What Would America Be Like Without Bill Clinton?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Deleted member 109224
I suppose there'd be a Republican Revolution in 1990 rather than 1994. Cheney would probably remain Whip and potentially rise to speaker or Majority Leader, which means no Gingrich as speaker.
I don't see why the same bad economic forces that sunk Bush wouldn't sink Dukakis. If the Gulf War high wasn't enough to save HW, I don't think Dukakis will fare much better.
If a liberal comes in, we get a bad economy, and then gets voted out, we might end up with the DLC being just as powerful in 1996 as it was in 1992 OTL.
Is Bentsen going to be the architect of Dukakis's economic plan? If so, then there won't be too much of a difference considering he was the architect of Clinton's.
The big thing about the Clintons was that he had some unique moral failings. Think of him as a 90s Democratic Trump. His side was so happy to have him after 12 years out of power and the Reagan Revolution that they pretty much accepted whatever he did. Whenever he had some kind of failing, it was the other guy's fault. Rules weren't supposed to apply to him. It all provoked a derangement on the right that I can't see emerging otherwise.
No Clinton and no Gingrich means US politics won't get as batshit in the 90s. Considering how things were already dialing up since the 60s I imagine the tone would get worse over time, but the 90s were certainly an accelerator.
If the GOP wins in 1992 and looks certain to win in 1996 like Clinton did OTL, there'd be some interesting implications. If Mario Cuomo or Ann Richards were nominee and lost in a landslide, that'd be comparably damaging to the liberal brand as Mondale '84. If Bentsen or Gore were nominee, then the moderates would take the hit (and there'd be some obvious parallels to Mondale '84 there too in the case of Mondale). I wonder if Clinton could be nominee in 1996 and proceed to lose.
Does Mondale snub Casey at convention in 1992 like Clinton did OTL? If not, then the populist pro-lifer faction of the Democratic Party won't be as alienated.
In Bill Clinton's American Experience there's a line that Trent Lott says in a current day interview, where he mentions something to the effect of, "I'll just never understand why the American People did not care that he lied," which, at the time of my first viewing I was super dismissive of, but now that we're dealing with some stuff that's better reserved for the politics chat, is kind of a feeling I'm stuck in at the moment.
Now, that being said, there's not a ton of equivalency in character but even more so in public perception of Clinton and Trump (at least during their respective terms), especially considering the divergent approval ratings they have had in strong economies. If Clinton was a 90s version of Trump, he'd have been stuck in his first term doldrums approval ratings throughout his second term as well, when the impeachment trial was going on with the backdrop of a good economy.
Also, the idea that Democrats were just happy to have him there and were falling over for him pretty much ignores his first year in office, where he was trying to drag his budget proposal through a completely Democratic congress, but having to fight a ton of battles along the way. Although it's kind of a boring read, The Agenda by Bob Woodward covers this really well.
HRC might go republican if Kennedy jr. lives...she has some affinity with Cheney and the Bushes because she was a republican before she married Bill and an admirer of Nancy Reagan.
We might see a Republican HRC vs a Democrat Trump ITTL.
We might see a Republican HRC vs a Democrat Trump ITTL.
Last edited:
Well, it'd certainly be interesting if the First Lady of Arkansas switched parties and moved to New York and ran as a Republican for Senate.
HRC would be the champion of the RINO Republicans in that timeline along with Mitt Romney.
I doubt that would happen. If Bill doesn't get a chance to run for President, then HRC probably runs for Governor or Senator from Arkansas - as a Democrat. She isn't going to switch parties because her husband didn't get elected President - they were a political team long before 1992. And if she's a nationally unknown quantity, then she doesn't have a prayer of getting elected in NY.
Reagan OTL gets credit for Bill Clinton's economic "achievements" so this is big.
Much weaker neoliberlaism but there'd be deeper changes with even [x generic southern moderate democrat]. Al Gore wouldn't be as visibly important nationally so nowhere near the nomination in 2000 for starters.
The US would be very different. Both of the Clintons knew as much about how the US system really worked as nixon and were tbh smarter, so very different. Without the Clintons you don't see early 90s silicon valley basically being given the hint to start being democratic in the form of internet censorship laws that dem judges conveniently mostly neuter. No toxic combo of cultural conservatism+bribes for hollywood to pay for it(DMCA, 98 copyright extension, allowing media consolidaiton.
Deleted member 109224
I don't see why Neoliberalism would necessarily be weaker without the Clintons. I think it depends on the Dukakis administration and the 1996 election.
If Bentsen is the architect of the Dukakis administration, then it's Clintonism with a more liberal face.
If the Republicans preside over the 90s good times from 1993-2001, then why wouldn't neoliberalism be further buttressed? I could see Kemp snagging the 1992 nomination and winning pretty handily. Otherwise there's Dole or Campbell.
In a Dole v Dukakis race, you've got two anti-charismatic gaffe-prone candidates. I wonder if Perot could clinch the win.
If Bentsen is the architect of the Dukakis administration, then it's Clintonism with a more liberal face.
If the Republicans preside over the 90s good times from 1993-2001, then why wouldn't neoliberalism be further buttressed? I could see Kemp snagging the 1992 nomination and winning pretty handily. Otherwise there's Dole or Campbell.
In a Dole v Dukakis race, you've got two anti-charismatic gaffe-prone candidates. I wonder if Perot could clinch the win.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
May I propose an alternative POD? Instead of Dukakis, what if a more traditional labor aligned Democratic nominee like Gephardt or Cuomo win in 1988?
Surely that’d impact the neoliberal drift of the OTL Democrats?
Surely that’d impact the neoliberal drift of the OTL Democrats?
The Democrats ran a candidate like that in 1984, and they got their butts kicked on Election Day. The reason Dukasis got the nomination was because he was a "non-traditional" Democrat. Nominate someone else and Bush wins without breaking a sweat.
She only had the chance of running as a democrat because Kennedy Jr. died...she is toast in NY as a democrat if Kennedy jr lives even if her husband is a president, she will be most likely a republican in any TL of Kennedy jr living.
No. First, HRC was already planning to run before the death of JFK Jr, who had ultimately decided to run for Governor - not the Senate. Second, the First Lady of the sitting Democratic President isn't going to switch parties just because she can't run for office in one state (a state which she had never lived in and had only moved to in order to run for the Senate!) If not NY, then she'd run for office elsewhere - and she'd do so as a Democrat.
This is more possible if she loses the Primaries against JFK jr. in the senate I think.