WI: Hillary Clinton Vs. Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich in 2012

This is a scenario that personally intrigued me for a long time and wanted to look into further.

ITTL, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the nomination in 2008 during the Republican Party Presidential Primaries, but is defeated in November during the General Election by New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

With Romney's defeat in ATL 2008, the 2012 Republican field is cleared and President Clinton faces one of two Southerners in November, either Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee or Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. How might the General Election turn out against either of them? What effect might this have four years later during the 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries?
 
This is a scenario that personally intrigued me for a long time and wanted to look into further.

ITTL, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wins the nomination in 2008 during the Republican Party Presidential Primaries, but is defeated in November during the General Election by New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

With Romney's defeat in ATL 2008, the 2012 Republican field is cleared and President Clinton faces one of two Southerners in November, either Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee or Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. How might the General Election turn out against either of them? What effect might this have four years later during the 2016 Republican Party Presidential Primaries?

Hillary vs. The hypocrite who led the effort to remove her husband from office?

Let the memes and conspiracy theories fly
 
. . With Romney's defeat in ATL 2008, the 2012 Republican field is cleared and President Clinton faces one of two Southerners in November, either Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee or Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. . .
I think you’ve set up a very good ALT 2012 election. Clinton is a less skilled politician than Obama, and either Huckabee or Gingrich is likely to be better than Romney. Should be a much closer election.

In addition . . .

uspolarlevel16.png


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2017/03/31/job-polarization-2016-update/amp/

There are built-in reasons (well, almost built-in) that whoever wins in ‘08 is NOT going to be considered the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 
I think you’ve set up a very good ALT 2012 election. Clinton is a less skilled politician than Obama, and either Huckabee or Gingrich is likely to be better than Romney. Should be a much closer election.

In addition . . .

uspolarlevel16.png


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2017/03/31/job-polarization-2016-update/amp/

There are built-in reasons (well, almost built-in) that whoever wins in ‘08 is NOT going to be considered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton proved to be weaker politically than Obama. That said, I'm not so sure Hucklebee or Gingrinch would fair better than Romney. Huckabee maybe, but not Gingrich.
 
uspolarlevel16.png


https://www.google.com/amp/s/oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2017/03/31/job-polarization-2016-update/amp/

There are built-in reasons (well, almost built-in) that whoever wins in ‘08 is NOT going to be considered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

This is damn near everything.

My feeling is that the reelection chances of 2008 Hillary are incredibly complicated, and hinge on he administration's management of the stimulus program she would begin implementing before she even enters office (the auto-bailouts, begun by Bush, are a type of precursor to this program, if not a core component. They were all appropriated with different legislation, so technically don't even count as The Stimulus. The fact that they were used to justify the success of economic pump priming during the '12 re-elect is pure politics.)

On one hand, I believe Michael Grunwald's 'The New New Deal' depiction of her campaigns' stimulus ideas from early 2008 as having been pretty complacent, backwards even; on the other, in a TL where she beats Obama, or never even has to fight him to begin with, I think her economic interventionism policies come together much like BHO's did in OTL.

I'd go further.

My gut feeling is that without a Peter Orszag pushing this POTUS for health reform, it's possible that Prez H decides on a second round of stimulus towards the end of 2009 in favour of any comprehensive medical bill, and basically simply throws some minor health policy tweaks into Stimulus 2.0 where they can be achieved via new spending alone (forms of Medicaid expansion, healthcare exchange pilot schemes, that sort of thing).

I think it's likely that a second stimulus fills the void in economic demand to push those above figures forward by months, years even.

BUT... The GOP campaign to paint the Democratic policies of stimulus as 'Porkulus' were brutally smart and effective politics. There will be the same strategy in a Hillary TL.

My god, I think I'm painting a picture where Newt's razor sharp negativity has a chance in a general election.
 
. . . I think her economic interventionism policies come together much like BHO's did in OTL. . .
People forget that Pres. Obama advocated, pushed for, and signed a TAX CUT in the Spring of ‘09.

During his campaign he had talked about $500 per person, but $400 was the most he could get through Congress. He allowed economists to talk him into doing this via a change of withholding each paycheck as a way people are more likely to actually spend the money. The economists were probably right,

but . . .

It was the tax cut nobody noticed! Obama should have probably compromised, grabbed the lion’s share of both the economic and political benefits—

and should have sent out the damn checks just like Pres. Bush had done.
 
Last edited:
Gingrich is an easier out than Huck. Much higher negatives and Huck is more liberal on economic issues (which will be an asset if the economy is still sluggish).

