of it absurd - the Democrats' share of the white vote has actually been very steady since the 1970s, ranging from 39% to 43%.)

At best, I think Hillary may have been able to do, on balance, 1-2 points better than Obama. And I think there's a decent chance the net effect would have been nil, with a somewhat better performance among whites (especially in rural areas and the South) offset by lower turnout and slightly lower support among younger voters, African-Americans, and some liberal-minded swing voters.
 
How did the 2012 election go? Can you post some midterm results?
Sure thing.

United States Senate elections, 2010
Notable Republican holds:
Alaska: Alaska Independence Party Sarah Palin defeats Ethan Berkowitz and Lisa Murkowski (inc.) 40.21%-37.67%-21.98% and caucuses with the Republicans

Arizona: John McCain (inc.) defeats J. D. Hayworth and Rodney Glassman in a write-in campaign 39.52%-35.35%-22.20%
Florida: Marco Rubio defeats Charlie Crist 53.23%-45.14%
Indiana: Becky Stillman defeats Brad Ellsworth 60.42-34.87%
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell defeats Jack Conway 50.82-47.29%
Missouri: Todd Akin defeats Robin Carnahan 52.16%-43.69%
New Hampshire: Ovide Lamontagne defeats Paul Hodes 53.54%-44.23%

Ohio: Rob Portman defeats Lee Fisher 57.33%-40.23%
Utah: Mike Lee defeats Sam Granato 61.56%-32.77%

Republican gains:
Arkansas: John Boozeman defeats Blanche Lincoln 52.70%-47.30%
Colorado: Ken Buck defeats Ken Salazar 49.08%-44.38%
Connecticut: Linda McMahon defeats Richard Blumenthal and Chris Dodd (inc.) 41.74%-33.79%-24.46%
Massachusetts special (held in January): Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley 50.87%-48.76%
New York special: Rick Lazio defeats Caroline Kennedy 48.01%-46.42%

Nevada: Sharron Angle defeats Harry Reid (inc. Majority Leader) 44.55%-44.29% "None of These Candidates" got 8.25% of the vote.
North Dakota: John Hoeven defeats Tracy Potter 76.08%-22.17%
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey defeats Arlen Specter (inc.) 55.34%-42.87%
Washington: Dino Rossi defeats Patty Murray (inc.) 49.09%-48.99%
West Virginia: Shelly Moore Capito defeats Joe Manchin 48.47%-46.40%
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson defeats Russ Feingold (inc.) 52.8%-46.00%


Notable Democratic holds:
Delaware: Joe Biden (inc.) defeats Christine O'Donnell 70.00%-27.00%
Illinois: Barack Obama (inc.) defeats Mike Ditka 56.29%-42.38%
New York: Chuck Schumer (inc.) defeats Joseph DioGuardi 59.28%-37.08%

39 + 10 - 0 = 49 Republicans, 51 Democrats

Following the failure to take the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl announced his retirement from the leadership.

Senate Majority Leader: Chuck Schumer (NY)
Senate Majority Whip: Barack Obama (IL)
Senate Minority Leader: Lamar Alexander (TN)
Senate Minority Whip: John Cornyn (TX)

OTL 2009 interview said:
Bash: Any chance Joe Lieberman would run as a Republican [in 2012]?
Lieberman: I don’t know what I will run as. I like being an independent. So that’s definitely a possibility but I’d say all options are open.
Bash: Really?
Lieberman: It’s unlikely that I would run as a Republican, but I wouldn’t foreclose any options.
 
Last edited:
Comprehensive detailed comments:

On the first update (allohistorical Charlie Cook update):

- How much of the article is exactly the same as IOTL boggles the mind, and is a bit of a butterfly-killer. But as a TLIAD, I give it a pass.

Hillary, congressional Democrats, and members of the Democratic Party outside of Washington are paying dearly for having simply checked the box on an economic stimulus package in early 2009 and then quickly moving on to a liberal agenda. They passed a cap-and-trade bill, the DREAM Act, and made unionization and fair pay for women easier. In doing this, the Clinton White House neglected the mantra that had gotten them elected in 1992—“it’s the economy, stupid.”

My main gripe would be that with a 60-Senator majority for far longer than IOTL, it's likely that this 111th Congress would have been able to pass a lot more than 'just' cap-and-trade, DREAM, and unionization/fair pay. As-is, this Congress has a 61-Senator majority still until 2011, giving it a far better chance of passing an additional stimulus in 2010 when that wasn't viable IOTL.

Not to mention getting a far larger stimulus through Congress in the first place.

United States presidential election, 2008
57.36% Hillary Clinton / Evan Bayh (Democratic) 390 EVs
41.10% John McCain / Tim Pawlenty (Republican) 340 EVs

- Nitpick: You messed up McCain/Pawlenty's EVs.


T-Paw was supposed to be the "safe" pick. A risky gamble like Palin is a nonstarter for the campaign Republicans had been prepared to run for eight years.

