How would a " President Hillary Clinton" would be doing now?

[fluffypanther19]

War with Russia and Soros as chief of the nation

huh!?!?

[fluffypanther19]

Republicans would be screaming about e-mails and Benghazi, and her entire presidency, or at least the first term, would see her get nothing really done with a Republican Congress that absolutely refuses to work with her in any way at all.

However, America would not be the laughing stock of the world like it is right now.  America would be still be respected world-wide.  There would be no talk of nuclear war with North Korea.  There would be some harsh sanctions against Russia for meddling in our election.  In response to a domestic crisis the likes of Charlottesville, Hillary would IMMEDIATELY and strongly condemn Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and white nationalists while ending with a unifying message to the country.  Her response would be nearly the exact opposite of Trump's, in that she would do her very best to bring the country together to stand against white nationalism, and she would receive universal praise for it.  Her approval would be mid 40s or so.

Donald Trump would be tweeting ridiculous stuff still.

Most took Obama as a clown  equal to Hillary, Soros would be the president of the nation

are you for real or a troll?  can't tell honestly

[Lincoln Republican]

There would still be a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court as the Republican Senate would not approve her leftist pick.

Crooked Hillary would be using her own server and deleting thousands of emails every day.



 

[Person Man]

Republicans would be screaming about e-mails and Benghazi, and her entire presidency, or at least the first term, would see her get nothing really done with a Republican Congress that absolutely refuses to work with her in any way at all.

However, America would not be the laughing stock of the world like it is right now.  America would be still be respected world-wide.  There would be no talk of nuclear war with North Korea.  There would be some harsh sanctions against Russia for meddling in our election.  In response to a domestic crisis the likes of Charlottesville, Hillary would IMMEDIATELY and strongly condemn Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and white nationalists while ending with a unifying message to the country.  Her response would be nearly the exact opposite of Trump's, in that she would do her very best to bring the country together to stand against white nationalism, and she would receive universal praise for it.  Her approval would be mid 40s or so.

Donald Trump would be tweeting ridiculous stuff still.

Most took Obama as a clown  equal to Hillary, Soros would be the president of the nation

are you for real or a troll?  can't tell honestly

No one really knows...AI has come pretty far since like 2005.

[AN63093]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

[BlueSwan]

The key would be whether the republicans would continue their strategy of just obstructing absolutely everything, investigating Benghazi and emails constantly and keeping the ninth seat of the supreme court open.

Frankly, I'm not totally convinced that they would.

At this point they would have lost three presidential elections in a row and seen what an obstructionist divisive agenda does to their party (nominating Trump). Had Hillary won there would be many republicans who would desperately want to avoid a repeat of 2016. After 2012 there was some consensus that the GOP needed to reach out to Hispanics and yet the exact opposite happened. After a Trump defeat those voices would grow much louder. It is very realistic that a counter-tea party movement within the party would take place. In such an environment, just obstructing everything doesn't sound nearly as attractive as it used to. I could see the moderate wing and the business wing of the GOP wanting to make deals with Hillary instead of obstructing her endlessly. I could also see the senate actually approving Garland before Hillary even took office. Infact, I think most people were expecting that to happen.

[President Johnson]

I'm just curious what Donald Trump would be doing right now in that scenario?

[BlueSwan]

I'm just curious what Donald Trump would be doing right now in that scenario?

Tweeting.

[Dr. Arch]

I'm just curious what Donald Trump would be doing right now in that scenario?

Tweeting.

So, the same, essentially, except in this scenario he doesn't have the validation of being President.

[Middle-aged Europe]

There would be a special prosecutor investigating her e-mails and Donald Trump would be constantly calling for her impeachment on Twitter. Due to the Republican majorities in Congress, not much of signifcance would have been passed legislatively.

Apart from that, the administration would be run smoothly, competently and without major controversies or resignations. Still, some people would regret their vote and wished they had opted for Trump.

[MarkD]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

I think you missed the part where Obama nominated a moderate hero last year.

[BudgieForce]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

I think you missed the part where Obama nominated a moderate hero last year.

A moderate hero who would have upheld abortion rights, gay marriage and Obamacare.

[mvd10]

The key would be whether the republicans would continue their strategy of just obstructing absolutely everything, investigating Benghazi and emails constantly and keeping the ninth seat of the supreme court open.

