WI: Obama Chooses Not to Run in 2008 -- What Happens to Youth & Minority Voters?

C. McKay

I'm always happy to see your ideas, and Pericles has resumed his TL where Gore runs, but...I also would like to find out your educated guesses about the following:

-- if we have two "old" candidates running, how do young people respond?

-- if we have two white candidates running, how do minorities respond?

-- or would we have a young, non-white candidate who is not Obama? if so, who would that person be? why?

-- how does this affect the two (or more) parties in 2012?

Speculations about the reasons why ITTL Obama would not run could be helpful.

Thank you for entertaining my questions!!
 
Last edited:

Just a Rube

Obama would still be a possible choice for vice-president for whoever the Democrat was. But leaving that aside:

Anger at Bush will still drive a large youth turnout, and most minorities tend to vote Democratic anyway. So the turnout will be less, but expect the Democrats to still carry the majority, and for 2008 to still be a Democratic wave year. Maybe not quite as strong, but still major.
 

Kaiser K

If Obama doesn't run. That means Hilary likely gets the nomination. Meaning we'll get a first female president into of first African-American.
 

C. McKay

Good points, Just a Rube.

How do you think that young people and minorities would respond to Candidate Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or a more discreet or respectful John Edwards? How much would it matter, Kaiser K?

Also, with an earlier POD than what I specified, other individuals might be running as well. If Obama did not choose to run for various reasons, who could take his place?

And, of course, young people and minorities are broad categories, so feel free to break them down a little!
 

David T

Minorities and youth (and the two categories overlap of course--in fact, one reason, though not the only one, that young voters are more Democratic is that there is a higher percentage of minorities among them than with older voters) would still vote heavily Democratic, if for no other reason than that the US was going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and it was happening under a Republican president. Their turnout might not be quite so great, but that would be counterbalanced by the Democrats doing better in Appalachia (including western Pennsylvania and parts of eastern Ohio) than they did with Obama.
 

C. McKay

Thanks, David T. How do you think that the Democrats doing better in Appalachia with a Candidate Clinton or Candidate Edwards would have affected the stimulus -- or health care?

What would it take for minorities to feel that they were being taken for granted by the Democrats?
 

SactoMan101

If Obama doesn't run, Hillary by default will be the leading candidate for President. Indeed, up until late 2007 everyone assumed Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee.
 

Alstein

Hillary would have won, and we'd have seen a huge backlash against women instead of minorities. That isn't as popular.

I suspect Hillary would have had a better first two years over Obama, though we wouldn't have healthcare reform, and 2010 is less of a wave year for Republicans.

Edwards as VP could have sunk things since the allegations against him would be a huge scandal. He'd probably get impeached. It's a shame, because Edwards always appealed to me politically. I think if Edwards had been able to keep his pants on, he would have been a legit 2016 candidate due to his populism, he might be the Warren-Democrats first choice if Warren didn't run as he was an economic progressive/social moderate.
 

SLCer

Hillary would have won the nomination and the election. But she would've proven a one-term president and Obama is the front-runner for 2016 (at least on the Democrat's side).

I say this because I think her response to the economy would have been even more tepid than Obama. While the economy barely chugged along, its progress was enough to get Obama reelected. Moreover, the demographics that helped win reelection in 2012 wouldn't necessarily be there for Hillary. You could make the claim that maybe she's more popular than Obama, and I'm sure some will point to the polls of her working with the administration, but on the whole, as president, as the face of every major legislation, she would take a hit. Remember, it wasn't until well into 2008 that her favorability really ever matched Obama (when the primaries were well over and people started sympathizing with her). Without Obama, and an easy wrap to the nomination, her image takes a hit and continues to do so as the economy slowly, maybe even more slowly than in reality, progresses.

So, in 2012, the youth vote, which wouldn't be as high in 2008 as it was with Obama, stays home at a higher rate, as do blacks and she loses narrowly to Mitt Romney.

Just my take.
 

mattep74

Hillary as the nominee means that the election will be even more uglier than OTL.

IF she is elected the tone will get 10 times worse than Obama has been subjected to
 

C. McKay

Welcome, and thanks. :)

Yes, SactoMan101, it was supposed to be HRC's turn in 2008.

Has anyone done a POD where Edwards is faithful to his wife and/or more careful and discreet? Probably more careful and discreet might make a better narrative.

Tell me more about the backlash, Alstein and mattep74. IYHO, what might it entail?

Very, very interesting, SLCer! In what ways would HRC's response to the economy be more tepid?

I also wonder what the long term effects of youth and minorities staying home would be. Who would be the first party to nominate someone young and/or "of color"? Or would presidential politics be seen as something for "old," white people despite the demographics?
 
DTanza

DTanza

Banned
mattep74 said:
Hillary as the nominee means that the election will be even more uglier than OTL.

IF she is elected the tone will get 10 times worse than Obama has been subjected to
Click to expand...

The eternal question, what infuriates the Republican base more, a Clinton or a black guy?
 

C. McKay

How do you think the Republicans would respond to two Clintons, Kaiser K? Would they still nominate Romney in 2012? Or would they go for someone more dynamic and perhaps even less white?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top