- Again on McCain's VP plans: It's very unlikely that he'd choose Pawlenty. This comes from McCain's personality as a candidate, and the fact that he's starting from even farther behind in the polls than IOTL. Picking Pawlenty is a move for if he doesn't need to rock the boat - certainly not true when he's likely down 10 points in the polls during the summer when he was down 5 IOTL. In addition, McCain's not the type to go with the safe option (Quote from IOTL on the vice presidential pick: "I've been a risk taker all of my life.") Remember, this is the McCain who was utterly intent on Lieberman as his first choice until close to the convention, when Lindsey Graham accidentally torpedoed it in mid-October, and then decided to go with Sarah Palin as a different sort of wild card.

"In any normal year, Tim Pawlenty's a great pick, a no-brainer. But this isn't a normal year. We need to have a transformative, electrifying moment in this campaign." -Steve Schmidt (McCain's campaign director), IOTL's 2008.

- I can buy Hillary doing better than Obama. The 2008 exit polls saw her beating McCain 52-41, though she'd likely do worse if she were the actual nominee. I can, with difficulty, see her even beating McCain by 16% as you present by doubling down on a bipartisan image with Bayh as her Veep and with some butterflied differences in the campaign benefiting her, though this would certainly be a very unlikely case (I'd personally guess something more like a 10-12% victory.)

But I can't see her beating McCain by 16% and yet somehow still losing Virginia, Iowa, Indiana, and a bunch of other states.

Just as a note: If we take Kerry's 2004 numbers and do a direct proportional swing of 18.72% (the amount you have Hillary doing better than Kerry by nationally), she'd win the Kerry states plus (states you don't have Hillary winning in bold):
Iowa: D+18
New Mexico: D+18
Ohio: D+16
Nevada: D+16
Colorado: D+14
Florida: D+14
Missouri: D+11
Virginia: D+10
Arkansas: D+ 9
Arizona: D+8
North Carolina: D+6
West Virginia: D+5
Tennessee: D+4
Louisiana: D+4
Georgia: D+2
South Carolina: D+1


The rationale behind the alternate 2008 election results comes from Harvard Prof. Stephens-Davidowitz's study on how racial animus cost Obama roughtly 3-5% of the popular vote in 2008:
RacialAnimusObama.pdf

Which I can believe, but you have Hillary doing 9 points better than Obama did IOTL.


When the new Senate was sworn in, the Senate balance stood at 60-40 in favor of the Democratic Party due to the unresolved election results in Mississippi and the appointment of Becky Skillman (R-IN) by Governor Mitch Daniels to fulfill the seat of Vice President Evan Bayh. The defection of Arlen Specter (R-PA) in February changed the balance to 61-39, and it increased again in the Democrats' favor to 62-38 with the certification of Musgrove's win in Mississippi. Scott Brown (R-MA) won a 2010 special election to replace Democrat Michael Dukakis' interim appointment following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. This brought the balance back to 61-39 before the 2010 election cycle.

Slightly unbelievable to have all the candidates be exactly the same despite butterflies, but okay.

I do however seriously doubt that Hillary would refrain from health care reform. It was a giant part of her platform, and it's difficult to believe that she would refuse to enact it after campaigning so long and hard for it.

For comparison's sake, IOTL she took a huge political hit on the subject of Iraq, for refusing to call for a timetable and specific date for withdrawal - she did not want to be held to one as president, and believed firmly in the importance of flexibility from her time in Bill Clinton's White House. So I don't think health care was a fake campaign subject for her - with a 61-62 seat majority, she'd certainly have time for it (Congress would pass legislation significantly faster than their short 60-seat window IOTL), and 2008 is very different from 1994.

Notable Republican holds:
Alaska: Sarah Palin defeats Ethan Berkowitz and Lisa Murkowski (inc.) 40.21%-37.67%-21.98%
Arizona: John McCain (inc.) defeats J. D. Hayworth and Rodney Glassman in a write-in campaign 39.52%-35.35%-22.20%
Florida: Marco Rubio defeats Charlie Crist 53.23%-45.14%
Indiana: Becky Stillman defeats Brad Ellsworth 60.42-34.87%
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell defeats Jack Conway 50.82-47.29%
New Hampshire: Ovide Lamontagne defeats Paul Hodes 53.54%-44.23%
Ohio: Rob Portman defeats Lee Fisher 57.33%-40.23%
Utah: Mike Lee defeats Sam Granato 61.56%-32.77%

- Given Sarah Palin's near singleminded focus on Alaska issues and politics over national and world issues IOTL, I have difficulty believing that she'd want to run for Senator. I have further trouble believing that she'd win as an Independent, what with Troopergate and etc.
- McCain could certainly have been unseated in 2010, but you'd need someone who isn't JD Hayworth to do it.
- Given how unpopular Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment was among the Kentucky Republican base, I doubt that he could win a Republican primary in 2010 (his preferred candidate Trey Grayson lost badly IOTL.)
 
Last edited:
A Conversation in The White House, Summer 2009

"What kind of asshole says they're supporting Lieberman's filibuster of the public option the first press conference after becoming a Senator?"

"Nothing to be done."

"I'm beginning to come around to that opinion. Perhaps we should have been more lenient on Lieberman."

"And reward bad behavior? No, he deserved to lose those chairmanships. He's more of a Republican than Arlen Specter ever was."

