If Clinton was elected President in 2016...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2023, 12:08:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  If Clinton was elected President in 2016...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Do you think the 2020 election would've been a Clinton-Trump rematch?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 93

Author Topic: If Clinton was elected President in 2016...  (Read 4931 times)
GM Team Member WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2023, 03:52:57 AM »

honestly the more I look back at things the more I wonder if UACOG would've happened with Hillary winning
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,884



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2023, 03:59:47 AM »

Trump's difficulties in the primary right now-when he had gained the base's loyalty from winning 2016 and having four years as President-make clear that he would have not been renominated. He would have just been the loser who let the second most unpopular nominee in history win a third term for her party. Maybe it would even be a rising star Florida Republican who takes it instead, but Rubio didn't quite have the winning presidential candidate X factor.
Logged
Mechalord
The News
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 347


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2023, 09:57:47 AM »
« Edited: January 29, 2023, 11:25:16 AM by Mechalord »

Likely not.

For starters Trump would have to prove that 2016 was "a fluke" and that he still had the qualities to win.  However, seeing as how Donald Trump reacted in 2020 when he lost fair and square by millions of votes I doubt that he will even make this argument but instead come off sounding like a sore loser like he has in real life.  I will refrain from going too much into what happened in 2022 (I think the results of this strategy is obvious to anyone whose head is not up Trump's Trump), but if this is how Trump reacted to what should have been an obvious defeat imagine how he would react to barely losing to one of the most hated figures in the history of the American Right?

He'd go on a four year long campaign about how he got cheated, robbed, and screwed out of the presidency and how the elites were all out to get him.  Now yes, there definitely has been a portion of the GOP base that has viewed any election losses as unfair since at least Obama (not joking, look it up) but going into 2020 against Hillary Clinton as President?  While he would have some appealing arguments on his side like "none of this would have happened if I was allowed to build a wall and restore sanity to our immigration laws" or "I would have been much tougher on China, I would not have let a single bat into this country.  Tell me folks, do you think the Democratic approach to China has been tough at all?" he would have to demonstrate to the GOP primary voters that his "road map" to the White House makes more sense than whoever he is running against (who may or may not steal his positions on some issues but could in this scenario say "I can do this better than Trump).

Because that's the thing, that's the factor to consider.  We've all only seen Trump when he has won an election and lost re-election.  Trump starts off in this scenario LOSING, NO WINNING REQUIRED.  What strength he has going into RL 2024 is based on his strength as a former PRESIDENT who has a record of executive experience.  Trump would not have this advantage if Hillary Clinton got elected in 2016.

I cannot stress enough the anti-loser sentiment of voters.  Being a loser is one of the worst things you can be politically in this nation.  Don't believe me?  Ask Beto O'Rourke.  Ask Stacey Abrams.  Two promising Democratic candidates in red states who received probably dozens of scathing write ups by bored journalists just a few days after both massively underperformed versus other Democratic candidates in a better than expected year for Democrats.  Now I will concede that in O'Rourke's case he kind of did himself in by running for President right after losing a Senate race against Ted Cruz, but if O'Rourke wasn't a loser do you think he would have said dumb Schiff like "Hell Yeah I'm going to take your AR-15" if he had a remote thought of trying to win a statewide race in TEXAS?

Alright, I'm getting off track here but you guys get my point.  The American Voter does not warm up to people with a proven track record of losing who don't seem to learn from their mistakes.  And everything we've heard from Trump over the past idk how many years (6? 7?  It feels like forever), does this seem like a man who has the ability to learn from any mistakes he's ever made?  This man is being triggered now because after throwing every cabinet official imaginable under the bus while President some candidates who previously relied upon his support are now "disloyal" to him?  Like holy Schiff Donald, you kind of set the tone of disloyalty and political opportunism at the top, didn't you?

Also, another key factor to consider are #NeverTrump GOP types.  Sure, we all laugh at these folks now, the Lincoln Project was straight up hilarious, but we only remember these types as losers deserving of mockery now because the candidate they opposed got elected and they reacted like teenagers who got ditched at prom.  However, in a scenario where Hillary Clinton beats Donald Trump?  Yeah this group that were made out to be huge jokes would suddenly have a few dozen valid points.  You might even hear a presidential comeback for Mitt Romney being given serious talks (we all laugh, we remember 2012 he was an absolute joke back then but that was against Barack Obama not Hillary Skeleton Piles In My Closet Clinton).  Basically, the amount of butterfly effects within the GOP leading up to the 2020 would multiply at an exponential rate.

