How would President Hillary Clinton be doing right about now?

[Woody]

How would her numbers look like?

[7,052,770]

Assumption: The 2016 election is basically the same, with Hillary narrowly winning WI/MI/PA.

The standard position of the Republican Party (outside of Baker, Hogan, and a few others) would have been that COVID-19 is a hoax and any kind of shutdown measures are the evil tyrant Hillary trying to implementation a dictatresship. Therefore, the pandemic would be very much worse and the moderate heroes would blame it on Hillary, leading to her inevitable loss.

On the other hand, the Republican primary would have been fascinating, with some candidates being super Trumpy and others blaming Trumpiness for losing a winnable election.

[Pericles]

Perhaps the one-term Hillary assumption is incorrect. She would for sure handle the pandemic much better, and generally act in a more presidential manner. She would probably see a rise in her approval ratings like most world leaders have, right now I guess it would be at 55-60%. However, with the recession and that bounce fading, November 2020 would be pretty competitive and maybe she would be the slight underdog.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Congressional Dems dont want Clinton to run, she would erase the 2018 gains in the House, that's what Rs want

[Agonized-Statism]

One has to wonder about the lockdown protesters. They wouldn't have a sitting president encouraging their actions, but the person presiding over quarantine would be Hillary Clinton. My guess is continued Tea Party style outrage over the last four years and continuing in 2020, which would set the stage for the election that year.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The US would be at war with Russia.

[Inmate Trump]

I can only imagine all the GOP governors hearing President Hillary suggesting school closures and shelter in place.

[Alben Barkley]

The US would be at war with Russia.

You must have “gone off the deep end” if you believe this.

It is FAR more insane to believe that Hillary Clinton would have gone to war with a nuclear power than it is to suggest that people who publish pro-Russian propaganda might be wittingly or unwittingly working for Russia. Yet in another thread you called  people who believe that insane. The level of cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

I seriously hope you’re just joking here, but somehow I doubt it given your past posts.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The US would be at war with Russia.

You must have “gone off the deep end” if you believe this.

It is FAR more insane to believe that Hillary Clinton would have gone to war with a nuclear power than it is to sugngest that people who publish pro-Russian propaganda might be wittingly or unwittingly working for Russia. Yet in another thread you called  people who believe that insane. The level of cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

I seriously hope you’re just joking here, but somehow I doubt it given your past posts.

I'm joking. At the same time, I can't help but believe that tensions between the US and Russia would be even worse than now, considering Putin's views of Clinton...

I would be particularly worried about her policies on Syria, for example (a no-fly zone?! This isn't the 90s and Putin proved even before 2016 that he won't let Assad go without a literal fight).

Maybe the likelihood of direct confrontation between the US and Russia would be higher under a President Hillary Clinton.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

She would have won re-election but Republicans would have massive amounts of power in both houses of Congress and there would be missing jusices on the SCOTUS due to gridlock.

[fruitofstardew]

Two possible 2020 GOP primary outcomes:

- Trump clinches the nomination again with the thesis that corporate dems stole the 2016 election. Establishment Republicans flustered with the nomination of a former general election loser.

- Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/equivalent consolidates with establishment figures and wins the nomination. Some combination of Trumpism and traditional credibility. Hillary is the antichrist in both scenarios.  

As for actual numbers

Scenario 1~

National
Trump: 44
Clinton: 44

PA
Trump: 48
Clinton: 46

WI
Trump: 50
Clinton:45

AZ
Trump: 46
Clinton: 46

Scenario 2~

National
Clinton: 45
Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/equivalent: 49

PA
Clinton: 44
Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/equivalent: 48

WI
Clinton: 43
Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/equivalent: 46

AZ
Clinton: 45
Rubio/Kasich/Cruz/equivalent: 49

[LAKISYLVANIA]

approval ratings in the 30's, huge bloodbath in 2018 and a loss in 2020 against Trump, losing MN, ME, NH, MI, PA and WI.

[pppolitics]

After the outbreak in Wuhan, China, President Clinton ordered construction of a massive field hospital to handle the surge of Coronavirus cases.