---

December 11, 2010

BREAKING: SENATORS JOE LIEBERMAN (CT), BEN NELSON (NE) CHANGE AFFILIATION TO "INDEPENDENT," NO WORD ON WHO TO BACK FOR LEADER
 
[FONT=&quot]
David Frum said:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Waterloo[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]September 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may try to distract themselves by focusing more on the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, of the “appeasement of Hamas” (ignoring that President Clinton is on similar pages to Israel’s Prime Minister Livni on the issue), or by emphasizing the “Clinton-Waxman-Markey War on Coal.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The unpopularity of the final law may cheer Republicans hoping to compensate for today’s expected vote with a win in the November 2010 elections. But:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. Healthcare would be the Clinton’s Waterloo – again.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: this Clinton was elected with 55% of the vote, not her husband’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course, the Clintons have been through a healthcare fight before, and have had years to ponder over their 1994 failure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is much bigger than it has to be. This is essentially a copy of the 1993-1994 Clintoncare. The White House initially was open to a bipartisan plan that had a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to the then-failed Clintoncare.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hillary Clinton badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without regional alliances, rolling back the George W. Bush tax cuts – without weighing so heavily on small business, which now suffers under an onerous employer mandate – without expanding Medicare and Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide next November, President Clinton would veto any attempt to appeal or weaken her lifelong cause. And even if she didn’t, the goodies are here to stay. Connecticut and Cornhusker Kickbacks notwithstanding, almost all of the actual policies in the law remain more popular than the law as a whole. How many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Clinton to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Follow David Frum on Twitter: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]@davidfrum[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Largely unchanged from OTL.
 
10 Takeaways From The 2010 Midterms
NPR said:
Whew. That's over. Well, pretty much. They are still counting votes in some areas where the elections are neck-and-neck.
Tuesday was some kind of day. There were 509 major contests — 435 congressional, 37 Senate and another 37 state gubernatorial races. More than 100 congressional races were considered highly competitive. The Democrats lost the House of Representatives, but held on — by a pinkie nail — to the Senate.
On the morning after, we look back at lessons learned — small and large — about people and politics.
We now know, for instance, that there is unhappiness with both major political parties across the board. We know that politicians probably need a foil in order to win. The Republican congressional candidates had one, exemplified by their battle cry: "Fire Nancy Pelosi." It worked. Pelosi has been fired as speaker of the House. She fired them up. The Democrats didn't have the equivalent enemy.
We know there are rising stars of all stripes — Florida has the bipartisan set of Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Alex Sink, Connecticut the Republican Linda McMahon, and South Carolina the Democratic Vincent Sheheen. And fallen stars, too. No-longer Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in California taught us that you can spend millions and millions of money and still lose. More than $3.5 billion was spent in this election cycle, according to CNN, making 2010 the most expensive midterms in history.
We study monumental moments such as Tuesday's elections and try to glean meaning from them. And as the dust settles, we ask questions of some keen-eyed scholars and strategists. Such as ...
What did we learn from the 2010 midterm elections about:
1) The So-Called Gender Gap. Kathleen Dolan, author of the 2004 book Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates, says the gender gap usually finds a majority of women voting for Democratic candidates and a majority of men voting for Republicans. This proved exceptionally so in 2008, when Hillary Clinton was on the ballot.

In 2010, however, "there appears to be a bit of a shift in that pattern," Dolan says. "In several races around the country, the size of the gender gap was much smaller than usual and, in other races, a plurality or majority of women voters chose Republican candidates." For example, according to CNN exit polls, Democratic senatorial candidates in Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Utah lost among both female and male voters — leading to the election of Republican senators in each of these states. At the same time, Democratic senatorial candidates in California, Delaware Illinois, New York, and West Virginia won with a majority of votes from both women and men, which demonstrates a reversal of the typical pattern of male support for Republican candidates.
While a handful of races conformed to the usual gender gap theories, Dolan says, "what the unsettled patterns of voting among women and men in this election tell us is that women are subject to the same forces and trends that men voters are. Even with the first woman president in office, in a year when the national mood pulls voters toward Republican candidates, there is little reason to expect that women as a group would stand impervious to this pull. And much of this movement toward Republican candidates among women was likely among independent voters as it was among men."
2) The Limits of Barack Obama. Because of the high-visibility endorsement of many Democrats in tight races — such as senatorial candidates Paul Hodes in New Hampshire, Harry Reid in Nevada, and Caroline Kennedy in New York and gubernatorial candidates Jerry Brown in California, Alex Sink in Florida, and Vincent Sheheen in South Carolina — by the runner-up in the 2008 Democratic nomination, many political observers assumed that 2010 would be the year of the "Second Comeback Kid," a nickname that has rankled the White House.

Dolan, who teaches political science at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, says there is little evidence that Obama's endorsement of candidates had much of an impact. It's true that Brown, Sink, and Sheheen won, but Hodes, Reid, and Kennedy lost their races. Such a mixed record for the most in-demand Democrat this cycle dampens the hope among party liberals that he may challenge the President for a rematch in 2012 (Obama has denied such talk, for what it's worth.)

