Title: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: LBJ Revivalist on December 21, 2010, 05:03:59 AM
Let's say in 1988, a huge appeal for the repeal of the 22nd amendment began. Republicans and Democrats alike support repeal and its repealed the next year. History goes as otherwise, with Clinton running in 1992 and 1996 and winning, and in 2000 he runs against George W. Bush
1) How does the election map look?
2) If he wins, what does his third term look like? How does he respond to events like 9/11 and Katrina?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
1) How does the election map look?
2) If he wins, what does his third term look like? How does he respond to events like 9/11 and Katrina?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 21, 2010, 07:55:06 AM
2) If he wins, what does his third term look like? How does he respond to events like 9/11 and Katrina?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
Katrina would happen in his fourth term.
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 21, 2010, 03:46:10 PM
1) A comfortable victory, although probably less so then in 1992 or 1996. He gets a majority of the vote for the first time, however. Republicans, likely, would hang the "he lied" over his head and there might be some negative fallout for trying for another term. Nader still runs.
(
)
I would imagine something like this, give or take a few states. So, he ends up with 349 Electoral Votes. And considering that the GOP lost seats in 2000, I think that there is a realistic possibility that the House goes Democratic.
2) His third term probably would not be much different then Bush's, except for no Bush Tax Cuts and no Invasion of Iraq. His approval would sag a bit during the recession, but 9/11 would launch his approval rating into the stratosphere.
3) Who knows? Clinton may want to try again if it looks like he can win. The man still, obviously, wants to be president. If not him, then Gore, probably. Gore would lose. Clinton would, likely, face Clinton-fatigue and a closer election. Probably a tossup should Clinton decide to run again.
(
I would imagine something like this, give or take a few states. So, he ends up with 349 Electoral Votes. And considering that the GOP lost seats in 2000, I think that there is a realistic possibility that the House goes Democratic.
2) His third term probably would not be much different then Bush's, except for no Bush Tax Cuts and no Invasion of Iraq. His approval would sag a bit during the recession, but 9/11 would launch his approval rating into the stratosphere.
3) Who knows? Clinton may want to try again if it looks like he can win. The man still, obviously, wants to be president. If not him, then Gore, probably. Gore would lose. Clinton would, likely, face Clinton-fatigue and a closer election. Probably a tossup should Clinton decide to run again.
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 21, 2010, 07:25:02 PM
The GOP would be more energized against Clinton than Gore. Clinton would have run a better campaign and done enough to win Florida. However, Nader would have gotten more traction in his quixotic quest if he's running against a third term of Clinton, and that would would attracted enough votes to end up swinging Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin into the Bush column resulting in a 269-269 Electoral College tie. One of the DC electors proves faithless and casts her Presidential vote for Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke, ensuring that formally at least, a woman is among those that Congress considers. With a majority of House delegations held by the GOP, George Bush is elected President despite the fact that Clinton had a plurality of the popular vote. This causes Senator Jeffords to declare himself an Independent sooner and Al Gore becomes our first Vice President to serve three terms and the second to serve under two different Presidents,
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on December 21, 2010, 08:15:05 PM
The GOP would be more energized against Clinton than Gore. Clinton would have run a better campaign and done enough to win Florida. However, Nader would have gotten more traction in his quixotic quest if he's running against a third term of Clinton, and that would would attracted enough votes to end up swinging Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin into the Bush column resulting in a 269-269 Electoral College tie. One of the DC electors proves faithless and casts her Presidential vote for Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke, ensuring that formally at least, a woman is among those that Congress considers. With a majority of House delegations held by the GOP, George Bush is elected President despite the fact that Clinton had a plurality of the popular vote. This causes Senator Jeffords to declare himself an Independent sooner and Al Gore becomes our first Vice President to serve three terms and the second to serve under two different Presidents,
^^^^
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on December 22, 2010, 06:59:54 AM
The GOP would be more energized against Clinton than Gore. Clinton would have run a better campaign and done enough to win Florida. However, Nader would have gotten more traction in his quixotic quest if he's running against a third term of Clinton, and that would would attracted enough votes to end up swinging Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin into the Bush column resulting in a 269-269 Electoral College tie. One of the DC electors proves faithless and casts her Presidential vote for Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke, ensuring that formally at least, a woman is among those that Congress considers. With a majority of House delegations held by the GOP, George Bush is elected President despite the fact that Clinton had a plurality of the popular vote. This causes Senator Jeffords to declare himself an Independent sooner and Al Gore becomes our first Vice President to serve three terms and the second to serve under two different Presidents,
^^^^
^^^
So, Bush runs against (and is possibly defeated by) his vice president in 2004? ;)
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: phk on December 22, 2010, 05:52:15 PM
I wonder what % of Clinton 1996 voters would defect to Bush in 2000.
18% did in real life.
18% did in real life.
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: Dancing with Myself on February 03, 2011, 02:08:01 PM
(
)
Clinton/Gore-335
Bush/Cheney-203
Clinton/Gore-335
Bush/Cheney-203
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: Paul Kemp on May 31, 2011, 03:24:24 PM
I would be curious to see if Gore remained on the ticket.
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: phk on May 31, 2011, 05:07:49 PM
Gore 2000 + NH + WV + AR is enough and the worst case scenario.
Title: Re: 2000: A third Clinton term
Post by: CitizenX on June 11, 2011, 01:45:53 AM
Let's say in 1988, a huge appeal for the repeal of the 22nd amendment began. Republicans and Democrats alike support repeal and its repealed the next year. History goes as otherwise, with Clinton running in 1992 and 1996 and winning, and in 2000 he runs against George W. Bush
1) How does the election map look?
2) If he wins, what does his third term look like? How does he respond to events like 9/11 and Katrina?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
1) How does the election map look?
2) If he wins, what does his third term look like? How does he respond to events like 9/11 and Katrina?
3) Who is the Democratic nominee in 2004?
I think 911 still happens. He would have gotten slammed for being "weak on defense" as every Democratic president does... except Obama after he shot Bin Laden in the face. He invades Afghanistan and gets Bin Laden at Torra Borra because he's focused and not thinking about ginning up a war against Iraq. He doesn't get much credit for it because the Republicans don't have a W Bush to compare him to. They think anything Clinton does must be easy.
We probably get some kind of substantial diplomatic break through with Iran because he doesn't make W's idiotic axis of evil speech. Iranian moderates who were in power at the time of 911 actually expressed their condolences to the United States and reached out to us. W Bush instead called them part of an axis of evil. Ahmadinejad never becomes president of Iran. Clinton basically brings Iran in from the cold the way W Bush brought Libya in from the cold.
In short 600,000 more Iraqis live to see another day. Iran is disarming and coming in from the cold. No tax cuts for the rich or a pointless war. The Afgahnistan adventure is cut short by years by the targeted killing of Bin Laden. The national debt is trillions of dollars less.
A young black junior Senator from Illionis is slowly trudging his way up through the Senatorial ranks, because the country is doing kinda ok and nobody is desperate enough to even think of electing a black guy as president. The end.
Oh, there is still a massive housing crash after Clintons 3rd term. And of course the tech wreck happens as well regardless of who is in the White House.