Please, would you explain your reasoning, Paul? I think we've laid out cogent arguments as to why this wouldn't be the case (Palin's too much of an obvious counter to Hillary, so it's tactless, etc.) but if you could adequately explain thoughts to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear 'em.
WI: Hillary Clinton Won 2008
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
Please, would you explain your reasoning, Paul? I think we've laid out cogent arguments as to why this wouldn't be the case (Palin's too much of an obvious counter to Hillary, so it's tactless, etc.) but if you could adequately explain thoughts to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear 'em.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Please, would you explain your reasoning, Paul? I think we've laid out cogent arguments as to why this wouldn't be the case (Palin's too much of an obvious counter to Hillary, so it's tactless, etc.) but if you could adequately explain thoughts to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear 'em.
McCain was a strong candidate. He did win the nomination OTL. he won it in the South Carolina Pirmary, which was in March. Running against a women, he would not want an all male ticket.
McCain was a strong candidate. He did win the nomination OTL. he won it in the South Carolina Pirmary, which was in March. Running against a women, he would not want an all male ticket.
McCain still may win, but I don't know. Again, Palin's just not a good choice in this scenario. It's too obvious and, like I said, tactless.
The most common POD for a Mitt Romney 2008 Timeline is Romney winning the New Hampshire Republican Primary instead of John McCain. As OTL, Romney wins Nevada, but loses in South Carolina to McCain. Have Romney win big on Super Tuesday and 2000 happens all over again. Or, others have proposed that McCain have some health scare that makes voters think he's too old and frail to campaign/be president, allowing Romney to take the lead.
McCain's strategy was to court disgruntled/disaffected followers of a defeated candidate. Sarah Palin wouldn't court any of Barack Obama's supporters, and as @OrsonWelles stated, would be an obvious counter to Hillary. The only plus to selecting her is that she has the ability to excite the Republican Party's conservative base, and as OTL, she'll make conservative-leaning independents and possibly moderates sit at home. In the case that Obama lost, McCain could always tap Bobby Jindal (who was not interested in being Vice President in OTL 2008) or Charlie Crist (who is of Lebanese descent) for the role. Crist and the other finalists on McCain's shortlist of running mates (Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman) will be seen as too "liberal"/moderate by the party's base. Jindal could excite the base, but he had just become Governor of Louisiana and was not interested in becoming Vice President. McCain does not have a lot of options.
Last edited:
Napoleonrules
Banned
Just want to point out Barack is a Semitic, not Muslim name, it is Jewish as well as Arab, and I believe it is also Swahili as well being a loan word from Arabic. I'm pretty sure there are few, if any, names that are a "religion's name" as opposed to being an ethno-linguistic name. I suppose the closest would be the Spanish Jesus which seems uncommon among Protestant nations, and any non-Christians, but even then I'd say it is an Hispanic name, not a Catholic or Christian name.
I see her picking Vilsack. Choosing Bayh would cost the Dems a much needed Senate seat in Indiana without bringing in any voters which Vilsack wouldn't appeal to anyway (i.e. moderates in both parties and indies).
As for governing: The key question is whether Hillary has a Supermajority in the Senate (60 votes). If she doesn't, than she's going to need the support of moderate GOPers on every big vote. That probably prevents health care reform from happening, and means that she'll need to take a more moderate course throughout 2009 and 2010. I imagine the stimulus still gets passed, but it may take a bit longer or be a bit smaller than IOTL. After that, I expect her next big item would be financial reform, which Rahm Emmanuel advised Obama to deal with before healthcare IOTL for largely political reasons (it would be seen as addressing the cause of the Great Recession, instead of what most voters saw as an unrelated issue). Finally, Clinton would probably support Congressional passage of a transportation funding bill in 2009, which Obama's team didn't, as a way to garner some support from GOPers(1) and Rust Belt Dems. This ironically would probably lessen the 2010 midterm fallout as the Republicans wouldn't be able to run against Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade (which probably never gets off the ground since it would have even less support in the Senate). I expect they would still take back the House (too many Blue Dog pickups in 2006 and 2008) and several Senate seats due to the economy and the deficit. The Tea Party would also get much less traction for the same reason, along with a number of others (Clinton still had a lot of residual support from white working class voters in 2008, and many of those voters flipped to the Tea Party in 2010). This sets up Clinton with an easier job of governing up until 2012.
Foreign policy: Obama and Clinton have somewhat similar world views, but differ over what role the United States should take. Clinton believed in a more active role, as exemplified by her support for arming the Syrian rebels much earlier and launching strikes against Assad. She also opposed pressuring Hosni Mubarak to step down in Egypt, instead preferring holding elections while he was still in power to elect his successor. I see this as being the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton, as well as who the two had advising them (read "The Obamians" by James Mann for more on this).