3) Taking The Low Road. Candidates in 2010 "didn't need to run negative campaigns," says Trevor FitzGibbon of the left-leaning public relations firm FitzGibbon Media. "Outside groups ... did the dirty work for them."
The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year, says FitzGibbon, "allows corporations to buy the elections, and those corporations played on the fears of an electorate already high with anxiety due to a struggling economy."
4) Taking The High Road. "Senatorial candidate Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and congressional candidate Tom Perriello of Virginia took the high road and fought for their principles — but at the end of the day, they couldn't withstand the money that the corporations spent," FitzGibbon says. "That's why it was critical for the Democrats to pass the DISCLOSE Act earlier this year — even though its delay in implementation may have given corporations more incentive to go harder against Democrats in a year where their donations could remain secret and shady. But DISCLOSE is not far enough. If the lame-duck Congress passes the Fair Elections Now Act, they can go out on a high note and give the finger to the corporations, the Roberts Court and the new 'RepubliCorps.' "
5) Democrats Who Have Supported President Clinton. "For the time being, at least, they have lost their legislative mojo, their larger sense that history was at their backs, that people think they are clearly in the right. And their leader in the Senate has lost his seat," says Mac McCorkle, who teaches the politics of public policy at Duke University and the University of North Carolina. "So before deciding on their next moves, they will probably want to see how the Republican challenge starts to shape up or splinter in Congress and how President Clinton starts to negotiate things — beginning with his press conference today."
6) Democrats Who Have Not Supported Clinton. Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator-elect from West Virginia, who ran against Clinton's environmental reforms, and remaining "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House — Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, for instance — who voted against Clinton's health care reform plan and survived, "probably feel empowered by their independence from Obama," McCorkle says. "But at the same time they probably feel very endangered — like bomb survivors who avoided the first wave of danger, but worry that another wave is coming and will be able to target them even more closely and accurately." And that next bomb may well come from an irate White House.

7) The Victorious Tea Party Candidates. They stuck to their guns, says Diana L. Banister of the right-leaning public relations firm Shirley & Banister. "Even in the races where the national media and in some cases the Republican establishment tried to vilify the candidates, they stood firm to their conservative principles and fought hard to win. Most of these candidates will now have an opportunity to act on those principles in Congress and communicate why those values are important to the future of the country."
8) The Outlook For Moderate Republicans.While moderate Republicans triumphed in Senate races in Connecticut, New York, and Washington, these are anomalies in a night that represents an upswing of the conservative base of the party. "With this election 'moderate' Republicans will hopefully understand that the American people will not stand for a government that is too big and spends too much," Banister says. "There is no compromise on fundamental Republican issues of lower taxes, less spending and more freedom for all Americans. This is what this election should tell all Republicans and if they don't take on these issues immediately they will be ousted just like many Democrats were yesterday."
9) The Challenges Ahead For President Clinton. "If you are President Clinton," says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, "you've still got the Senate; you've got the presidency. The Republicans control the House, so there's some blame to be shared if things go wrong."
Brinkley also believes that Clinton, in the wake of the Democratic defeats yesterday, has to think beyond the quagmire of domestic problems. "She has avoided too much of foreign affairs, perhaps to atone for the unpopularity of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think President Clinton needs to make her signature initiative in the field of diplomacy," Brinkley says. "I would go with China like President Nixon did in 1972, spend time in homes with the Chinese people, visit the Great Wall, work on U.S. and Chinese trade and environmental and human-rights policies."
Rather than just focus on issues at home, Brinkley says, "maybe Clinton should get known for something else. She hasn't traveled much."
10) The American People. "Every midterm election, the American public gets buyer's remorse," says Brinkley, who also teaches history at Rice University and is a fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston. "It happened to Ronald Reagan in 1982. Then the Democrats picked up steam and it happened to Bill Clinton in 1994. There's always a bit of a backlash."
"We're a very impatient society," Brinkley says. "People want problems solved quickly. It's a bit of a curse that the art of winning the presidency is to talk with grand rhetorical flourishes. But the act of being a president is to deliver on those promises. We are finding out that it's often tougher than candidates think."
We are also discovering other things about ourselves. We are a nation in flux. A work in progress. And regress. A country that booms and busts at the same time.
And there is one more lesson from the midterm elections. We should take notice of what happened on Nov. 2, 2010. History was made. Some say that by not remembering it, we will be condemned to repeat it — in 2012 or 2014.
We know others who would like that repetition very much.
 
Sure thing.

United States Senate elections, 2010
Notable Republican holds:
Alaska: Sarah Palin defeats Ethan Berkowitz and Lisa Murkowski (inc.) 40.21%-37.67%-21.98%
Arizona: John McCain (inc.) defeats J. D. Hayworth and Rodney Glassman in a write-in campaign 39.52%-35.35%-22.20%
Florida: Marco Rubio defeats Charlie Crist 53.23%-45.14%
Indiana: Becky Stillman defeats Brad Ellsworth 60.42-34.87%
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell defeats Jack Conway 50.82-47.29%
New Hampshire: Ovide Lamontagne defeats Paul Hodes 53.54%-44.23%
Ohio: Rob Portman defeats Lee Fisher 57.33%-40.23%
Utah: Mike Lee defeats Sam Granato 61.56%-32.77%

