How would a President Hillary Clinton fare in 2020?

[538Electoral]

I don't think she would fare very well in 2020 if she won in 2016.

Republicans almost undoubtedly would win 2020 as party fatigue would've likely began to set in.

[TML]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

[S019]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

This, probably and Kasich or Haley would beat her by running on "pragmatic conservatism"

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

She'd be destroyed if she ran for reelection.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It would be bad.... really bad. Trump winning was low key a good thing for the Democratic Party electorally bad for everything else.

[Mr. Smith]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

This.

But she might luck out the same way Trump seems to be with the GOP trying someone like Ted Cruz...or Rubio again.

[538Electoral]

Here's a lower end case scenario for Republicans in this scenario.

Republicans 279
Clinton 259

[538Electoral]

And here's an upper end scenario.

Republicans 355
Clinton 183

[Bojack Horseman]

She might have rebounded slightly after getting BTFOd in the midterms but it’s almost impossible for one party to hold the presidency four terms. Nonstop email investigations would have been an anchor on her approval ratings.

[SN2903]

She would lose 35-37  states

[Inmate Trump]

Depends on the economy.

Say the economy is as good as it is now, then she'd probably do alright for the simple fact that she doesn't tweet nonsense every 5 seconds and when she speaks it's not just a drunken rambling of misinformation and incoherent drivel.

If the economy is worse than it is now, then she loses.

[McGarnagle]

If the economy is good in this alternate 2020 scenario, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton could have won a narrow re-election like George W. Bush in 2004, with a similar map to her would-have-been win four years prior.

If the economy is bad in this alternate 2020 scenario, President Clinton might lose by a narrow margin to a more conservative candidate like Tom Cotton if the party continued in a Trumpist direction after Trump's loss in this alternate timeline, or possibly by a wider margin to a candidate like John Kasich or Jon Huntsman or Brian Sandoval if the GOP took a comparatively more moderate route.

Given that a 2016 Clinton win would mean twelve consecutive years of a Democratic White House, the odds would be stacked against the incumbent. Whether the Republicans would continue in a far-right direction (and they most likely would) would be maybe the most pertinent factor.

[morgankingsley]

She might win a second term, but she would not have either the house or senate behind her

[Progressive Pessimist]

Her approval ratings and disapproval ratings wouldn't be quite as bad as Trump, but the country would still be polarized and President Clinton working with a Republican Congress, for all four years probably wouldn't get much done to keep Democrats enthused or interested in voting, whereas Republicans would somehow be even more pissed off than they are in our current reality where they won (though if she won in 2016 Feingold, Kander, and McGinty may have won and gave the Democrats a short-lived majority in the Senate).

However, on the plus side, Clinton would probably be doing much better on foreign policy, and the economy would most likely be in a similar position as it is under Trump. She would certainly do a better job than he does of staying on a message where she can positively attribute those things to her presidency. It wouldn't be enough though, because quite simply, if holding the White House for three consecutive terms for a party is impossible in our current day and age, holding it for four is even more impossible.

This election would be likely R, as Clinton winning in 2016 probably just temporarily delayed the reactionary scourge that has become a cancer on our nation. Clinton only manages to win the states that went for her by more than 5% in our 2016.

However, I would still take this theoretical reality over the one we're living in currently any day. I don't know who the Republicans would nominate but there is no way they could be as bad as Trump (unless Trump himself pursues the nomination again). I won't deny that it would still suck though. Clinton winning in 2016 would have had its negative consequences but I don't think they'd be as bad for the country as Trump winning in 2016 has proven to be. I will always stand by that, nightmare midterm results and all.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Obviously I have no way of proving this, but I have become convinced that if Hillary did narrowly win in '16, Trump would have never shut up about the "rigged process" and almost certainly would have run in '20, picked up the nomination, and done very well (relatively speaking) again.

[Coldstream]

I think she’d only be slightly worse off than Trump is.

