2020: HRC (inc.) vs. Bruce Rauner

[Sir Mohamed]

Say HRC wins the 2016 election and runs for reelection in 2020 against IL Gov. Bruce Rauner, who prevailed in a crowded GOP field of candidates. Rauner obviously got reelected in 2018. What happens?

[President Johnson]

I think Hillary loses pretty badly and Rauner narrowly wins the popular vote.



✓ Governor Bruce Rauner (R-IL)/Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL): 300 EV. (49.04%)
President Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)/Vice President Timothy M. Kaine (D-VA): 238 EV. (48.59%)

[Schiff for Senate]

I have issues with a Rauner nomination since I feel like eventually the delegates would support a more conservative candidate, and also becuase I strongly doubt even Rauner could survive in a blue year like 2018 in a state as liberal as Illinois. If he did, though, and then won the nomination, I'd say he loses the general election because ultra conservative Republicans stay home or vote for a third-party or write-in candidate rather than Rauner. Maybe some right-wing third-party alternative would crop up (the Constitutionalist candidate? I don't know) which enough far right-wingers would back for Clinton to win by a comfortable amount (north of 300 electoral votes and a popular vote win of about 5 points or so).

[NewYorkExpress]

Hillary's hated enough for conservatives to rally around Rauner, though he has to pick a conservative running mate (possibly Pence again). COVID, ultimately, is what sinks Hillary's chances here. It would be practically impossible for any incumbent to survive COVID, especially in America, where mask-wearing and the vaccine became a partisan issue. Hillary still narrowly wins the popular vote, though.

Incumbent President Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Incumbent Vice President Tim Kaine (D-VA) 49%
Governor Bruce Rauner (R-IL)/Former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) 47.5%

[Fuzzy Bear]

HRC would win.

HRC would have the advantages of incumbency, and just think what a monster force the Clinton Foundation would have been had HRC been elected.

Rauner is a guy who didn't endorse Trump.  Candidates who have a track record of not endorsing the national ticket in the past have difficulties later on.  Then, too, there would be the fiscal problems of Illinois.  Rauner did not caused them, but people would associate him with them.

[GregTheGreat657]

I have issues with a Rauner nomination since I feel like eventually the delegates would support a more conservative candidate, and also becuase I strongly doubt even Rauner could survive in a blue year like 2018 in a state as liberal as Illinois. If he did, though, and then won the nomination, I'd say he loses the general election because ultra conservative Republicans stay home or vote for a third-party or write-in candidate rather than Rauner. Maybe some right-wing third-party alternative would crop up (the Constitutionalist candidate? I don't know) which enough far right-wingers would back for Clinton to win by a comfortable amount (north of 300 electoral votes and a popular vote win of about 5 points or so).

In this timeline, 2018 would have a Hillary midterm, and I don't see her being popular enough to stop another red wave (presumably Hillary got narrow majorities in both chambers)

[Schiff for Senate]

I have issues with a Rauner nomination since I feel like eventually the delegates would support a more conservative candidate, and also becuase I strongly doubt even Rauner could survive in a blue year like 2018 in a state as liberal as Illinois. If he did, though, and then won the nomination, I'd say he loses the general election because ultra conservative Republicans stay home or vote for a third-party or write-in candidate rather than Rauner. Maybe some right-wing third-party alternative would crop up (the Constitutionalist candidate? I don't know) which enough far right-wingers would back for Clinton to win by a comfortable amount (north of 300 electoral votes and a popular vote win of about 5 points or so).

In this timeline, 2018 would have a Hillary midterm, and I don't see her being popular enough to stop another red wave (presumably Hillary got narrow majorities in both chambers)

Good catch. But I still feel like the nation would be too polarized by 2018 for a state as blue as IL to elect a Republican as governor. For instance in real life, 2018 was a very blue year and IN, a state roughly as red as IL is blue, had a Democratic senator who lost reelection. Similarly, even in a red 2018, I doubt IL, a very blue state, would reelect a GOP incumbent. Anyway, my other point still holds - even if Rauner did get reelected in 2018, I doubt he'd win the GOP electorate in the primary. Then again, maybe he can pull a Romney: a red governor in a blue state who pivoted rightward when running for president, and while they nominated the bombastic Trump in 2016, it's possible they decide they want someone moderate after twelve years out of power and take Rauner. I don't know. I still feel like Rauner'd be a long shot for the GOP nomination.

[LAB-LIB]

I have issues with a Rauner nomination since I feel like eventually the delegates would support a more conservative candidate, and also becuase I strongly doubt even Rauner could survive in a blue year like 2018 in a state as liberal as Illinois. If he did, though, and then won the nomination, I'd say he loses the general election because ultra conservative Republicans stay home or vote for a third-party or write-in candidate rather than Rauner. Maybe some right-wing third-party alternative would crop up (the Constitutionalist candidate? I don't know) which enough far right-wingers would back for Clinton to win by a comfortable amount (north of 300 electoral votes and a popular vote win of about 5 points or so).

In this timeline, 2018 would have a Hillary midterm, and I don't see her being popular enough to stop another red wave (presumably Hillary got narrow majorities in both chambers)

Good catch. But I still feel like the nation would be too polarized by 2018 for a state as blue as IL to elect a Republican as governor. For instance in real life, 2018 was a very blue year and IN, a state roughly as red as IL is blue, had a Democratic senator who lost reelection. Similarly, even in a red 2018, I doubt IL, a very blue state, would reelect a GOP incumbent. Anyway, my other point still holds - even if Rauner did get reelected in 2018, I doubt he'd win the GOP electorate in the primary. Then again, maybe he can pull a Romney: a red governor in a blue state who pivoted rightward when running for president, and while they nominated the bombastic Trump in 2016, it's possible they decide they want someone moderate after twelve years out of power and take Rauner. I don't know. I still feel like Rauner'd be a long shot for the GOP nomination.

Honestly, I think that if Hillary had won, there's a good chance that Republicans would have been angrier and that Rauner would have lost to Jeanne Ives in the primary.