Republican gains:
Arkansas: John Boozeman defeats Blanche Lincoln 52.70%-47.30%
Colorado: Ken Buck defeats Ken Salazar 49.08%-44.38%
Connecticut: Linda McMahon defeats Richard Blumenthal and Chris Dodd (inc.) 41.74%-33.79%-24.46%
Massachusetts special (held in January): Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley 50.87%-48.76%
New York special: Rick Lazio defeats Caroline Kennedy 48.01%-46.42%
Nevada: Sharron Angle defeats Harry Reid (inc. Majority Leader) 44.55%-44.29% "None of These Candidates" got 8.25% of the vote.
North Dakota: John Hoeven defeats Tracy Potter 76.08%-22.17%
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey defeats Arlen Specter (inc.) 55.34%-42.87%
Washington: Dino Rossi defeats Patty Murray (inc.) 49.09%-48.99%
West Virginia: Shelly Moore Capito defeats Joe Manchin 48.47%-46.40%
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson defeats Russ Feingold (inc.) 52.8%-46.00%

Notable Democratic holds:
Delaware: Joe Biden (inc.) defeats Christine O'Donnell 70.00%-27.00%
Illinois: Barack Obama (inc.) defeats Mike Ditka 56.29%-42.38%
New York: Chuck Schumer (inc.) defeats Joseph DioGuardi 59.28%-37.08%

39 + 10 - 0 = 49 Republicans, 51 Democrats

Following the failure to take the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl announced his retirement from the leadership.

Senate Majority Leader: Chuck Schumer (NY)
Senate Majority Whip: Barack Obama (IL)
Senate Minority Leader: Lamar Alexander (TN)
Senate Minority Whip: John Cornyn (TX)

Quick one, How is McConnell a Rep Hold in 2010 if you have him defeated in 2008? Surely Kentucky would not come up again till 2014?
 
Perhaps you could change one thing in 2010. Sarah Palin might not run as a Republican...but AIP...

tumblr_inline_mz91g75wzm1qbd7br.png
 
Quick one, How is McConnell a Rep Hold in 2010 if you have him defeated in 2008? Surely Kentucky would not come up again till 2014?

Presumably the Republican leadership still managed to force Jim Bunning to retire in 2010 and McConnell ran for that seat to get back into the senate, winning the race that Rand Paul won IOTL. It's a Republican hold in terms of the party retaining the seat rather than the candidate.
 
- How much of the article is exactly the same as IOTL boggles the mind, and is a bit of a butterfly-killer. But as a TLIAD, I give it a pass.
This isn't just any TL about a Hillary presidency, but a Hillary presidency that ends up as disillusioning as Obama's by 2014.

Nitpick: You messed up McCain/Pawlenty's EVs.

Remember, this is the McCain who was utterly intent on Lieberman as his first choice until close to the convention, when Lindsey Graham accidentally torpedoed it in mid-October, and then decided to go with Sarah Palin as a different sort of wild card.
Pawlenty was McCain's reluctant second choice ITTL after Lieberman. I have plans for Lieberman that don't work with him as the running mate of McCain.

Which I can believe, but you have Hillary doing 9 points better than Obama did IOTL.
Math.
simon-garfunkel-3.gif
Thanks though.
I suppose I could have made it McCain/Lieberman and kept the score, but then I would surely have to change the map... Eh. While it is probable Hillary would have won Iowa and Virginia with this margin, I suppose I have to reveal my hand that these are stylistic choices referencing Mark Warner's recent near-defeat and Iowa's antipathy to the Clintons. In a TLIAD I think that thematic aim is more important than going with the most probable outcome.

Presumably the Republican leadership still managed to force Jim Bunning to retire in 2010 and McConnell ran for that seat to get back into the senate, winning the race that Rand Paul won IOTL. It's a Republican hold in terms of the party retaining the seat rather than the candidate.

Yes, that is correct. Rand Paul's rise is averted (or at least delayed) ITTL.

Perhaps you could change one thing in 2010. Sarah Palin might not run as a Republican...but AIP...
Oh. I had originally had her primarying Murkowski, but this is much better. :D Thank you Orville. Still gonna caucus with the Republicans though.
 
