How would things have been if Hillary won in 2016?

Post Reply New Topic

Can I be brutal? I prefer Trump in 2016 and Biden now over Hilary in 2016 and Trump now. Because Ukraine. I don't want an idiot in charge now.
If Republicans offered some non-idiot candidate, I wouldn't mind Hilary in 2016 and a non-idiot Republican now.

She would have probably been much more boring than Trump. But I really wonder how she would have managed covid. Where I live, I was sure that "the other party" would have been just as ineffective on this as the one that was in power. It depends on much more than who's in charge - the whole system and how a given society reacts, all parameters like that do contribute.
How much could US president really do about it? How different it would be then? I can't really tell.

Trump becomes a controversial figure in the GOP rather than it's leader. He'd still have that 40% of the GOP that support him, but also that other 60% that blame him and his controversies for losing the election.

Scotus remains balanced; Roe V Wade isn't overturned.

Coronavirus still happens, so she doesn't get re-elected in 2020.

I remember when I was self-employed and Obamacare was just instated, I found myself unable to find reasonable choices for insurance. All the sudden insurance companies could not sell me insurance when I called them, even though I had money to pay them. With new regulations most exited the individual insurance market entirely, leaving only employer group insurance. The state Obamacare marketplace had few crummy choices. Nevermind the enrollment dumpster fire. Then came the year to year price hikes. I was seeing 40% annual increases. The law required companies disclose and explain reasons for price hikes, presumably to be able to remain on the marketplace. The loophole was to retire the plan every year and create a new plan under a new name or number, so it won't be a direct increase so they won't be required to report. On top of the crummy choices I would be punished on taxes if I didn't.

Insurance is a business, and they're not in business of losing money. Forcing them to insure disabled people or people with pre-existing conditions. In any other circumstance underwriting would not take on insuring those people.
Sure, before under the brutal capitalism you could have been denied, but you could also buy insurance you want if you had money to pay, which I did.

As a two time Obama voter I was extremely disappointed. In fact, his presidency was one huge disappointment. But it was him vs the warmonger John McCain or the sore loser Mitt Romney.

Elections certainly do have consequences. Considering the options I am satisfied with the outcome of the 2016 elections.

Very sensible response.

I don't think I agree about Roe v Wade though. Clinton would probably have managed to replace Scalia, but Kennedy probably wouldn't have retired, and she wouldn't have replaced RBG. Her replacement would have nominated two justices similar to Gorsuch and Barrett (possibly exactly those two people) who would have voted in a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe. The possible loophole is if Kennedy stays on long enough to hear Dobbs - he would probably have voted to preserve Roe. That would mean Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Garland, and Kennedy voting against (e.g.) Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Barrett.

The real benefit would be in the window between Garland's appointment and RBG's death.

That said, if Clinton wins then it seems reasonably likely McGinty also wins in Pennsylvania. Assuming all other races went the same way, the Senate would be 51-49. Clinton would only need the support of one Republican - Murkowski or Collins being most likely - to appoint a replacement to RBG before 2018. So perhaps Clinton could convince RBG to retire in early 2018 and appoint a replacement that summer.

I'll add -

- Clinton probably reverts to support for free trade when she gets into office, and brings the US into TPP (as it would still have been known). This is both great for American consumers and a huge strategic victory over China as the Pacific region looks to the US instead.

- Equally, Clinton doesn't pivot towards a trade war with China. This is also good for the American consumer and probably doesn't hurt China very much, but it's possible in some way this makes China stronger.

- Clinton doesn't cause that North Korea fracas.

- Clinton might copy Obama and fail to bomb Assad when he uses chemical weapons.

- Clinton still kills al-Baghdadi but might not kill Soleimani. She almost certainly doesn't use the MOAB.

- Clinton probably doesn't step up the drone war to the extent that Trump did.

- Clinton doesn't rapidly pull out of Syria, which caused a blowback against the Kurds, and doesn't sign a peace deal with the Taliban, which caused the botched evacuation of Kabul.

- US death toll from COVID is probably lower, but it's possible some of the southern Republican governors with their eye on the White House are even more anti-lockdown than they were in the prime time line. Clinton still struggles in 2020.

- I don't actually think the Republicans would impeach Clinton. I don't have high regard for McCarthy but he isn't going to impeach her without good cause, and I don't think Clinton would give them good cause. She isn't going to threaten to withhold support for a country unless they fabricate evidence against her political opponents, she isn't going to incite a mob to march on the Capitol and prevent the certification of election results.

- 2018 goes worse for the Democrats than it did in real life.

- George Floyd protests happen much the same, but Clinton doesn't do the weird Bible thing.

