538: If Clinton had won

[GeorgiaModerate]

A well-written alternate reality by Nate Silver. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JA]

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

If she won, I highly doubt her approval rating would be as low as Trump's, contrary to the article. She would've at least tried to unite the nation rather than vilify those who didn't vote for her.

All around good article. Shows us that even if she had won, nothing would have actually been able to be done, kind of like our current situation, due to the GOP congress.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

[kyc0705]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want a profile on Earth 4044 next.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

I would like to know next week's lottery numbers from you.

FFS, you're about 6 months into the Trump Presidency and already saying it's good for Democrats he won.

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want a profile on Earth 4044 next.

No car tax, though.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

I would like to know next week's lottery numbers from you.

FFS, you're about 6 months into the Trump Presidency and already saying it's good for Democrats he won.

That's not really a controversial opinion.

Hillary Clinton is an incredibly unpopular polarizing figure who would've alienated progressives from going to the polls worse than 2010 or 2014. The out Party usually does better in midterm years and when you've been the out Party for 10 years and the opposition Party president is an unpopular figure who 2/3's of Americans deemed as untrustworthy then yeah you're gonna gain seats in a midterm year. In recent American history there have only been a couple instances when the in Party gained seats and it's usually the first two years into office and coincides with weird events (9/11 in 2002 boosting the rally behind the flag effect for the GOP).

This offers Democrats a clean slate to readjust and not be stuck with their own Party President who's deeply divisive and unpopular in power. Hillary Clinton as the face of the Democratic Party would have been a horrible situation for Democrats no matter which was you slice it. Not to mention that the GOP could recalibrate in 2020 with a more seasoned candidate that coopted some of Trump's more populist rhetoric without fully alienating minorities and suburban republicans the way he did.

2018 and 2020 would be god awful for the Democratic Party with Clinton at the helm.

[MichaelRbn]

For me the least plausible part of this scenario is the "deal with McConnell" to get the Supreme Court seat filled.  Following a Clinton victory, no matter how slim, I can't imagine that enough Republicans wouldn't support Garland to resolve the matter.

[Brittain33]

For me the least plausible part of this scenario is the "deal with McConnell" to get the Supreme Court seat filled.  Following a Clinton victory, no matter how slim, I can't imagine that enough Republicans wouldn't support Garland to resolve the matter.

You apparently must not have followed what Republican senators were pretty openly saying regarding a scenario where Clinton won and they held the Senate

I remember both Burr and Cruz promising R voters they wouldn't allow any SCOTUS judge nominated by Hillary to take their seat if they held the Senate, and why wouldn't we believe them?

[7,052,770]

If Hillary had won WI and PA, wouldn't she have dragged Feingold and McGinty across the finish line too and gotten herself a 50-50 Senate?

Even if not, the world described in that article sounds amazingly good compared to the sh**tshow we have now. Even if she didn't accomplish much as president, just maintaining the status quo for 4 years would have been a godsend to the people who rely on Obamacare, Medicaid, and other government programs.

[BudgieForce]

If Hillary had won WI and PA, wouldn't she have dragged Feingold and McGinty across the finish line too and gotten herself a 50-50 Senate?

Even if not, the world described in that article sounds amazingly good compared to the sh**tshow we have now. Even if she didn't accomplish much as president, just maintaining the status quo for 4 years would have been a godsend to the people who rely on Obamacare, Medicaid, and other government programs.

McGinty, maybe. Feingold, no. Hillary lost WI by 23,000 votes. Russ Feingold lost by almost 100,000 votes.

[uti2]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

I would like to know next week's lottery numbers from you.

FFS, you're about 6 months into the Trump Presidency and already saying it's good for Democrats he won.

That's not really a controversial opinion.

Hillary Clinton is an incredibly unpopular polarizing figure who would've alienated progressives from going to the polls worse than 2010 or 2014. The out Party usually does better in midterm years and when you've been the out Party for 10 years and the opposition Party president is an unpopular figure who 2/3's of Americans deemed as untrustworthy then yeah you're gonna gain seats in a midterm year. In recent American history there have only been a couple instances when the in Party gained seats and it's usually the first two years into office and coincides with weird events (9/11 in 2002 boosting the rally behind the flag effect for the GOP).