Also, the nomination of Trump did bring out a lot of liberal activists and a lot of them stayed angry after he got elected president.  I think there is enough evidence out there to argue that while yes this almost constant activism did increase Democratic turnout in the 2018 midterms that it also brought out not only base Republican voters but otherwise non-voters into supporting Donald Trump in 2020.  To a lot of voters Donald Trump might have been corrupt, he might have been crass, but good lord in heaven they did not like rich educated Schiffheads who think they are God's Gift to Humanity lecturing them about how them minding their own business and trying to pay their bills their entire lives is somehow a manifestation of "white supremacy" "the supremacy of the patriarchs" or whatever high minded pseudo-intellectual garbage they were going on about that week.  For the record I do believe that there is some merit to "White Priviliege" (I've bought drugs many times before, have never been followed, I've smoked weed while driving somewhere gotten pulled over by a cop nothing), I'm not denying that at all, but there is a place in the Rabbit Hole where this sort of analysis goes off the deep end.  That is a discussion for another time. . . . my overall point here is Democrats would have less reason to be beholden to such interests in this scenario which would in the long run would not encourage independent voter types to consider supporting Trump as an "eff you" to liberal cultural snobs.

So basically Trump would have a lot more hurdles and less startup support in this scenario.  Before I can even address how I think Hillary Clinton's term or how she would handle the pandemic Trump's situation in this case has to be considered based off of all of these factors which could be greatly different from what happened IRL.  It is true that Trump didn't come off as weak or as "boring" as his 2016 competitors. . . . but that was before he showed up.  Going into 2020 his competitors in the GOP Primaries will have more knowledge of how Trump works, his campaign strategies, his tactics, etc. .  And yes while we can bash "Loser Paul", "Lyin Ted", "Little Marco", "Low Energy Jeb", etc. . it is important to remember that the openly disgraced members of the GOP the ones that Trump absolutely humiliated were generally members of the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus wings.  John Kasich might not have done as well as Ted or Marco delegate count wise or state victory wise, however the man had a record of winning over 60% statewide in Ohio and even many Trump supporters viewed him as a likeable non-offensive guy who would have likely murdered Clinton if he got the nomination.  His case would be much stronger in a situation where Trump lost the election.  He could even boost his profile by bashing Trump for being a "sore loser" and not "working with the process".  He'd even have strong support among similar demographics as Trump while not losing #NeverTrump types.  Another strong contender would be (ironically) Chris Christie who besides the scandal with the bridge would be in a good position of saying he supported the party nominee in 2016 while also defending his own moderate blue state GOP record.  The man simply would have support among basically all major GOP groups, he would be seen as more respectable than Trump, but not afraid to call out even other Republicans for being "phonies" (see his BRUTAL takedown of Marco Rubio).

If that is not enough, there have also been articles written that suggest that Trump did not even intend on winning in 2016 (example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-andrew-neil-election-bill-clinton-paid-rupert-murdoch-party-a9341221.html).  Now yes, I do realize this does contradict my earlier point about Trump being a sore loser but bear in mind that this would have been how Trump felt BEFORE he became President.  I don't mean to suggest Trump would have been above starting a riot in 2017 because he didn't get his way.  That likely would have happened though said riot (and court challenges and what not) might have taken a different form and likely fizzled out quicker than the ones that happened in 2021.  Point is in this scenario I anticipate not only would Trump be seen as a proven loser even many base Republican types would have much more cause to question his character and competency in the absence of a Trump Presidency and the "SJW"/"Woke"/whatever the hell you want to call it response against his presidency.  There would likely be some activism but it would likely be closer to what it was under Obama (here and there) rather than what felt like a near constant barrage of professional protesters making the news every Sunday.

So there you have it lads.  I might make a second post about how Hillary Clinton''s term would go, who her Republican challenger might be, and how the election would turn out but on the basis of this question I honestly think there would be less than a 50% chance of Trump re-winning the GOP nomination and facing her.  I think the basic fundamentals would change to such an extent that while there would likely be a Republican reaction against Clinton Trump would still be seen as a massive sore losers months after the election.  For those who want to counter "well yeah but Trump OWNS the GOP" bear in mind that Hillary Clinton DESPITE NEVER BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT was considered such a heavyweight among the Democratic faithful that she ran for (and was heavily pushed for) president TWICE and lost a primary in 2008 and eventually a general election in 2016.  In the former case she quietly and timidly supported the eventual winner and in the latter she wrote a book basically blaming everybody but herself for her loss.  Now folks. . . . . how did things turn out for Clinton in these two cases?  In the former case she ended up becoming the Secretary of State.  In the latter case she ended up becoming a pariah among literally everybody but the Clinton obsessed Schifflibs who get their rocks off to CNN instead of naked people online like the rest of us do.  As much as people would not like to admit this Trump and Clinton are actually very similar personality wise, even if they personify that in different ways.  Once you get over the insane PUMA image of Clinton and the rich crass corrupt money launderer image of Trump both of these folks display to an incredible degree an inability to accept political realities and learn from their mistakes.