Last edited:
You can't make most of this stuff up.
Fox News said:
Eight White House Lies About the Looming Debt-Ceiling 'Disaster'
July 8, 2011
If Congress and the president don't raise the debt ceiling, the consequences will be disastrous, politicians and pundits tell us, -- the equivalent of an economic Armageddon. President Clinton warns that the consequences are so dire, but refuses to compromise to make an agreement. According to Treasury Secretary Roger Altman, failure to raise the debt ceiling limit will cause the United States to default and "cause a financial crisis potentially more severe than the crisis from which we are only now starting to recover.”
On Thursday, he renewed these warnings. And President Clinton alarmed retired Americans this week: "I will not submit to economic blackmail, but if the Republican Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. There may not be money in the coffers to do it."
But the list of terrible things to come, if the government is stopped from continued deficit spending, goes on. Failure to raise the ceiling, it is warned, will dramatically raise mortgage interest rates, cause housing sales to plunge, create panic on world financial markets, and destroy the value of the dollar.
Gene Sperling, head of his Counsel of Economic Advisers, went so far this week as to blame the continued slow economic recovery on those few politicians who are against raising the debt ceiling. "t's important we remove this wet blanket of uncertainty that is permeating the private sector where they don't know that the government -- there are people actively advocating that the government declare it's not going to pay its bills," he told MSNBC. Yet, the slow recovery has been going on for over two years, well before Republicans obtained control of the House of Representatives in November 2010 and obtained control of the Senate earlier this year.
A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that Americans oppose increasing the debt ceiling, by a 64 to 29 percent margin.
Mrs. Clinton dismissed this finding recently and, as usual, she believes she knows better. According to her, Americans just don't understand the complexities of the arguments: "Let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury (bond) auction goes. They shouldn't. . . . They've got a lot of other things on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. . . . Now, I will say that some of the professional politicians know better. And for them to say that we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. They know better."
But the general public is right. There is an overload from all the doomsday predictions. Earlier this year, before the debt limit was hit on May 21, the Clinton administration already used the same scare tactics.
Here's a look at seven lies the Clinton administration is pushing on the American people:
1) Not increasing the debt ceiling means the U.S. government will default on its debt. This is probably the biggest lie that almost all other claims arise from. Default occurs if the government stops paying interest on the money that it owes. Not increasing the debt ceiling only means that the government can't borrow more money and that spending is limited to the revenue the government brings in. And, with interest payments on the debt making up less than a ninth of revenue, there is no reason for any risk of insolvency.
Time after time, congress and the president have failed to agree on a debt ceiling increase and still there has been no default. Examples include: December 1973, March 1979, November 1983, December 1985, August 1987, November 1995, December 1995 to January 1996, and September 2007.
Indeed, this really shouldn't even be a point of debate. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that the debt payments come first before any other spending.
2) Until the debt ceiling is raised, uncertainty over the payment of U.S. debts will create chaos in financial markets. Given that the Constitution mandates U.S. debts be paid before any other spending and that sufficient money will be available to cover our interest payments, the only uncertainty arises from Obama's actions. Will he try not to pay the interest? Even a delay of a day in paying this interest will create a default. Court action could eventually force Obama to follow the Constitution but a default would have already occurred. But there is a simple way to end this uncertainty: have the president declare now that he will indeed follow the Constitution and make those payments.
Failure to increase the debt ceiling clearly doesn't mean default. During one three week period at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1996, some of the government shutdown when a similar battle over the debt ceiling occurred, but there was no default. President Bill Clinton used the revenues that were coming in to pay the interest on the debt.
3) Clinton doesn't know if there is money to send off Social Security checks on August 3. The president knows very well how much revenue will be available to send out checks on August 3. Indeed, enough money will be available to not only pay the interest, but to also cover all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and children's health insurance, defense, federal law enforcement and immigration, all veterans benefits, Response to natural disasters. Terrifying elderly people who are dependent on their Social Security checks may make good politics, but it is unconscionable. Yet, these scare tactics aren't really very surprising. The Democrats behaved no differently when they ran television ads bizarrely depicting Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff.
4) Mortgage interest rates will rise dramatically if the debt ceiling isn't increased. Not true. Indeed, the opposite is more likely, for not raising the debt ceiling stops the government borrowing more money. Less borrowing by the government could lower mortgage rates as there would be more lending available for potential homeowners. The interest rate paid by the government might go down for a second reason. Just as banks charge individuals a lower interest rate for those who have less debt compared to their incomes, the same is true for governments.
5) There is no need for a debt deal. Despite Clinton’s insistence that she will not hold the economy to so-called "blackmail," if the debt ceiling must be raised, it is only natural that a deal be reached that cuts spending and taxes in the future. If the American people do not stand up to this tax-and-spend liberalism now, they never will. But a default is preferable to a bad deal. All these claims of urgency are part of some grand strategy to scare people and avoid our constitutional obligation to limited government, but that strategy depends on voters not knowing about the Constitution.

6) If government spending is cut, there will be a depression. Clinton promised that a "temporary" increase in government spending would "stimulate" the economy, but he is now telling us that we can't cut that "temporary" increase -- that we are stuck with it. If Obama's program -- including a 28 percent spending hike since 2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits -- worked so well, why has our unemployment rate risen more than elsewhere? The European Union, Canada, South America, Japan, and Australia have all had smaller increases in unemployment compared to the U.S. after Clinton's so-called "stimulus." We have also had these shutdowns before and the numbers don’t show any negative impact on unemployment or GDP. Figures for the longest shutdowns during the fourth quarter of 1995 and the first quarter of 1996 are available here. The Clintons were in office in the time, and so have no excuse for not knowing this information.

7) The value of the dollar will plummet. Again, the supposed collapse occurs when we default. But there won't be any default. In addition, less government borrowing means lower future taxes, thus making the U.S. a more attractive place to invest. More foreign investment will actually cause the dollar to rise. It is time for President Clinton and her administration to stop scaring people. Cutting government spending back to its 2007 level won't be the end of the world.
8) Our soldiers abroad will be in danger. The President has been claiming that a default would leave the United States too economically weak to support our troops overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. In addition, she warns that the United Nations peacekeeping coalitions in Libya and Yemen will be endangered, with their high amount of US personnel involved. Such talk is utter falsehood. The United States military stands supreme, and always will. Again, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that our war debts will be repaid before all else.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
John R. Lott, Jr. is a columnist for FoxNews.com. He is an economist and was formerly chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. Lott is also a leading expert on guns and op-eds on that issue are done in conjunction with the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is the author of eight books including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench" Bascom Hill Publishing Group (September 17, 2013). Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.
 
