WI: Hillary Clinton Won 2008
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
I don't know if Ted Strickland was interested in being Vice President, because of his pro-life and other conservative stances. Not to mention, he'd be leaving Ohio so soon after having served as Governor for only two years (January 8th, 2007 - January 15th, 2009). Maybe if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination in 2008, his attitude would have changed? There's no guarantee.
Clinton Vs. Mike Huckabee in 2012 would work. In 2008, Huckabee had to contend with John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson, which proved to be too much for him in OTL. Just have Romney win the nomination in 2008. Clinton's victory knocks out both McCain and Romney, and Huckabee has a smoother time sailing to the nomination in 2012. He'll have to contend with other Conservatives such as OTL's Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich, and Establishment favorites like Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and Mitch Daniels. That's not too tall of an order for him, especially if he comes in third in ATL's Republican Party presidential primaries of 2008. I think Marco Rubio makes a good Vice Presidential nominee for him, because Rubio supported him in OTL 2008 before he was even a Senator.
Could Huckabee being McCain's Vice Presidential nominee give him an extra boost in ATL 2012?
Last edited:
...wait, what the hell did Bill Clinton do in South Carolina?
The Clintons were accused of injecting race into the campaign, becoming increasingly negative, and Bill lost his temper, and turned off people as bitter and desperate, and then he derided Obama's victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's, which blacks took as an attempt to marginalize him because he was black, and so make him 'the black candidate'. The Clintons, previously and later having a great relationship with blacks, got blown away by Obama, and if Bill Clinton hadn't campaigned in SC but made himself more useful in Super Tuesday states that may have been lessened and so they get more delegates and a lead they keep through March before winning Ohio, Texas and then Pennsylvania.
Strickland wouldn't be the pick because a) he wasn't interested and b) he was only 2 years into his term as governor, making him slightly more inexperienced. for someone like HRC in 2008, Bayh would be the perfect pick because he's safe, comes from a swing state where he's fondly remembered as a great governor but a decent enough senator, and has most importantly MONEYYYY (the 10.4 million or so that he's built up came primarily from his raising money for when he ran in 2008.)
To be quite honest with you, either one of those tickets would've won an election. They lost because of Lieberman and Edwards (respectively) and the baggage they brought to the campaign.
Edwards had baggage, but not yet in 2004. He was an OK pick, didn't help but didn't harm and don't see why the alternatives would have given Kerry the win.
Gore, given anything could have won it, probably would have won with Bayh. Mind you, the rationale for Lieberman may have been that he'd help with the Jewish vote in Florida, so it's possible Bush still wins. IMO, Kerry/Bayh would have lost but it'd be ever so slightly closer, and Gore/Bayh would have won.
But that's off topic.
Would Hillary get a smaller congressional majority, the same, or bigger? Given Obamacare and the stimulus passed by the skin of their teeth, this is quite important.
Probably in between same and smaller. Don't know about 2010 though.
Getting back to the topic on hand: you really don't know much about Gore's rationale do you? Gore wanted to stay independent from Clinton which is what he shouldn't have been doing. Lieberman was the most critical of the Lewinsky affair. Go figure.
Edwards had baggage in 2004 as being inexperienced (no prior political experience apart from one term in the senate), just a pretty boy, what Kerry didn't have. Bayh was a pretty boy too, albeit a knowledgable and smart one. Bayh was also a great orator and a good attack dog.
Oh yes I know that too, but the question is, does a change of VP mean a change of strategy for Gore?
Oh yeah, if he gets a better spin doctor, definitely! They can spin the Lewinsky scandal and Bush's "family values and ethics" stuff into "these guys tried to impeach him for being a Democrat!" and "What is it about 8 years of more peace and more prosperity and more jobs that George Bush doesn't like?"
I don't know if Evan Bayh made John Kerry's shortlist per se, but I know he definitely made Al Gore's. From what I read, Kerry's shortlist consisted of all former rivals during the Democratic Presidential primaries of 2004 (OTL's John Edwards, Carol Moseley Braun, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, and Bob Graham).
Wouldn't Bayh be helpful in Indiana and Ohio during both elections? (What both Gore and Kerry needed to win their respective elections). Maybe Bayh in 2004 helps the Democratic National Ticket carry Iowa and flip Ohio, but still loses Indiana, albeit very close.
I'll admit, if Hillary Clinton could not run until 2012 and the Democrats for some reason lost in 2008, Ted Strickland would be the ideal Vice Presidential nominee for her, especially if he can beat John Kasich in 2010 and if Bayh retires as OTL in 2010.
Last edited:
Honestly, I think Clinton's most likely running mate would be Obama. After all, when Obama won IOTL, the people immediately started wondering about an Obama/Clinton "dream ticket", despite the obvious sticking point with it: Clinton would have no reason, nor desire, to play second fiddle. But in a situation where Clinton wins, not only is there still going to be talk of a dream ticket, but it would actually be plausible, since Obama has no reason to turn it down. And it's a strong ticket: it displays party unity, it doubles down on the message of change, and it continues to build up a rising star.
The problem with the popular Clinton-Obama 'Dream Ticket' of the time was that, it would be a major turn off for the white male demographic, Barack Obama would not help in any swing states, and because of the bitter and vitriolic primary season between the two, one or the other could not stomach working with or being subordinate to their former rival. Obama's inexperience will also be a line of attack the Republicans could exploit. Maybe Clinton could offer Obama Attorney General?
Someone as ambitious as Obama wouldn't take anything less than SoS, like Hillary OTL.
I honestly think Hillary's result in 2008 is too low. Romney is still going to seem as out-of-touch as he did in 2012 except here he'll be running in the middle of an economic collapse. Hillary (or, really, any Democrat) would change tack and try to paint Romney as the sort of person who caused the crisis, and I don't think Mr. Corporations Are People would be able to counter that effectively. Not to mention that he'd struggle with a good chunk of the GOP base (Romney got absolutely massacred in the South in the 2008 primaries for a reason). I'd give Hillary Colorado, Virginia and Montana, and maybe even Arizona at a stretch - the Republicans only managed 53% there despite McCain, a sufficiently bad Romney performance could see it flip.
I think that, after eight years of Bush and with such a strong aspirational narrative running through the Democratic primaries, that the wind would be at their backs and a Clinton/Obama ticket wouldn't be seen as necessarily detrimental. Nor do I think Obama's inexperience would be a terribly effective line of attack, since he's on the bottom of the ticket.
Putting a rival on the ticket is only a snub when that rival is the older, experienced statesman, like Clinton; but Obama, who is clearly the 'lesser' of the two politicians, takes no hit in reputation by being seen as subordinate to one of the most powerful party figures.
I really do think the pressure would be immense for a dream ticket in a situation where it's actually a possible option.
I agree; Romney in '08 would be an unmitigated disaster. The guy was attacked for as a "vulture capitalist" in '12; that line would be devastating in the middle of a financial collapse.
I also think that any Democrat facing Huckabee in '12 is going to have an easier time, because it shifts the focus away from the economy, an area of weakness, to social issues, which the public increasingly align with the Democrats over. Imagine an election where the Republican candidate is seen as cut from the same cloth as candidates like Akin and Mourdock (who might not be candidates or make the same gaffes ITTL, but similar comments could happen).
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I still see McCain winning the Republicsn nomination in 2008. ITTL he is more likely to pick Palin as his running mate.