HRC won't try too hard on healthcare after getting burned in the 1990s. Expansion of CHIP is a possibility.
 
Last edited:
Gingrich is an easier out than Huck. . .
In ‘08, Hillary was the more working-class candidate, and Barack the more technocratic, upscale progressive candidate.

She’ll have strengths he didn’t. And then just luck of the draw as far as certain things going differently, such as a Clinton tax cut getting more attention (note: send the checks).
 
From some quick research, Clinton and Edwards wanted more government spending as stimulus while Obama was more proposing tax cuts. This is all before the election, but it suggests where their instincts lie. Government spending has a greater economic multiplier then tax cuts unless the economy is running at full tilt. Which it wasn't since it was contracting.

There is some research suggesting that Obama paid an electoral penalty in 2008 for being Black. Which can be balanced against greater specific turnout from Black voters, and if his campaigning skills and political apparatus was better then Clinton's. But maybe it gets Al Franken into the Senate earlier. Clinton could likely whip votes through congress better.

Of course, both of them should have just nuked the filibuster after publicly making hay of how Republicans were willing to crash the economy with hard fiscal policy in the middle of a recession. Which need I remind anybody, is in direct contrast in how they acted for 8 years prior, in good economic times under Bush. Major tax cuts, government expansion and multiple wars. Or how they are acting now.

Then you don't have to bribe the most right-wing Democrats and Snow with as much pork or cutting out their pet hates like environmental spending and can get a far larger version passed with 50+ Senators. No need for a follow-up bill. Well maybe have some people preparing projects that can be immediately started in a second round in the latter days of the first term or early in the second term.

If Democrats hadn't focused so much on being fiscally conservative, they wouldn't have lost as much popularity. The economy needs expansionary spending so taking from Medicare to fund the ACA, Medicaid expansion isn't helping (some changes were needed, but others could have been avoided). They should have funded both and dared the Republican to try cutting them. Touching that hurt Republicans badly in 2017. Which they could have done, along with a private option, price negotiations for medication and other democratic healthcare wishes if they were passing a bill with 50, so they don't have to appease the likes of Lieberman and Nelson.

Sure it means that Republicans have a bit more of a bullhorn about deficits. But they already were banging on it anyway, and will whatever happen. Voters don't understand government spending, and won't notice the difference really. But they will notice if the economy is recovering much faster.

Clinton might also have actually passed immigration reform, instead of trying to appease Republicans by being the deporter in chief like Obama or rather his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel tried. That would have helped both the economy particularly since more of it would be drafted by Democrats and so be less draconic, solidified the Hispanic activist base behind her for 2012 (Obama got them with DACA, but this would have been even better) and added another legislative win. Clinton being in politics far longer won't have relied so much on support staff like her Chief of Staff, even if it does end up being Rahm as well.
 
HRC wouldn't have the Congressional Majorities that Obama did. No Obama = less independent turnout, less young people turnout, less GOP crossover, and less black turnout. You've also completely nixed the anti-way boost that Obama had - HRC being the nominee makes it a choice between two war-hawks who . Plus, McCain probably picks Pawlenty or Lieberman for his running mate if it's HRC since he won't feel as much of a need for a change running mate (yes HRC would be the first woman president, but she's also something of an embodiment of the establishment at this point and already hated by the GOP base, having been around at a national level for 16 years).

McCain-Pawlenty, I think that means Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota. Mark Begich (Alaska) and maybe Gordon Smith (Oregon) could get reelected too.

HRC probably is forced to work more across the aisle. There was a general agreement for a stimulus, but the dispute was over what the stimulus would look like. I imagine bailing out state governments would play a much larger role in an HRC stimulus because she'd depend on Republican votes. There'd be more pork for Republicans to convince them to come over.


There's a massive status quo bias in american healthcare. No matter what you do, if the effects aren't immediate, apparent, and positive, will scare people and cause them to go against you ... unless it's bipartisan. I think HRC would be more cautious after the 90s healthcare fight, and without the Senate Supermajority would have to rely on the GOP for any deal anyway. There might not even be significant healthcare reform.




As for the idea the economy needed expansionary spending, not all spending is equal. Spending on capital-intensive goods and investments (infrastructure, etc) has stimulative effects. Transfer payments (ie, funding medicare and medicaid) aren't that stimulative in advanced-industrial economies. Healthcare spending is primarily stimulative when you're doing stuff like treating people for ringworm and malaria in emerging economies.
 