1: Quick aside: Several Republican members of Congress, namely Rep. John Mica of Florida, opposed Obama's stimulus partially because they wanted more money for infrastructure and less for projects like renewable energy loans and Race to the Top grants. I find it hard to believe that Boehner and Cantor could get them to vote against a transportation-only bill post-stimulus.
As for governing: The key question is whether Hillary has a Supermajority in the Senate (60 votes). If she doesn't, than she's going to need the support of moderate GOPers on every big vote. That probably prevents health care reform from happening, and means that she'll need to take a more moderate course throughout 2009 and 2010. I imagine the stimulus still gets passed, but it may take a bit longer or be a bit smaller than IOTL. After that, I expect her next big item would be financial reform, which Rahm Emmanuel advised Obama to deal with before healthcare IOTL for largely political reasons (it would be seen as addressing the cause of the Great Recession, instead of what most voters saw as an unrelated issue). Finally, Clinton would probably support Congressional passage of a transportation funding bill in 2009, which Obama's team didn't, as a way to garner some support from GOPers(1) and Rust Belt Dems. This ironically would probably lessen the 2010 midterm fallout as the Republicans wouldn't be able to run against Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade (which probably never gets off the ground since it would have even less support in the Senate). I expect they would still take back the House (too many Blue Dog pickups in 2006 and 2008) and several Senate seats due to the economy and the deficit. The Tea Party would also get much less traction for the same reason, along with a number of others (Clinton still had a lot of residual support from white working class voters in 2008, and many of those voters flipped to the Tea Party in 2010). This sets up Clinton with an easier job of governing up until 2012.
Foreign policy: Obama and Clinton have somewhat similar world views, but differ over what role the United States should take. Clinton believed in a more active role, as exemplified by her support for arming the Syrian rebels much earlier and launching strikes against Assad. She also opposed pressuring Hosni Mubarak to step down in Egypt, instead preferring holding elections while he was still in power to elect his successor. I see this as being the biggest difference between Obama and Clinton, as well as who the two had advising them (read "The Obamians" by James Mann for more on this).
1: Quick aside: Several Republican members of Congress, namely Rep. John Mica of Florida, opposed Obama's stimulus partially because they wanted more money for infrastructure and less for projects like renewable energy loans and Race to the Top grants. I find it hard to believe that Boehner and Cantor could get them to vote against a transportation-only bill post-stimulus.
If Hillary won the election of 2008, would the Tea Party be more sexist and less racist? Maybe instead of pressing issues like "born in in Kenya" and "Muslim", the Tea Party would press anti-feminist stances.
It'd be the same conspiratorial mess regardless, with racial overtones, sexist overtones, and the rest. Anti-feminism doesn't lend itself as well, because it isn't conspiratorial. We already know what would be thrown against her: Vince Foster, Whitewater, Hillarycare as Socialism, taking guns away, backroom deals, etc. They'll take up what conspiracies were there from the Clinton years, and make up new ones like they did Benghazi.
Last edited:
I think because of her long-time connections in Congress, she would likely get a lot more done than Obama would have done. She might even be open to the idea of putting in another Title section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include LGBT rights, which would have permanently settled the whole same-sex marriage issue with a lot less legal wrangling.
In someways, she'd be better - she likely would not withdraw from Iraq, thus, preventing the Rise of ISIS, to name one. Second to invading Iraq, leaving iraq prematurely was the worst foriegn policy chose of the new millenium for the US.
In others, she'd likely be worse. The economy will still be a mess, and i doubt she would handle it any better than Obama. 2008 was a poison chalice in that regard. I also don't see her shifting on some social issues like Obama did - remember, she didn't become pro-LGBT until there were already Republicans announcing support for gay marriage.
Unlike Obama, she is not a good public speaker, not charismatic, is gaffe prone, can't get out the youth/minority vote, and if the GOP plays their cards right, they have a much better chance of beating her than they ever did Obama in 2012.
In others, she'd likely be worse. The economy will still be a mess, and i doubt she would handle it any better than Obama. 2008 was a poison chalice in that regard. I also don't see her shifting on some social issues like Obama did - remember, she didn't become pro-LGBT until there were already Republicans announcing support for gay marriage.
Unlike Obama, she is not a good public speaker, not charismatic, is gaffe prone, can't get out the youth/minority vote, and if the GOP plays their cards right, they have a much better chance of beating her than they ever did Obama in 2012.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
I don't have much to add, but I will say that I don't see Hillary winning West Virginia unless she wins a landslide, which would also entail her taking the state of Virginia, NC, etc, which the maps on page one didn't include.
Well, she was pretty popular with Reagan Democrats despite her quite liberal views. But I agree, she was not gonna win West Virginia.
Hillary is less likely to depart from Iraq in the same way, but overall, she'd have a slightly more hawkish version of Obama's pragmatic foreign policy. She would also surprise many by being more liberal than her last name would suggest; she wouldn't pursue the ACA, for instance, though some form of Dodd-Frank is inevitable.