This offers Democrats a clean slate to readjust and not be stuck with their own Party President who's deeply divisive and unpopular in power. Hillary Clinton as the face of the Democratic Party would have been a horrible situation for Democrats no matter which was you slice it. Not to mention that the GOP could recalibrate in 2020 with a more seasoned candidate that coopted some of Trump's more populist rhetoric without fully alienating minorities and suburban republicans the way he did.

2018 and 2020 would be god awful for the Democratic Party with Clinton at the helm.

To fulfill the conditions of the cycle theory, that is what should've happened. Hillary should've beaten a normal republican, then the republicans would make a total comeback like they did in the 1920s setting the stage for the neo-FDR to come to power in 2028 or 2032.

If you look at the inherent conditions of the GOP congress, it's clear as present day that the Congress is filled with internal contradictions and wasn't prepared to work as a governing body.

Instead, imagine this, the Tea Party movement remains in effect, and the few remaining moderate GOPers are chased out and replaced with Tea Partyers (which would culminate with Mcconnell losing his seat in 2020). It's only at that point, that you would be able to have a cohesive ideological Tea Party ruling Republican trifecta.

The 2016 GOP primary would've been an ideological battle between the establishment and the tea party culminating with a defeat of the party as a result of the ideological tensions, it would be settled with a formal Tea Party takeover of the party following the defeat. Trump upset that dynamic and positioned himself in a unique way.

[Tekken_Guy]

A few questions:

How are the nature of the anti-Clinton protests different from our anti-Trump protests?

Was there a big march on January 21 just like on Earth-1? If there was, was it exponentially bigger than the inauguration?

What's it like in Hollywood? Would Hollywood become an overly politicized like it did on Earth-1 screaming "Support President Clinton or else!", or is it just business as usual with their preferred candidate in office? I doubt they're lashing out at people who oppose the president the way they are at Trump and his supporters on Earth-1.

Is "Last Man Standing" still on the air?

[i4indyguy]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

To my credit, I kept the TV on till the bitter end during election night, though that did require copious amounts of -OH, but this was my view of how a Hillary presidency would turn out if she did manage to win.

If her Midwest firewall hadn't cracked, she may have been able to keep a majority in the senate, replenishing the 5-4 liberal majority on SC and preserving O-care, but these would be the only things she would be able to accomplish.   It really is better for the country to get back to a more equal balance of power between the parties, and that would require the negation of the enormous gerrymandering advantage, and the return of some statehouses to the democrats.  If that requires losing on the SC balance and executive control for 4 years, that may just be a pill that has to be swallowed. 

[MichaelRbn]

For me the least plausible part of this scenario is the "deal with McConnell" to get the Supreme Court seat filled.  Following a Clinton victory, no matter how slim, I can't imagine that enough Republicans wouldn't support Garland to resolve the matter.

You apparently must not have followed what Republican senators were pretty openly saying regarding a scenario where Clinton won and they held the Senate

I remember both Burr and Cruz promising R voters they wouldn't allow any SCOTUS judge nominated by Hillary to take their seat if they held the Senate, and why wouldn't we believe them?

And I'd be willing to bet that for every Burr or Cruz there was a Collins or a Murkowski who would not be willing to see an eight member court indefinitely.

[Rookie Yinzer]

As mentioned above Hillary is more polarizing than Obama. Democrats would have been blown into oblivion with her as President. If Trump wasn't so god awful on every level I literally wouldn't have cared that the Republicans won the White House in 2016. Democrats have a golden opportunity to reset and put the Clintons in the past.

[Deblano]

The 2018 midterms with the Senate and House would've been brutal for the Democrats. And 2021 would've basically been 1921 for the GOP in terms of their sheer national, state, and local power. Forget about redistricting for the next decade as well, Project REDMAP on steroids would've put the GOP into an ungodly advantage for the 2020's.

Clinton losing and Trump winning was a blessing in disguise for Democrats.

I have said time and time again, as a former moderate Republican-turned-independent, that the nation is better off with a Trump victory.