From some quick research, Clinton and Edwards wanted more government spending as stimulus while Obama was more proposing tax cuts. This is all before the election, but it suggests where their instincts lie. Government spending has a greater economic multiplier then tax cuts . . .
Economist Paul Krugman says otherwise.

He says infrastructure projects can't pump enough money into the economy quickly enough to make enough of a difference. That you've got to rely on tax cuts.
 
Economist Paul Krugman says otherwise.

He says infrastructure projects can't pump enough money into the economy quickly enough to make enough of a difference. That you've got to rely on tax cuts.

Well, infrastructure projects aren't the only form of government spending. But yes, you're right about them, shovel-ready jobs are a myth. Infrastructure is obviousyl worth building for infrastructure's sake, but all kinds of stuff like environmental permitting and zoning and what not means you can't really actually start construction right away.

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-lesson-shovel-ready-not-so-ready/
 
Economist Paul Krugman says otherwise.

He says infrastructure projects can't pump enough money into the economy quickly enough to make enough of a difference. That you've got to rely on tax cuts.

He advocated for it as a short term measure because of speed. And publicity does matter to get consumer spending up. I didn't say no tax cuts. Just they have a lesser multiplier effect.

He backs my argument.

https://hbr.org/2009/02/paul-krugman-on-the-recession

PAUL KRUGMAN: Huge fiscal stimulus, $1.4 trillion or thereabouts. Because we want overkill. Too much of a good thing is wonderful here. So you have lots of aid to state and local governments, maybe basically just, temporarily at least, federalize the whole fiscal system, so that there’s no cutbacks in state spending. If they were federal agencies, you clearly wouldn’t be cutting back, so no cutbacks in state spending. Plus as much infrastructure, health care aid, and so on, as we can come up with, I think– lots and lots of stuff. And maybe a few tax cuts, just because they’re fast-acting. Enough to pretty much just– it’s like a massive dose of antibiotics– to wipe the deflationary forces out of the system.

Banks– effectively nationalize large, troubled, financial institutions. In a way, you don’t even have to seize the assets. These things are already– any value that they have in them is because of the hope that there’ll be a federal bailout. The combined value of the four largest money center banks is, depending on your market day, but it’s well under $200 billion. The two largest is around $50 billion. So put in a lot of money and effectively take ownership, not because you want to have bureaucrats running the banking system, but because that’s the only way to deal with their financial problems without providing a huge windfall to the stockholders. And then take the bad assets off their balance sheet. Take a bunch of their debt off the balance sheet, also, so that what you’re left with is a going enterprise. Put the debt in some modern version of the RTC, and deal with it.

Get the banking system going again. Aggressive, non-conventional monetary policy from the Fed, and maybe try to establish an inflation target somewhere above the normal range for the next five years, something like a 4% inflation target. Just, again, basically like taking a really massive dose of antibiotics to deal with the thing. And then, back to business as usual, except better bank regulation afterwards. But this is just an attempt to head off this– I mixed metaphors here– but head off this crisis at the pass.


HRC wouldn't have the Congressional Majorities that Obama did. No Obama = less independent turnout, less young people turnout, less GOP crossover, and less black turnout. You've also completely nixed the anti-way boost that Obama had - HRC being the nominee makes it a choice between two war-hawks who . Plus, McCain probably picks Pawlenty or Lieberman for his running mate if it's HRC since he won't feel as much of a need for a change running mate (yes HRC would be the first woman president, but she's also something of an embodiment of the establishment at this point and already hated by the GOP base, having been around at a national level for 16 years).

McCain-Pawlenty, I think that means Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota. Mark Begich (Alaska) and maybe Gordon Smith (Oregon) could get reelected too.

HRC probably is forced to work more across the aisle. There was a general agreement for a stimulus, but the dispute was over what the stimulus would look like. I imagine bailing out state governments would play a much larger role in an HRC stimulus because she'd depend on Republican votes. There'd be more pork for Republicans to convince them to come over.

There's a massive status quo bias in american healthcare. No matter what you do, if the effects aren't immediate, apparent, and positive, will scare people and cause them to go against you ... unless it's bipartisan. I think HRC would be more cautious after the 90s healthcare fight, and without the Senate Supermajority would have to rely on the GOP for any deal anyway. There might not even be significant healthcare reform.

As for the idea the economy needed expansionary spending, not all spending is equal. Spending on capital-intensive goods and investments (infrastructure, etc) has stimulative effects. Transfer payments (ie, funding medicare and medicaid) aren't that stimulative in advanced-industrial economies. Healthcare spending is primarily stimulative when you're doing stuff like treating people for ringworm and malaria in emerging economies.