- Clinton doesn't fall for all of Putin's lies. She is probably the President best placed to not make the same "reset" mistake over again, having been in both the Clinton and Obama White Houses. Equally though, I also don't think she reacts as strongly to Salisbury as Trump.

- Clinton doesn't botch the southern border the way that Trump did, but the current "deportations" carried out by Republican governors happen sooner and immigration is a much bigger issue in 2020 than it was in the original time line.

- Clinton doesn't have many legislative victories because the Senate is stacked against her. Much like late Obama, she is restricted to a few bipartisan pieces of legislation and some executive orders.

Whitewater, Vince Foster it doesn't matter they would have found a reason to impeach her. If they refuse to acknowledge an election that 60 judges agree was legit, why would they need an airtight case before impeaching her? Did they not impeach her husband over a blowjob?

Actually it wasn't the BJ, it was lying to a grand jury about it.

Funny how his middle name is "Jefferson". So his initials and last name would be B. J. Clinton.

they(voters) possibly couldn't stand the choice between one dynasty or the other, bush vs clinton,
instant amnesia happened at that point,
2013 John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: 'We are here to support ...
2014 John McCain pour armer les Ukrainiens
2016 McCain visits frontline Ukraine troops in anti-Putin gesture
2017 US senators praise Ukrainian marines, slam Putin
2019 Ukraine – Kiev rebaptise une rue du nom de John McCain
2017
2014 US Senator McCain Ramps Up Rhetoric on Ukraine
2013 BUSINESS INSIDERJohn McCain Went To Ukraine And Stood On Stage With A Man Accused Of Being An Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi https://www.businessinsider.com/john-mc ... ?r=US&IR=T

or try Kerry-he who speaks with forked tongue-
2014 Biden's Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer's Board https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-son ... 1400031749

Since the shooting down of malayan airplane from amsterdam, over former royal dutch shell fields
things are murky https://www.businessinsider.com/shell-h ... ?r=US&IR=T

Ukraine's Burisma Holdings Is Controlled by Former Energy Official Under Yanukovych
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-son ... 1400031749

The idea that staying with a less-than-perfect husband means one does not actually support women's rights is, IMHO, simply wrong. To me, it shows a fundamental failure to understand what the whole point is supposed to be.

The ultimate woman's right is the simple decision to be married - or not married - to whomever you want, and to accept - or not accept - what happens in that relationship based on your own priorities. The right to make one's own choices includes the unending right to make what others consider bad choices.

So I say this as a strong advocate for women's rights: her decisions with respect to her husband were never any of our business, and have zero bearing on her advocacy for women's rights. It was and is her choice to make, and hers alone, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Women's rights means if you want your marriage, then the rest of us stay out of it. PERIOD.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 25 Oct 2022, 4:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

The issue goes far beyond what some women would choose to do based on potential imperfections in their child. We're already seeing women's health being severely affected by the overturn of Roe v Wade because the law simply is an improper tool for dealing with what is, ultimately, a medical issue. Depending on the state and the wording of the law, the restriction against abortion can also resulted in some dangerous "unintended" consequences, such as:
- Women unable to have a dead fetus removed despite the risk of sepsis
- Women unable to have a non-viable, partially miscarried fetus removed despite high risk to the woman
- Women with cancer unable to receive treatment for the cancer
- Child victims of rape, whose bodies and mental state are not ready to carry a fetus, forced to do so
- Delays in treatment of preeclampsia, a condition that puts the life of the mother at severe risk

Put all that on top of the reality that making abortion illegal has been shown to not actually stop anyone determined to have one, from having one, and the whole thing is clearly misguided.

Then there is the statistical reality that restricting abortion correlates strongly with a reduction to access to all levels of healthcare for women, and with an increase in maternal mortality.

None of that is accurately favorable to supporting life.

I consider myself pragmatically, but not politically, pro-life. I sincerely believe that making abortion illegal is not the way to achieve the desired result.

This really is the only piece we can say with certainty: the Supreme Court would look very different.

Just so you know, the odds of getting an individual policy really were not any better before the ACA. That reality was, in fact, one of the primary drivers behind initiating insurance reform: that insurance was too difficult to get, with high levels of people rejected.

I started my own business in those pre-days. I knew all the horror stories of rejection after rejection after rejection. The only way I got health insurance was by joining a professional society and going through the professional society's group plan. My premiums were crazy high, but at least I had it.

I promise, it was not any better "before."

If I could peer into an alternate timeline, I'd be curious to see how COVID would have been spun by the Democrats and Republicans if Hillary had been president while it was happening. I don't know exactly how, but I feel like both their takes would have been different.

Everyone would have been ordered to quarantine in "safe spaces" with crayons and coloring books.

That already had happened. Did you forget "stay home, save lives", "alone together", and other liberal brainwashing?

It was a pun on democrat reaction to the "surprise" loss in 2016.