A lot of Republican voters may be stubborn.  They may subscribe to a politics of resentment that is jarring at times.  But just like Democrats Republican voters want to you know win elections.  In 2020 the voters of the Democratic preferred Joe Biden as the presidential nominee over more "ideologically acceptable" nominees because they believed Biden would be a safer hedge against Trump, even with Covid-19 thrown in.  Bernie Sanders actually lost momentum, a ton of momentum, in 2020 versus 2016.  We can discuss the factors behind that (for the record I supported Sanders), which there were, but at the end of the day Joe Biden won a majority of Democratic primary voters in a crowded field.  He beat Bernie by almost twice the amount of votes.  This was despite Hillary Clinton (a closer ideological candidate to Biden) losing to Trump in 2016.  I think the Republican situation in 2020 with Covid-19 would be similar: Republican voters would not be inclined to take chances in an attempt to unseat Hillary Clinton, who was again one of the most hated figures among the Right for decades.

A Trump without a 2016 win with Hillary Clinton in the White House would be politically neutered.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,312
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2023, 02:30:25 PM »

The Republican establishment likely would've ensured that Trump didn't receive the nomination again. Trump would've had a harder time keeping his base enthusiasm alive for four years if he wasn't actually president.

How would they do that? The Republican establishment has lost control over its base a long time ago. It's the base that selects the candidate for president. Trump might not have been the nominee in 2020 after a defeat in 2016, but it would have been some other guy on the staunch right.
Logged
Lord Admirale
Admiral President
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,876
Tonga


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2023, 03:30:46 PM »

Yes. If not for the Comey letter Clinton would probably have been able to barely hang onto the Midwest and won a 1960-esque nailbiter. She would have had approval ratings on the 20s and 30s throughout her term as she would have still been despised by the Bernie crowd. Backlash against Covid restrictions would have been a thousand times worse since the GOP would have a common enemy to unite against.

The better than expected showing by Trump causes the party bosses to warm up to him in 2020 and he would have an interest in running again to get his ego stroked by his big crowds of adoring admirers. There would be some resistance to his renomination but not nearly enough to stop him from getting the nod. Trump would retain his outsider appeal while Hillary would be fatally damaged by four years of nonstop GOP investigations.

Her approval ratings would have gone up temporarily due to Covid but again with a common enemy the GOP would have given her the same treatment Gretchen Whitmer got IRL. Eventually as the pandemic raged on with no end in sight Trump would have campaigned on ending the lockdowns and independents would rationalize voting for him "because he'll handle Covid the same way he runs his businesses!"

Hillary would then lose the 2016 map give or take New Hampshire or Virginia and we'd have a Trump presidency with him four years further into dementia land.

Hot take: due to the butterfly effect, there wouldn't have been a pandemic under her.

Don't get me wrong, she still would have been an unpopular lame duck regardless though.

The bolded part is correct. Trump is the one who disbanded the pandemic preparedness team. Had Hillary been President, it would never have left China.
I really doubt this. It had run rampant in multiple countries (Italy, Spain, South Korea IIRC) before reaching the US. I am pretty sure it would have found its way into the United States one way or another. I could see it being milder under Clinton, but I believe it was an inevitability no matter who wins 2016.
Logged
nfvlmv
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2023, 05:47:04 PM »

I think there's a case to be made for Trump maintaining a grip hold on gullible rural America.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2023, 06:45:36 PM »

I think there's a case to be made for Trump maintaining a grip hold on gullible rural America.

It's possible, but is that alone enough to win the nomination in 2020? After seeing Neocon War cheerleader and his proto Trump running mate go down in flames in 2008, Flip Flopper and his Tea Party darling of a running mate lose a winnable election in 2012, and baggage plagued narcissistic businessman and his theocratic running mate lose an even more winnable election to a flawed opponent in 2016, I think the GOP would go in a more (on the surface) moderate direction for 2020.
Logged
BlahTheCanuckTory
BlahTheCanuck
Rookie
**
Posts: 243
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2023, 11:56:03 AM »

I am not an expert on American political dynamics, but it seems to me that the Trump/MAGA movement would have quickly died down had Trump lost to Clinton in 2016. What was appealing about Trump for his supporters at the time was the fact that he seemed like an unserious, funny, intentionally provocative candidate that would upset the status quo if he actually won. He was the candidate of the people who saw themselves as 'anti-establishment' and had unorthodox views in the American political context. It seems to me like the American public rallies behind candidates long-term based on whether or not they have a record of being electorally successful or not. If the MAGA movement had not been legitimized with its 2016 victory, it would have been much harder to seriously justify a second Trump run in 2020, so it would not be a Clinton-Trump rematch.

At the same time, I will admit that my understanding of how the American public picks which candidates to rally behind is very limited. From my perspective, it seems like the American public tries various different types of candidates to see which one is most likely to win. In 2008, the GOP tried a very moderate Republican - John McCain. That failed. In 2012, a hardline neoconservative, Mitt Romney. That also failed. They tried Trump in 2016, an unconventional populist, and that worked. So Trump is a 'winner', not to mention an audacious one who 'owns the libs', so the GOP decided to stick with him, while McCain et al quickly lost relevance amongst the GOP base. Had Trump lost the 2016 election he likely would have quickly become irrelevant too, IMO.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 13 queries.