There are far more factors working against Republicans completely independent of either Obama or Clinton that powered the Democratic wave. And your statement seems based more on Clinton's later campaign in 2016 rather than her 2008 one.

She had her own appeal in 2008. The white working class, and the regions that turned against her the most by 2016 when she adopted Obama's coalition. Less GOP crossover? How do you figure? Both of them got GOP crossover in the primaries, depending on the region.

Lieberman seems like a great war to blow the base up into civil war behind you. On the balance likely worse than Palin, who was only a punchline.
 
Last edited:
https://hbr.org/2009/02/paul-krugman-on-the-recession
“ . . . basically just, temporarily at least, federalize the whole fiscal system, so that there’s no cutbacks in state spending. . . ”
We don’t need to do anything this radical, or even talk in these terms which will be a huge distraction. But we do need the federal grants to states so they won’t lay off police, fire fighters, and teachers like New Jersey, Oklahoma, and I think a number of other states did around 2010.
 
We don’t need to do anything this radical, or even talk in these terms which will be a huge distraction. But we do need the federal grants to states so they won’t lay off police, fire fighters, and teachers like New Jersey, Oklahoma, and I think a number of other states did around 2010.

You're the one who brought up Paul Krugman. I was disputing your point, and just providing the full context of what he would do as The economy dictator. A politician will couch it in different terms. Like Federal Grants to keep 'America working'. Which would have to entail all sorts of conditions to stop states from further robbing funding for education or whatever, and just get the Federal government to make up the difference or use it for different purposes.

Of course, I could see some Red states refusing grants or kicking up a stink about some of the conditions. A completely dumb idea, but so is not expanding Medicaid and many states still did that.
 
It was the tax cut nobody noticed!
Yup. And yet this was among the least of the administration and Democratic congress' worries vis-a-vis messaging in 2009.
From some quick research, Clinton and Edwards wanted more government spending as stimulus while Obama was more proposing tax cuts. This is all before the election, but it suggests where their instincts lie. Government spending has a greater economic multiplier then tax cuts unless the economy is running at full tilt. Which it wasn't since it was contracting.
I haven't checked what wikipedia says, but Michael Grunwald in his book The New New Deal paints a picture of Clinton's economic advisers focusing on spending priorities that were not as well thought out as what Obama's advisers had in the first half of 2008; of course there is the problem that Grunwald is relying on the OT reality of the Obama economic team having continued to exist & become more powerful after the middle of 2008, while Hillary's lot dispersed before the collapse of Lehman brothers.
There was a general agreement for a stimulus, but the dispute was over what the stimulus would look like. I imagine bailing out state governments would play a much larger role in an HRC stimulus because she'd depend on Republican votes. There'd be more pork for Republicans to convince them to come over.
Of course, I could see some Red states refusing grants or kicking up a stink about some of the conditions. A completely dumb idea, but so is not expanding Medicaid and many states still did that.
But the reality of the budgeting debate that did happen in 2009 is that it was not carried out in good faith by the GOP in congress. There is copious evidence that they kept moving the goalposts as to what was economically efficacious, with midwestern Republicans like Steve Latourette reneging on their own enunciated infrastructure policies, and all sorts of legit projects being labelled 'porkulus'.

Perhaps the most famous example of this in the longterm is from 2010; newly elected Governor Christie rejecting federal funds for a new tunnel under the Hudson river, because the math showed 'America can't afford it'. Like pumping money into infrastructure to keep WALL STREET functional isn't a good investment that wouldn't be paying for itself by today.

Or, better yet, Bobby Jindal in his SOTU response pooh poohing the need to fund exploding volcano research.

Not to mention there are examples of minor/cancelled projects being labelled as vote buying schemes in a completely distorted fashion.
Furthermore, there's plenty of examples of anti-stimulus voting GOPs later taking personal credit for popular stimulus spending that did come to their home states/districts.

Otherwise, my favourite memory of the distortion of economic policy facts is that both both ARRA and PPACA paid for an upgrade in US health system digital records in 2009, 2010... and, IIRC, Newt Gingrich comes along to seek the GOP nomination in 2011 by proposing to do the same thing, because nobody had obviously ever though of it before. (In effect, while you guys are right to cite 'so, what economic activity stimulates demand?' questions, these questions just didn't really make it into popular discourse in 2009.)