Last edited:
I'm intrigued by this TLIAD and looking forward where it will end up.

However, would the Hillary forget that "it's the economy stupid"?

She is a shrewd politician, and whatever state their marriage may or may not be in, her and Bill are still political partners. I think while Health Care would centre prominently, I think there would be a robust plan to get the economy going in 2009, especially given the democratic control of Congress.

Also, I don't believe you will see the same level of hatred towards a Clinton Administration, the Clintons are hardly loved by the GOP, but as someone who lives outside of the US and follows US Politics very closely, it's very apparent that much of the opposition Obama faces was and is due to his race. Gender might motivate a good number of folks to hatred for Clinton - but I doubt the Tea Party gains as much strength without the racist hatred of Obama.
 
I'm intrigued by this TLIAD and looking forward where it will end up.

However, would the Hillary forget that "it's the economy stupid"?

She is a shrewd politician, and whatever state their marriage may or may not be in, her and Bill are still political partners. I think while Health Care would centre prominently, I think there would be a robust plan to get the economy going in 2009, especially given the democratic control of Congress.
Why are you assuming that a 2014 article necessarily gives a correct and informed view of what actually happened in 2009? ;) A larger stimulus was passed ITTL, but it still wasn't enough.


"Why believe him rather than the others?"
"Who believes him?"
"Everybody. It's the only version they know."


Also, I don't believe you will see the same level of hatred towards a Clinton Administration, the Clintons are hardly loved by the GOP, but as someone who lives outside of the US and follows US Politics very closely, it's very apparent that much of the opposition Obama faces was and is due to his race. Gender might motivate a good number of folks to hatred for Clinton - but I doubt the Tea Party gains as much strength without the racist hatred of Obama.
Oh boy, you should read up on the 1990s. Race-baiting is a good way to tear down Obama for the Republicans IOTL, but ITTL they would go personal like they did the last time they were in "Opposition Mode."
 
Last edited:
Also, I don't believe you will see the same level of hatred towards a Clinton Administration, the Clintons are hardly loved by the GOP, but as someone who lives outside of the US and follows US Politics very closely, it's very apparent that much of the opposition Obama faces was and is due to his race. Gender might motivate a good number of folks to hatred for Clinton - but I doubt the Tea Party gains as much strength without the racist hatred of Obama.
Hillary Clinton was the devil for the GOP from 1992 to 2008. Obama's race changed the flavor of the vicious opposition, but not the intensity. They've been calling Clinton a socialist, communist, Nazi, lesbian, murderess for decades. Note that there were conspiracy theories of Bill Clinton assassinating his enemies and being a rapist and a war criminal. Just Google "Hillary Clinton evil" or "Hillary Clinton socialist". She's the one plausible president the GOP base might actually despise more than Obama, as they would have had 16 years of extra practice demonizing her.
 
The Huffington Post said:
ALEXANDER: "A GRAND BARGAIN IS ALMOST AT HAND"
July 15, 2011
tumblr_inline_mhcrxtV3FW1qz4rgp.jpg


WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Lamar Alexander has accepted President Clinton's offer to make historic cuts to the federal government and the social safety net, saying in a statement Saturday evening that his caucus is "not disagreeable" towards the tax increases Democrats insisted on as part of the bargain.
Alexander made his decision after speaking with the president by phone on Saturday afternoon, a day ahead of a major White House meeting with Democratic and GOP leadership, a Republican source familiar with situation said.
Clinton had proposed to Republicans a "grand bargain" that accomplished a host of individual things that are unpopular on their own, but that just might pass as a huge package jammed through Congress with default looming. The President offered to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts on the table in exchange for a tax hike of roughly $100 billion per year over 10 years. Meanwhile, government spending would be cut by roughly three times that amount. For a while, the GOP's dogmatic opposition to tax increases seemed to be costing it the best opportunity to roll back social programs it has long targeted for a generation. Alexander's statement has put that talk largely to rest.

However, Speaker of the House John Boehner insisted that more cuts are needed, somewhere in the range of $2 trillion.
"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, this White House will not pursue a the debt reduction agreement that we need," Boehner said in a statement. "I would be disappointed if their stubbornness and obstruction on this issue led us to focus on producing a smaller measure, even if it still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."

When word leaked out this past week that Clinton was proposing cuts to entitlements, Democrats in Congress and outside advocates kicked their opposition into high gear, making it clear that no bargain would win their support if it contained any cuts to Social Security or Medicare beneficiaries. In addition to Tea Party opposition to a deal that raises taxes, this Democratic opposition seems to have nearly broken the back of the bargain. However, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt appears to have successfully used Democratic opposition to the deal to reign in more moderate Republican opposition to the deal.

UPDATE: White House Communications Director Howard Wolfson issued the following statement:
"The President believes that solving our fiscal problems is an economic imperative. But in order to do that, we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree.