Frankly, I'm not totally convinced that they would.

At this point they would have lost three presidential elections in a row and seen what an obstructionist divisive agenda does to their party (nominating Trump). Had Hillary won there would be many republicans who would desperately want to avoid a repeat of 2016. After 2012 there was some consensus that the GOP needed to reach out to Hispanics and yet the exact opposite happened. After a Trump defeat those voices would grow much louder. It is very realistic that a counter-tea party movement within the party would take place. In such an environment, just obstructing everything doesn't sound nearly as attractive as it used to. I could see the moderate wing and the business wing of the GOP wanting to make deals with Hillary instead of obstructing her endlessly. I could also see the senate actually approving Garland before Hillary even took office. Infact, I think most people were expecting that to happen.

I guess Garland probably would have been approved, and the GOP might have shied away from playing with the debt ceiling, but I don't think there would have been any bipartisan grand bargain with Hillary. Maybe immigration reform would have passed, but that would cause a GOP civil war. Even the GOP establishment viscerally opposes things like tax hikes or a higher minimum wage, and Hillary probably would demand these things in a grand bargain. And the GOP base hates Hillary even more than Obama. I think the GOP would have tried to make sure their candidates appeal more to minorities and maybe they even would have tried immigration reform, but other than that they wouldn't have worked with Hillary.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You used "would" twice in the same sentence to serve the same purpose.

[MarkD]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

I think you missed the part where Obama nominated a moderate hero last year.

A moderate hero who would have upheld abortion rights, gay marriage and Obamacare.

I did not miss any news about the nomination of Judge Garland. I have no reason to think of him as a "hero," and whether his ideology was "moderate" or not, his position on the Court would have been to the left of Scalia, much more in line with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, which is significant. If Garland was a supporter of abortion rights and gay marriage as "interpretations" of the Constitution, then he was no "hero" at all.
The kind of "heroes" I need to serve on the Court are people dedicated to being objective. The Supreme Court ought to be made up of the nine most highly objective interpreters of law that can be found anywhere in the country. Without objectivity, law does not get interpreted accurately; it gets interpreted with bias, and the interpretation ends up being erroneous because of it. To infer from the U.S. Constitution that abortion is a "right" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment is inaccurate and biased. The same goes with inferring that marriage is a Fourteenth Amendment "right." To infer from the Equal Protection Clause that gay people ought to be treated as the equal of  straight people is to go far beyond what that Clause was intended to imply.

I wish that, somewhere in the United States today, we had some contemporary judges like Judge Learned Hand, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. Those are the kinds of people who ought to be appointed to the Supreme Court -- people dedicated to being objective.
"[T]he accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment of whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." -- Justice Holmes.
"The traditions of our jurisprudence commit us to objective standards. I do not mean, of course, that this ideal of objective vision is ever perfectly attained. We cannot transcend the limitations of the ego and see the everything as it really is. None the less, the ideal is one to be striven for within the limits of our capacity. ...
"The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity of order in the social life.' " -- Justice Benjamin Cardozo.
"No justice of the Court conscientiously and persistently endeavored, as much as Justice Black did, to establish consistent standards of objectivity for adjudicating constitutional questions." -- James. J. Magee, "Mr. Justice Black; Absolutism on the Court."

Hand, Holmes, Cardozo, and Black; those are "heroes" to me, not someone chosen because they're "moderate," (or because they're regarded as "Mr. Civil Rights" (Thurgood Marshall), or because they're Mrs. Feminism (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and so on.)

[Saint Milei]

Would be the worst potus ever

[HAnnA MArin County]

Warmongering, grand bargains with the Republicans to screw over ordinary people, and lots of investigations.

Jfern's gotta jfern.

[AN63093]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

Yes, it's possible some Rs would've flipped even if the GOP held the Senate.  The seat would've been vacant for longer though, and it's possible that it only gets filled if the Rs get something big in return in a deal.  Otherwise it's unlikely to flip.  What you're missing is that a) it's a heck of a lot more polarized now than it even was in 2010, and b) confirming Sotomayor/Kagan wasn't that big of a deal because it didn't change the balance on the Court.  Murkowski/Collins could get away with bucking the trend on something like Obamacare, because the dirty little secret is most Republicans don't actually care about Obamacare; it was just grandstanding and a way to attack Obama (it was a GOP plan, after all).  Changing the balance on the Court is a completely different story.


