WI: Hillary Clinton Won 2008
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Trump and Clinton were friends back in 2008. He said many good things about her. He'll most likely sticks to reality TV.
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Murkowski has too many skeletons in her closet to not be a drag on the ticket. Alaskan politics can be ugly and corrupt, and Palin's saving grace is that she was at the time a once in a generation Alaskan politician who wasn't bought off by the oil companies, because she actually fought against the oil lobby and was fiscally prudent in office (Palin endorsed Bill Walker before the 2014 election for this very reason, despite him being an Independent running against a Republican incumbent). Both parties in Alaska are infiltrated by the oil lobby to shocking degrees, and the Republicans are split between the more clean socially conservative populists and the obviously corrupt crony capitalist wing, while the Democrats have more of the latter and less of the former, which is generally why they lose.
Murkowski on the other hand was appointed to her Senate seat by her father, who was the governor, and her father at one point held a 19% approval rate in Alaska because he had political allies blatantly involved in bribery and kickbacks, and embarrassingly wasted state money on a giant jet for himself.
Murkowski might have been personally popular enough, evidenced by the success of her write in campaign in 2010, but that kind of nastiness around both her appointment and her father would make Romney likely decide against her in the vetting process, and even if she passed it, she would be crucified by the national media.
Barack Obama would easily trounce Clinton's safe VP (probably Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack) if they threw their hat in the Democratic Party presidential primaries of 2016. Donald Trump, however, would have very little to complain about with Hillary Clinton as president. After all, Clinton attended his wedding and is his friend and scrutiny by Republican rivals of this fact would dig deeper into him. Maybe he could still win the Republican nomination in 2016 if Rudy Giuliani is ATL 2008's Republican nominee and Trump claimed he was actually supporting the "true" New Yorker. He'd have to go on to endorse Romney in 2012 as OTL.
Then Obama Vs. the Senator who caused the most trouble for him in his OTL presidency (Ted Cruz)? Obama Vs. Rubio would also be interesting. Two charismatic candidates who court different minority votes. The only problem is, Obama is not as young as he is in OTL 2008. The establishment could also prop up John Kasich if they wanted.
Obama's VP will most likely be OTL's Tim Kaine. It would be interesting if Obama selected a Hispanic/Latino such as Tom Perez, Julian Castro, or Xavier Becerra, but like Clinton, Obama's not willing to take the risk with a double minority ticket that could potentially offend Caucasian male voters.
Last edited:
Thanks for the support guys. The thought of restarting "Madam President" has definitely crossed my mind, and I may do so sometime in the future (I'd like to see some of her cabinet picks IOTL and her first 100 days to get a better idea of her governing style).
Building on my previous post: This scenario leads to some pretty interesting butterflies. The first, obviously, are the results in 2008. I really doubt that Clinton would win WV, KY, or AR. They'd all be closer than they were IOTL, but after a bruising general election in which Clinton's views on social issues (namely gun control) and the environment are hit by McCain and his surrogates, I doubt she'd be able to carry them. The only changes I see in the Electoral College would be flipping MO and NC, for reasons I could go into later. The next question is Congress. The Democrats probably do slightly worse in the House, and I see Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith winning reelection.
Without healthcare reform, and presumably a bigger focus in Congress on pocketbook issues, I think 2009 and 2010 go better for the Dems. Martha Coakley almost certainly wins Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and there's a big chance that Jon Corzine beats Christie in NJ (VA is likely Republican, and Terry MacAuliffe is probably Secretary of Commerce or Energy). Illinois and Wisconsin are the obvious contenders in the Senate in 2010, as are Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio depending on the candidates. One other possibility is a less successful Tea Party movement. I agree with Emperor Norton that there will still certainly be a far-right backlash to Hillary, but without health care reform and with a more experienced politician in the White House, I doubt that it will be as extreme. Incidentally, this could lead to the GOP WINNING some seats which they lost in 2010: Nevada (Senate) and Colorado (Governor) being the obvious example (there won't be a race in Delaware since Biden doesn't retire presumably).
Another interesting butterfly for 2010 and 2016 is Obama running for Governor. According to "Game Change," Obama and his family really didn't enjoy the Senate and Beltway-insider politics. Had he not run for President, the book claims that he was heavily considering running for Governor of Illinois. This would be really interesting, as he would have to address that state's fiscal mess but would gain valuable executive experience if he runs in 2016.
Building on my previous post: This scenario leads to some pretty interesting butterflies. The first, obviously, are the results in 2008. I really doubt that Clinton would win WV, KY, or AR. They'd all be closer than they were IOTL, but after a bruising general election in which Clinton's views on social issues (namely gun control) and the environment are hit by McCain and his surrogates, I doubt she'd be able to carry them. The only changes I see in the Electoral College would be flipping MO and NC, for reasons I could go into later. The next question is Congress. The Democrats probably do slightly worse in the House, and I see Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith winning reelection.