The President is disappointed that the Republican Congress has been unable to work with us to take a historic step forward that would have dramatically reduced our long-term deficit without burdening working Americans with policies of austerity. We asked Republicans to consider a more balanced approach that would have required shared sacrifice, but they have been unwilling to do this until today. This is welcome news.


Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington. The President believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things. And so tomorrow, she will make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challengeThis bargain leaves us in better shape economically over the next ten years, as it substantially reduces our debt.


And another thing. This is completely unconnected to the debt ceiling. The United States of America does not submit to economic blackmail. We still need to make sure we avert the economic catastrophe that would occur if we were to let America fail to pay its bills for the first time in our history, and we are confident that Congress will. However, the President is perfectly willing to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment if this Republican Congress fails to do their job. Americans have a right to expect their leaders to rise above partisanship and do the right thing for our economy and the middle class."



The OTL article is linked. I had a lot of fun with this one.

 
Why Bill Wouldn't Have Handled This Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Hillary
August 2, 2011
“Nobody should assume we’re going to have a debt-limit extension,” John Boehner warned. “If the vote were held today, it would not pass.” Sound familiar? This was Boehner in November of 1995, when he was the House Republican Conference chairman and his party was refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless President Bill Clinton agreed to a package of sweeping spending cuts. The big difference is that back then, Republicans backed down, whereas today they’re on the verge of winning major policy concessions in exchange for a deal, though the White House insists the two are unconnected. How did President Bill Clinton head off this threat where Hillary Clinton failed?
The story begins in October 1995, when, in exchange for raising the debt limit, Republicans demanded $245 billion in tax cuts, welfare overhaul, restraints on Medicare and Medicaid growth, and a balanced budget within seven years. The GOP’s plan, argued Boehner, was “the only one […] certified to eliminate the deficit and save our nation’s future from bankruptcy.” But from the very beginning, Bill Clinton would have none of it. “If they send me a budget that says simply, ‘You take our cuts or we’ll let the country go into default,’ I will veto it,” Clinton said at the time, calling Republican tactics “economic blackmail.” Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin held the same firm line.
Republicans appeared to dig in their heels in early November, when the House passed a bill increasing the debt limit—but only through the next month—as well as a continuing resolution that included higher Medicare premiums and other spending cuts. Instead of attempting to negotiate over the cuts, Clinton simply vetoed both bills. “America has never liked pressure tactics, and I would be wrong to permit these kind of pressure tactics to dramatically change the course of American life,” Clinton said. “I cannot do it, and I will not do it.” The government shut down.
Although the budget standoff was resolved in early January, the debt limit issue remained. House majority leader Dick Armey went on “Meet the Press” to again demand spending cuts in return for a debt limit increase. In response, Rubin sent a sharp letter to Speaker Newt Gingrich, in which he warned that Congress only had until March 1 until the Treasury defaulted on its obligations. Reacting to the news, Moody’s rating agency announced that it was considering downgrading the rating on U.S. Treasury bonds. Republicans quickly folded, offering to raise the debt ceiling in return for some more modest provisions.
On March 28, 1996, Congress sent Clinton a bill raising the debt ceiling and enacting two popular Contract with America initiatives—easing the regulatory burden on small businesses and slightly altering the tax structure for Social Security recipients. Clinton signed the bill two days later, and with that, the debt limit fight was over.

THE MOST CRUCIAL difference between Bill Clinton’s debt limit battle and Hillary's is that, in 1996, the Republicans were bluffing. No Republican seriously considered defaulting on the debt to be a viable option. “It was essentially unthinkable,”Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton, told me. “There was nobody in the Congress who really contemplated forcing a default.” Larry Haas, communications director for the OMB from 1994 to 1997, agreed. “Everybody in the White House and on Capitol Hill knew that the conflict had to end at some point,” Hass told me.
This time around, default seems like a real possibility. Some Republicans, such as Allen West, have argued that default would be a form of “tough love,” necessary for the country to get its finances in order. Other Republicans simply don’t believe that the government will default if the debt ceiling is not raised. “Even Bill Clinton, I think, would have had a very difficult time during this current crop of Republicans,” Brookings senior fellow Isabel Sawhill told me.
The second big difference is that in 1995, the economy was roaring. As a result, Republican warnings of coming economic doomsday did not seem credible, argues Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997. “There was no way the Republicans could link the debt ceiling to the budget because the budget deficit was shrinking very rapidly,” Reich told me. In that context, government shutdowns made Republicans, not Bill, appear irresponsible on budgetary issues.
Hillary’s economic situation, of course, couldn’t be more different. Growth has slowed, and the gap between spending and revenues is much wider. This time, a ratings downgrade is not out of the question. “Nobody, to the best of my memory, took all of that terribly seriously,” Reich said of the 1996 warning.
Though both Clintons have employed no-compromise strategies, the Republicans this time around seem prepared to follow through with their rhetoric. Even Bill would have come around to a grand bargain had the Republicans seriously threatened the credit rating of the United States in 1996.

“There’s no sense dying on a small cross.” – Senate Minority Whip Barack Obama on the signing of the "Grand Bargain," quoting the father of Sen. Joe Biden
 
Top