President Clinton uses the Defense Production Act to increase production of ventilators and hospital beds.

Testing was ramped up and drive-through testing is available at most pharmacies and hospitals.

A massive team was put in place for contact-tracing.

There are limited outbreak hotspot, but there was no widespread stay-at-home order.

President Clinton’s handling of the Coronavirus was largely seen as successful and she is romping to reelection.

[Ogre Mage]

There was an article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago called "How is the pandemic going on Earth 2 under President Hillary Clinton?"

Capitol Hill was the scene of fiery confrontations between Republicans and Clinton administration officials about the controversial actions taken to combat the covid-19 infection. Republicans argued that the Clinton administration was overzealous in containing the threat, while Democrats argued in favor of measures now being litigated in the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters that President Clinton had been “hysterical” to urge governors to quarantine the cities of Seattle, San Francisco and New Rochelle, N.Y. As the national number of new infections dropped to less than 100 yesterday, McConnell said: “The federal government has trampled on the liberty of Americans in the name of an overhyped threat. President Clinton is not thinking about this rationally.”

On the coronavirus infection rate:

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has done relatively well in flattening the infection rate. Nonetheless, coronavirus czar Ron Klain’s intrusions into interstate commerce have raised concerns. A lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court will determine whether Clinton had the authority to restrict domestic flights and car traffic on the western seaboard.

On the electoral front:

Trump, who has essentially been campaigning since his surprisingly narrow loss in 2016, told his allies in Congress to demand an inspector general report from the Department of Health and Human Services for mistakes made in containing the spread of the coronavirus: “THE CDC WAS BAD AT EBOLA AND A DISASTER AT CORONAVIRUS!! WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE IG!!!” he tweeted.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll of battleground states continues to show Trump ahead of Clinton by five points across the Midwest.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/09/how-is-pandemic-going-earth-2-under-president-hillary-clinton/

[whale]

She had a pandemic preparedness section to her platform in 2016 and seems to be informed on the issue (she has said that the US was incredibly lucky that the swine flu was relatively mild), so surely she would have handled covid-19 better than the current president.  I think international favorability would be high, domestic favorability probably middling but not low since people can still see what happened in Spain and Italy, world leaders like Johnson and celebrities like Tom Hanks getting sick, etc.

[Agonized-Statism]

President Hillary Clinton (D-NY) / Vice President Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) / Governor Kristi Noem (R-SD) ✓

I see Republican governors opposed to the lockdown leading the ticket on this one.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Approval rating? Pretty much the same as Trump, give or take a few points.  People forget that Hillary is as (or very nearly as) polarizing and unlikable as Trump is.  Hillary would pursue another semi-auto (or "assault weapon") ban and push hard for increased military intervention in Syria,  thus further tarnishing her popularity.

Although I honestly think Hillary would have won if she chose Bernie as VP as a unity ticket. Kaine was almost as bad as Paul Ryan.

The Midterms would be bad. Between 58 and 61 GOP senators, and the house majority remains.  Hillary would also be vulnerable to impeachment but only 55-57 Senators vote to convict.


The GOP primary would be extremely interesting.  Naturally Rubio, Cruz, Ryan, and Pence would definitely run, and there is a good chance that Haley, Rand, Trump, and Pompeo run as well.  I'd say Cruz, followed by Pence have the best chances (contingent on Trump not running again)

Combination Sabato/Cook map for 2020, no toss ups.

[Pollster]

Situation A (likely): She naturally takes a more intelligent approach to COVID-19 and the damage to the country is significantly mitigated, similar to South Korea. She gets little to no political benefit from it because nobody grasps how much of a disaster the virus could have been under less competent leadership.

Situation B (unlikely): Her intelligent approach to COVID-19 is derailed by Fox News. Republican governors, led by Trump on twitter, openly defy her instructions causing the virus to spread at an alarming rate and hospital systems to be quickly overwhelmed. States with Democratic governors are forced to seal their borders and shut down all travel. Other nations place travel restrictions on the US and international trade collapses. Hillary Clinton is naturally blamed for all of this.