Mitch McConnells 'just say no' obstructionist policy carried the day in both GOP conferences, which is how we end up with, IIRC, one vote each for ARRA from the minorities in both House and Senate.

Long story short; whatever AltHRC does, we have a pretty good idea what the electoral downside is. Can she overcome that downside in 2012?
We don’t need to do anything this radical, or even talk in these terms which will be a huge distraction. But we do need the federal grants to states so they won’t lay off police, fire fighters, and teachers like New Jersey, Oklahoma, and I think a number of other states did around 2010.
Absolutely.

But POLITICS.

I don't want to press the issue so hard as to have this thread moved immediately to chat, but the GOP obstructionist policy of 'We can't afford it, anyway it's not real infrastructure investment spending', that became the party's rallying cause in 2009, to an incredible extent. It was almost their sole reason for carrrying on in their weakest state since the LBJ '64 landslide.

The foundations of the Tea Party were born in response to both Obama's stimulus bill and attempts to pad it out with executive action, literally. That finance reporter screaming from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, about how real 'Murcans should rise up in revolt... against any attempt at govt aid to private home owners facing foreclosure? That is part of the great obstructionist 'SAY NO' manifesto that Obama faced.

I see no reason why Hillary doesn't face the same ideological/legislative push against any essentially moderate 'Nixon would've happily have done the same/Reagan quietly did do the same' spending policy she proposes.
 
But the reality of the budgeting debate that did happen in 2009 is that it was not carried out in good faith by the GOP in congress. There is copious evidence that they kept moving the goalposts as to what was economically efficacious, with midwestern Republicans like Steve Latourette reneging on their own enunciated infrastructure policies, and all sorts of legit projects being labelled 'porkulus'.

Perhaps the most famous example of this in the longterm is from 2010; newly elected Governor Christie rejecting federal funds for a new tunnel under the Hudson river, because the math showed 'America can't afford it'. Like pumping money into infrastructure to keep WALL STREET functional isn't a good investment that wouldn't be paying for itself by today.

Steve Latourette was from a district McCain won, albeit barely.

It'd principally be Republicans from districts Clinton won who'd be targeted for votes.
 
Steve Latourette was from a district McCain won, albeit barely.

It'd principally be Republicans from districts Clinton won who'd be targeted for votes.

Ideally this bringing-home-the-bacon political utility should have made a guy like the late LaTourette be in favour of funding his very own policy brief in OTL, particularly as he actually did leave politics in 2012 as a critic of the Tea Party.

He should have flipped.

Now, Paul Ryan as an ambitious, conviction conservative member from a district Obama carried, he's the kind of GOP representative who should have fallen quietly into the nay camp; instead we had moderate LaTourette as a soft remorsal no, and Ryan becoming the Great White Hope of the noisy anti-stimulus brigade in the House.

The dealmaking expectations were turned upside with Obama's election. I see no reason for a Clinton restoration to be treated any more gently.

That said, as to OP's scenario, I still do think a 2012 Gingrich hones his brute negative skills on whatever series of HRC/Pelosi/Reid legislation there is to backlash against; but a 2012 Santorum, I can see him going for the more cynical triangulatory move of, ''I would have passed a real stimulus designed by impartial economists and bureaucrats, not the Democratic county chairmen designed boondoggles that President Clinton imposed on the nation.''
 
You're the one who brought up Paul Krugman. I was disputing your point, and just providing the full context of what he would do as The economy dictator. A politician will couch it in different terms. Like Federal Grants to keep 'America working'. . .
Which is certainly a better way to talk about block grants to states!

And hey, Krugman's an economist, not a politician. And I'm happy to recommend people who are very good, but not perfect! :)

Another economist I like is Alan Blinder who wrote a 22-page paper entitled, "What Did We Learn from the Financial Crisis, the Great Recession, and the Pathetic Recovery?"
 
Yup. And yet this was among the least of the administration and Democratic congress' worries vis-a-vis messaging in 2009.
And this is what makes AH so good, and so helpful (and also demonstrates that some people like chocolate and some vanilla!) , for I very much disagree.

This pertains to the $400 per person tax cut from Spring 2009, which few citizens seemingly noticed.

I think this was among the biggest missed opportunities of Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they had gone bigger and if they'd actually sent out checks, you'd take persuadable conservatives off script. You'd even have some Fox News-watching, Rush Limbaugh-listening, hard right persons thinking, mmm, maybe Obama's not such an evil control nut afterall, at least not all the time. Just some of course, but it would also give a heck of a good talking point for people in the middle.
 
Top