I think people are forgetting how divided the GOP would be, they’d have been tearing themselves apart with recriminations over Trump and the future direction of the party. If it was Kasich or Haley who won the nomination they’d probably win the election quite easily, but I could have seen someone like Cruz or Paul winning the nomination and then throwing it away in the GE.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Even in this scenario, an establishment republican would more easily flip WI or PA than CO or VA.  And if Trump lost by a substantial margin (Clinton 300+ EVs), he wouldn't run again or be very unsuccessful if he tried.  A Scott/Haley ticket would be a substantial challenge to the 73 year old president Clinton.

Here's a lower end case scenario for Republicans in this scenario.

Republicans 279
Clinton 259

[morgankingsley]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

Who would the perot be

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans would have a good chance at 60+ Senators when they defeat her.

[Alben Barkley]

Depends on what the GOP does, honestly. If they somehow manage to go even crazier and farther right than Trump in 2020, decent chance she pulls off a “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” type win in 2020.

If they do something more sensible like nominate Kasich or Romney again, she will indeed end up as the Democratic HW.

But who cares, in the end? Ultimately I believe HW will be redeemed as the best President of his party in decades, perhaps even the last great Republican. He’s already halfway there. Hillary, by virtue of being the first woman president alone, would go down in history, and likely the farther removed we got from the Clinton derangement syndrome, the more revered she would be. There would undoubtedly be a Clinton Memorial erected on the National Mall at some point. Depriving me of the chance to go there in my old age and beam at how that must infuriate Republicans burning in hell is honestly the worst thing the GOP has ever done to me personally.

[BigVic]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

Who would the perot be

Bernie Sanders most likely

[Pericles]

Republicans would have a good chance at 60+ Senators when they defeat her.

If the 2018 Senate elections had Republicans win all states Trump won irl and no others, then they would gain 9 seats. While Clinton winning would flip WI, MI and PA, and possibly FL, those would be narrow wins so Republicans would have a good shot in WI, MI and PA and of course already gained Florida irl. Plus Nevada would likely stay Republican due to incumbency advantage, and in a Clinton midterm even New Jersey could be competitive (since Menendez only won by 11% in a blue wave).

Another way of looking at it would be to have Republicans win all races they lost by less than 10% in 2018, so Republicans would have a net gain of 8 seats. If Republicans do better and win all races they lost irl by less than 12%, they would have a net gain of 11 seats (which from their irl base of 51 seats would get them a filibuster-proof majority, though it depends on how much Democrats improve from 2016-and if Clinton wins a very narrow win it's possible Republicans could actually have 52 seats by no races in 2016 being changed and of course Alabama doesn't flip in 2017).

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think she’d only be slightly worse off than Trump is.

I think people are forgetting how divided the GOP would be, they’d have been tearing themselves apart with recriminations over Trump and the future direction of the party. If it was Kasich or Haley who won the nomination they’d probably win the election quite easily, but I could have seen someone like Cruz or Paul winning the nomination and then throwing it away in the GE.

You do make a good point, but I still don't think it would matter.

Sure, the GOP would probably try to go back to moderating themselves, but the GOP primary voters still wouldn't necessarily reciprocate that ideal. They would still be the deranged, bloodthirsty lunatics that they were in 2016. Someone like Tom Cotton would probably win the primary and, even in spite of how reactionary and divisive he would be, win the general election too. This would mostly be due to what would become massive party fatigue for the Democrats holding the White House, as I said in my post.

[morgankingsley]

I think she would be on track to becoming the Democratic version of George H. W. Bush.

Who would the perot be

Bernie Sanders most likely

Do you think he could win some states

[Epaminondas]

If Hillary had won, her actual job performance would be irrelevant.
All that would matter is whether the red-hot anger coursing through the veins of the GOP would lead to young Dem voters tuning in to politics, or (more likely) switching off even worse than 2014.

After all, why bother voting when your party seemingly has a stranglehold on the Presidency and you are ill-informed about the role of Congress?