Without healthcare reform, and presumably a bigger focus in Congress on pocketbook issues, I think 2009 and 2010 go better for the Dems. Martha Coakley almost certainly wins Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and there's a big chance that Jon Corzine beats Christie in NJ (VA is likely Republican, and Terry MacAuliffe is probably Secretary of Commerce or Energy). Illinois and Wisconsin are the obvious contenders in the Senate in 2010, as are Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio depending on the candidates. One other possibility is a less successful Tea Party movement. I agree with Emperor Norton that there will still certainly be a far-right backlash to Hillary, but without health care reform and with a more experienced politician in the White House, I doubt that it will be as extreme. Incidentally, this could lead to the GOP WINNING some seats which they lost in 2010: Nevada (Senate) and Colorado (Governor) being the obvious example (there won't be a race in Delaware since Biden doesn't retire presumably).
Another interesting butterfly for 2010 and 2016 is Obama running for Governor. According to "Game Change," Obama and his family really didn't enjoy the Senate and Beltway-insider politics. Had he not run for President, the book claims that he was heavily considering running for Governor of Illinois. This would be really interesting, as he would have to address that state's fiscal mess but would gain valuable executive experience if he runs in 2016.
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Keep in mind that Hillary in 2008 ran kind of a blue collar campaign. She was not at all anti-gun, nor was she pro-gay marriage explicitly. She might even foray into economic populism if the mood of the country favors it, although TARP would complicate that, as she would vote for it because not doing so would be disastrous. But the point is that Hillary would not be seen as the social leftist she is seen by some as today in 2008 because the primary put her firmly on the centrist side of things.
Interesting irony, however, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are a little too unpopular to win the Republican presidential nomination. Without Mitt Romney, more and better candidates than OTL will be running and all have the potential to overshadow Gingrich and Santorum. I think these candidates are Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, and if they're willing to take the risk, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. Huckabee prevents the rise of Santorum among social conservatives and the religious right, and can probably win big in Iowa a second time. He could also butterfly Gingrich's victory in South Carolina, forcing Gingrich to drop out.
That's possible. However, Al Gore ran largely as a "power to the people" populist in 2000, but it didn't stop the Bush campaign for slamming his environmental and gun control records. Just because she wasn't emphasizing those views in 2008 (quite the contrary on gun control, as you noted) doesn't mean that the GOP won't rehash her votes on the Assault Weapons Ban, Cap and Trade, and other liberal legislation.
How about a primary challenge from the left in 2012? Instead of OTL's John Wolfe Jr., you could have OTL 2016's Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, or Russ Feingold protesting her position on the continued presence in Iraq.
Last edited:
On the topic of Giuliani, in fairness and in partisan parlance, he is and was a schmuck. That is why I doubt he had any chance in 2008 even if McCain faltered. His entire campaign was based on saying 9/11 in response to everything to the point where it became a self parody, and it was embarrassing. He did not have substance besides that. He is one of those candidates who looks good in terms of the mathematics and cliffnotes, but who does not work as a person.
His rebuttal: "I was there on 9/11..." *Audience applauds and cheers*
JK. Well said. Plus he was seen as too liberal on social issues, such as abortion, where he was pro-choice.
Indeed. But I feel her presidency would show her liberalism. I mean, she is always one to be on the left of public opinion on many issues, as her support of universal healthcare in a conservative era and her "women's rights are human rights" speech shows. More likely than not she reveals her unequivocal support for marriage equality and gay rights, which likely loses her a lot of blue-collar support.
A lot of emergency services people that responded to 9/11, and their families, hold a dim view on Guiliani. They feel he exploited that event for media attention and political gain. As it was, he tried to use it as an excuse for a three month extension of his term and to be allowed to run for a third term. Those people had started to come out during the 2008 primaries, and it would be a criticism for the 2008 general election.
Minty_Fresh
Banned
It seems however that a good amount of emergency services personnel in NYC disproportionately come from Staten Island, where Giuliani is extremely popular. And his reputation lately, despite his foray into Trumpism, has undergone a renaissance as de Blasio is extremely unpopular, and law and order policies on crime are back in vogue due to the upsurge in urban areas.
Given the progression of the 2016 election, this may recast our previous assumptions of how the election of 2008 would have progressed with Clinton as the candidate. Traditionally, at least as I can recall, we had assumed that Clinton's establishment status, experience and comparative interpretation of being moderate compared to Obama would have been a strength. Though she may not have been as inspiring as Obama and therefore may not have aroused the same coalition, the assumption was that she would make greater headway on the basis of those characteristics, resulting in stronger electoral gains. However, the 2016 election has made it appear that Clinton is undermined by distrust and unfavorability, as well as scandals (whether actual or drummed up in Conservative circles). Her built in establishment status and record has opened her up to criticism as much as it has been a strength, and it appears she would be subject to these issues in 2008. She has not been Secretary of State, nor has the Republican party necessarily worked since the previously election to undermine her (I cannot recall these details for 2004 to 2008). Therefore, we would see the same exact thing, but we may see the same issues put into play in different ways. Therefore, far and away from making bigger gains than Obama, she may make fewer, though that is not to say she would lose against McCain.
Napoleonrules
Banned
I'm pretty sure Hussein still isn't a "Muslim" name and frankly it is xenophobic for people to think so. I'm Jewish and I'd have no problem giving my child that middle name.
I never said it is apropriate behaviour, but it was used against Obama. And in an AH discussion it is a possible aasummtion that some things that really happened OTL have a bigger effect in an ATL.
Having Hussein as a middle name was a disadvantage for Obama, he was elected anyways, and later he even joked about it.