We would essentially have the reverse of FDR with Clinton victory, with whopping GOP super majorities from coast-to-coast, and a one-term Clinton who was beaten by a more conservative candidate like Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, etc.

We'd be a de-facto one-party state, and not even because any opposition parties were banned or because free speech was curtailed, but because the Democrats were wiped out, under an unenthusiastic, malaise Clinton presidency, that they would have lost the power, seats, and prestige to be an effective opposition party.

[Brittain33]

For me the least plausible part of this scenario is the "deal with McConnell" to get the Supreme Court seat filled.  Following a Clinton victory, no matter how slim, I can't imagine that enough Republicans wouldn't support Garland to resolve the matter.

You apparently must not have followed what Republican senators were pretty openly saying regarding a scenario where Clinton won and they held the Senate

I remember both Burr and Cruz promising R voters they wouldn't allow any SCOTUS judge nominated by Hillary to take their seat if they held the Senate, and why wouldn't we believe them?

And I'd be willing to bet that for every Burr or Cruz there was a Collins or a Murkowski who would not be willing to see an eight member court indefinitely.

Ultimately McConnell controls the schedule, and it's good politics for him to keep it vacant. All he has to do is not hold a vote and Collins and Murkowsko can't do anything about it.

[Badger]

Democrats thinking it's really a good thing in Disguise that Hillary lost only need to wait the outcome of two years of Court packing by the GOP Senate. Not to mention we'll see what the so-called tax reform plan does.

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats thinking it's really a good thing in Disguise that Hillary lost only need to wait the outcome of two years of Court packing by the GOP Senate. Not to mention we'll see what the so-called tax reform plan does.

Good =/=   As fantastic as getting a bunch of chocolates.

Nonetheless, this so-called tax reform is unlikely to happen if things remained as fractured as they are and the in-party in-fights.

That Tip O Neill wing vs Carter wing sort of in-fighting wouldn't be there if Hillary won, and it's quite possible that you'd get all sorts of grassroots left movements pulling the same attitude the Religious Right gave Bush Sr.

And losing 2018/2020 for sure is much worse than having a decent shot at both.

[Santander]

Democrats thinking it's really a good thing in Disguise that Hillary lost only need to wait the outcome of two years of Court packing by the GOP Senate. Not to mention we'll see what the so-called tax reform plan does.

Whatever helps them avoid taking responsibility for losing the election...

[Virginiá]

Democrats thinking it's really a good thing in Disguise that Hillary lost only need to wait the outcome of two years of Court packing by the GOP Senate. Not to mention we'll see what the so-called tax reform plan does.

On the flip side, 2018 under Hillary could have easily allowed Republicans to amass a Senate majority so big that they might conceivably hold it for over a decade, especially if Hillary were to remain unpopular in 2020 and lose, probably leading to more Republican gains. All this would mean is that the Senate GOP slow-walks Hillary's court picks for 4 years, leading to a huge backlog (much bigger than what Mitch did to Obama) in 2021, where the newly sworn in Republican president proceeds to stack the courts even more than Trump is now. Granted, it's not hard to see Mitch being forced to confirm Garland, but there is no guarantee with people like Breyer and Ginsburg, assuming they retired.

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump is a crazy awful man and severely incompetent to boot, so while I'd rather take a massive midterm shellacking under Hillary, it would still be a very hard choice if we could go back and do that instead. Now Democrats have a really good shot at building up the party bigly downballot over the next 2 federal elections, and we could possibly control the White House from 2020 - 2028 (or even longer if we're lucky) if we get a good candidate elected. That will mean only 4 years of a Republican between 2008 - 2028, or 20 years. Overall, in that scenario, Democrats would be much better positioned in terms of the judiciary.

[emailking]

I'm generally skeptical of the win by losing argument. The notion that the Democrats would lose a bunch of seats (or any seats) under Hillary is a guess. Possibly a good one, but a guess nonetheless. But what's not a guess is that we have to suffer through Trump. And for all we know the Republicans could have great midterms. Remember, a year ago this time it was a no brainer that the Demos would take back the Senate, and many thought they had a real shot at the House too. Didn't happen.