The economic recovery won't be any better than OTL. I think the reason the recovery hasn't spread evenly is not because of Democratic policies, but because of a persistent fiscally conservative strain. As a matter of fact, it has happened with every recovery of every recession in the last thirty years. Though Obama, and likely Hillary as well, would be more progressive than any POTUS in the last fifty years, that's not saying much. Unless Hillary beings about a progressive revolution (unlikely - the nature of politics don't fulfill it, and like Obama, she's a pragmatic and compromising progressive), likely we see another flawed recovery (and worse without the ACA as because of it, lowered per capita healthcare costs meant more money could be spent).
In regards to LGBT rights, the last eight years have seen a revolution in that regard. Hillary revealed her progressive views in that regard to great controversy (as usual - everything she says is seen as controversial!) in 2011. She'd likely do it earlier than OTL. Republicans would denounce her "far-leftism" and reuse their bag of sexist insults from the 90s. The backlash from her pro-LGBT comments (because 2010 was a fair bit more conservative than 2016) may be what costs her the House in the midterms.
In 2012, her victory is pretty much inevitable no matter who she faces. She's still probably killed Osama bin Laden, and she's likely to campaign as a technocrat and a policy wonk. She's not charismatic, but she has an air of "knowledgeability" and that she is a ready hand. So, she likely wins in 2012, more than anything because the Republicans have a bad field of candidates (if they choose Romney, he'll be seen as an elitist billionaire; if they choose Santorum, he'll be seen as a reactionary).
So yeah. TL; DR Hillary would be slightly more hawkish and more pro-LGBT rights, but otherwise not very different from Obama. For all that 2008 was touted as a battle of the ideologies, it was little more than a popularity contest.
The economic recovery won't be any better than OTL. I think the reason the recovery hasn't spread evenly is not because of Democratic policies, but because of a persistent fiscally conservative strain. As a matter of fact, it has happened with every recovery of every recession in the last thirty years. Though Obama, and likely Hillary as well, would be more progressive than any POTUS in the last fifty years, that's not saying much. Unless Hillary beings about a progressive revolution (unlikely - the nature of politics don't fulfill it, and like Obama, she's a pragmatic and compromising progressive), likely we see another flawed recovery (and worse without the ACA as because of it, lowered per capita healthcare costs meant more money could be spent).
In regards to LGBT rights, the last eight years have seen a revolution in that regard. Hillary revealed her progressive views in that regard to great controversy (as usual - everything she says is seen as controversial!) in 2011. She'd likely do it earlier than OTL. Republicans would denounce her "far-leftism" and reuse their bag of sexist insults from the 90s. The backlash from her pro-LGBT comments (because 2010 was a fair bit more conservative than 2016) may be what costs her the House in the midterms.
In 2012, her victory is pretty much inevitable no matter who she faces. She's still probably killed Osama bin Laden, and she's likely to campaign as a technocrat and a policy wonk. She's not charismatic, but she has an air of "knowledgeability" and that she is a ready hand. So, she likely wins in 2012, more than anything because the Republicans have a bad field of candidates (if they choose Romney, he'll be seen as an elitist billionaire; if they choose Santorum, he'll be seen as a reactionary).
So yeah. TL; DR Hillary would be slightly more hawkish and more pro-LGBT rights, but otherwise not very different from Obama. For all that 2008 was touted as a battle of the ideologies, it was little more than a popularity contest.
You should restart your Clinton '08 TL, now that the 2016 Race is underway. Would love to see a different take on the past 8 years.
I fixed Hillary Clinton Vs. Mitt Romney 2008. She almost did as well as her husband! I replaced the Vice Presidential nominees. For Clinton I selected Tom Vilsack as @hcallega suggested and gave Mitt Romney a male Vice Presidential nominee. As much as I'd love to see him with a female running mate like Lisa Murkowski (who I originally suggested) or Meg Whitman (a political outsider he could claim would help fix the economy), I don't believe it was his strategy to counter Hillary or court disgruntled/disaffected supporters of the defeated candidate of the other party the same way John McCain did. If it were Romney's strategy, he probably would have selected Marco Rubio in 2012. @Nazi Space Spy noted that without North Carolina, Clinton likely would not win West Virginia.
Last edited:
Minty_Fresh
Banned
Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia are basically going to go the same way every election, states with desires for economic populism and social conservatism. A candidate who cannot deal in one must deal in the other, and if not, they will lose.
Another reason why he wouldn't pick Rubio is because of his inexperience and polls were showing he wouldn't help Romney win FL.
Wouldn't Romney-Murkowski be too moderate for the base? And if Whitman is on the ticket, that would be 2 former CEOs on the same ticket. In 2008, that wouldn't go over well with independent and blue collar voters.
I totally agree! @hcallega did a great job on that TL. Because Romney was the opponent in 2008, I was looking forward to seeing Clinton Vs. Gingrich or Santorum in 2012. She'd be up against one of two candidates who attempted to remove her husband from office in the '90s and she'd be facing them twenty years after her husband was first elected president.