I think the Court would be the only real substantive difference.  What other differences are you thinking about?

Obamacare would still be here obviously.  It probably wouldn't have been "fixed" either, since no amount of tinkering with it is gonna solve the problem that not enough people sign up and premiums just keep going up.

Other than that, Trump hasn't passed any meaningful legislation, so I'm failing to see what the big differences would be.  Clinton may have all sorts of great ideas or whatever, but it doesn't really matter since the GOP would've controlled at least the House, if not the Senate too.

I guess Clinton wouldn't have passed something like the travel ban, but the ban's actual effect was greatly sensationalized, especially by the media, since it was a great way to rile up the Dem base.  In reality it's limited in duration and effects relatively few people.  Something like DACA has a lot greater real impact long-term with immigration and Trump declined to repeal it.

Maybe the scope of the Syria strikes would've been greater, but I doubt we'd be in a full-scale ground war (at least yet).

So what big, substantive changes are you thinking about?

[MarkD]

Of course the different policies that Clinton would NOT be pursuing now if she won would be to implement any kind of targeted Muslim travel ban like Trump's, or claiming that the military will not be accepting transgender personnel. There would not be reversal of any major Obama executive orders. The cabinet would be full of people who accept climate change instead of many who deny it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The only real difference, substantively speaking, would be the Court.

Gorsuch wouldn't be on the bench obviously.  Whether the seat would still be vacant or not would've depended on how the Senate races ended up.

It would not be the "only" significant difference, but it would be the most significant difference.

But I think you and Lincoln Republican underestimate the willingness of certain moderate Republican Senators to vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic President. Back in 2009-2010, both Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan. Lamar Alexander also voted to confirm Sotomayor. Lisa Murkowski, it seems to me, would be even more likely these days to cooperate with a Democratic President, including Hilary Clinton, than she had been back in 2009-2010. All it would take is two Republicans voting "yes" to confirm along with King, Sanders, and all the Democrats, then it would be up to Vice President Kaine to break the tie.

This would be the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had a liberal majority on it, and that is VERY significant.

I think you missed the part where Obama nominated a moderate hero last year.

A moderate hero who would have upheld abortion rights, gay marriage and Obamacare.

A moderate hero who was still blocked, and before the election Republicans were talking about blocking for another 4 years if Hillary won.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court/

[Former President tack50]

If Clinton won by doing slightly better than she did IRL, that means the Senate is at least tied (+McGinty and Feingold) or potentially 51-49 (+Kander) or 52-48 (+Ross). I'm pretty sure that would mean Clinton is focusing mostly on filling judicial appointments and foreign policy.

Actually, not really. Toomey and Johnson ran ahead of Trump on their respective states. So assuming an even swing and no ticket splitting, Toomey would still win by like half a point and Johnson by over 2.5 points.

So the senate would stay where it is now.

[Mr. Smith]

If Clinton won by doing slightly better than she did IRL, that means the Senate is at least tied (+McGinty and Feingold) or potentially 51-49 (+Kander) or 52-48 (+Ross). I'm pretty sure that would mean Clinton is focusing mostly on filling judicial appointments and foreign policy.

Actually, not really. Toomey and Johnson ran ahead of Trump on their respective states. So assuming an even swing and no ticket splitting, Toomey would still win by like half a point and Johnson by over 2.5 points.

So the senate would stay where it is now.

Senate runs are often more reactive than Presidencies, and it should be noted that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina are polarized like heck.  If Hillary had won those, I have no doubt the Democrats would've run ahead of her, not behind just because of the Berniecrat enthusiasm...it was those 18-21 year olds who gave it back to Johnson after all.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Extremely badly if we're honest, but the more interesting question would be what the Republican Party be doing? Would Trump (and Trumpesque figures)  still try and seek influence, or would traditional moment conservatives blame their nominee for the loss reassert control?

[Beet]

Nikki Haley would be the presumptive frontrunner for the 2020 GOP nomination and it would be increasingly clear she'd win. The GOP would be on the verge of winning control of enough state legislatures to call and control a constitutional convention, and there would be a serious movement afoot to do so. The GOP would have a veto on any and all legislation and the grassroots GOP would heavily pressure party members not to pass anything support by Clinton. The GOP would be in an even better position for the Senate than they are now.