[dw93]

Situation A (likely): She naturally takes a more intelligent approach to COVID-19 and the damage to the country is significantly mitigated, similar to South Korea. She gets little to no political benefit from it because nobody grasps how much of a disaster the virus could have been under less competent leadership.

Situation B (unlikely): Her intelligent approach to COVID-19 is derailed by Fox News. Republican governors, led by Trump on twitter, openly defy her instructions causing the virus to spread at an alarming rate and hospital systems to be quickly overwhelmed. States with Democratic governors are forced to seal their borders and shut down all travel. Other nations place travel restrictions on the US and international trade collapses. Hillary Clinton is naturally blamed for all of this.

I think a combination of both situations is likely to be honest.

[cris01us]

If the Congressional elections had gone against her in 2016 (as they did) and again in 2018 (incumbent Presidents usually lose seats in midterms), then likely she would have few legislative victories to campaign on.  However, the Supreme Court would have played out differently and a lot of "wins" would be coming from that and via Executive Order.   The economy would likely be in the same place.  I'm not sure COVID would be entirely different in terms of numbers, but you would certainly see a huge difference in response measures.  There would be far more take over and controls at the federal level, and if anything states would be asking for more lee-way to govern themselves. I think her re-election bid would be head and shoulders above where Trump's is - after all, the Blue Wall would have probably been left standing if she had won.

[Pericles]

Situation A (likely): She naturally takes a more intelligent approach to COVID-19 and the damage to the country is significantly mitigated, similar to South Korea. She gets little to no political benefit from it because nobody grasps how much of a disaster the virus could have been under less competent leadership.

Situation B (unlikely): Her intelligent approach to COVID-19 is derailed by Fox News. Republican governors, led by Trump on twitter, openly defy her instructions causing the virus to spread at an alarming rate and hospital systems to be quickly overwhelmed. States with Democratic governors are forced to seal their borders and shut down all travel. Other nations place travel restrictions on the US and international trade collapses. Hillary Clinton is naturally blamed for all of this.

With A, surely COVID would still be a major issue internationally and there would still be thousands dying in other countries. Though American voters can be pretty insular, but that would be in the news a lot so hopefully it can sink in a little bit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Even if voters acknowledged her successful leadership on the coronavirus front, they'd still blame her for the recession that follows. Obviously congressional Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to help her with trillions of stimulus like they do now for Trump.

[ProudModerate2]

... Obviously congressional Republicans wouldn't lift a finger to help her with trillions of stimulus like they do now for Trump.

They would be back to the: "We care about the huge deficits and national debt ... what a tragedy!"

[ProudModerate2]

How would her numbers look like?

One think is for sure ...
She would not have been looking over at the doctors during her Pandemic hearings, asking/advising about how "disinfectants injected into your body (lungs)" could be an idea to fight ("cleaning") Covid-19.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I expect that she would have taken the crisis seriously before it a case even reached American shores. I don't know if it's spread would have been entirely eliminated but it would have been better contained and she would have gotten a much bigger, much less fleeting rally effect from it, like most world leaders and society wouldn't feel like it's teetering on the brink as it is in our current, worst possible reality.

However, with her being Hillary Clinton she would never have been able to get away with sending out stimulus checks or doing anything to help with the economic impact of the virus due to the Republicans probably still occupying both Houses of Congress and wanting to ensure that she's a lame duck. Even the smallest negative economic impact from the pandemic, in spite of addressing it more competently, means she is that lame duck this November.

She also would have gotten even worse push-back from Republican Governors for any lock-downs that may have happened, and I imagine that they wouldn't comply at all with her CDC's orders and primarily be the ones making the situation worse for the country. I shudder to think about how much more riled up those protesters would be if she were President. I wouldn't rule out an attempted assassination on her.

This hypothetical universe, no matter how messy still, is nonetheless more preferable than ours. Her winning in 2016 will always have been the better scenario for the nation and the world.