Board 8 > If given the option, which recent US presidential election would you flip?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Thorn posted...

So I voted Gore > Bush for the butterfly effect/climate change/"the timeline diverged here" reasons along with thinking that by the time the 2016 general came around Trump had already done enough lasting damage that would continue past even had he lost, but upon some more thought I think the margin of victory might matter. If you give us a Clinton blowout in 2016 - like 49 states/Reagan blowout - it's possible that might have broken the fever.

This would absolutely never have happened without an alternate timeline divergence long before.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I feel like there's enough of a ripple that flipping to Gore means Trump doesn't happen.

That was my thought process as well.

For another twist on this, if Biden's son doesn't die in 2015, he probably runs in 2016 and beats Hillary and Trump.

LightningStrikes posted...

I will say, I think basically all the effects of Reagans presidency would have happened without Reagan himself. The hard neoliberal shift of the 80s was on its way regardless - of course Thatcher predates Reagan by a year, but even the left wing governments of continental Europe were pushed into adopting lighter versions of these policies that decade. Given that its America of course Reagan went much harder into it than anybody and also let AIDS run rampant while destabilising the Middle East. However I think there always would have been a Reagan. I dont think there always would have been a Bush or a Trump.

My galaxy brain pick is Nixon over JFK in 1960 - back then IIRC Nixon was pro-civil rights, if he wins no Goldwater and the southern strategy that has effectively plagued the world for decades. Also he likely gets assassinated before he can do so many crimes. The US probably ends up with two functionally identical parties with different factions across the spectrum. Not great but better than the current situation.

I don't think so, Carter winning in 1980 at the very least butterflies away the PATCO firings, which is one of the things that absolutely broke organized labor in this country. You also have to consider if John Hinckley had still gone through with his assassination attempt, if he'd shot Carter and Carter had lived, Carter might've been able to cash in the groundswell of sympathy to get us something like universal health care.

In 1984, it'd be Mondale vs. either George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, right? Neither of them would've been as bad as Reagan, especially not Pappy Bush, and I could see us getting Mondale in 1984 if Carter's second term goes better than his first.

Voted Gore over Bush, since it feels like every POTUS since Bush has been a response to him in some way. That very much includes Trump, given Trump kicked off his political career by slamming Bush.

Still feel like Bush was a worse President than Trump, even though Trump is way worse a person.

redrocket posted...

This would absolutely never have happened without an alternate timeline divergence long before.

The margin of victory stuff? Oh yeah, absolutely. But since we're magically flipping results I didn't know if that was in play too!

Thorn posted...

The margin of victory stuff? Oh yeah, absolutely. But since we're magically flipping results I didn't know if that was in play too!

Most of these elections were pretty close, if not virtual coin flips. Reversing them is more of an any given Sunday scenario. But what you are talking about, an electoral blowout in favor of Clinton, would have required sweeping cultural changes across the country to be remotely possible.

Okay then, I'll retract the thought experiment! It was just something that came to mind. I know it would have been all but impossible.

Biden would have lost in 2016 for the same reason Hillary did. He was part of the establishment. Or really, the personification of the establishment. Bernie was the only viable Dem candidate in 2016.

red_sox_777 posted...

Biden would have lost in 2016 for the same reason Hillary did. He was part of the establishment. Or really, the personification of the establishment. Bernie was the only viable Dem candidate in 2016.

Biden had almost zero baggage compared to Hillary, would've lost the sexism factor, and wouldn't have had Bernie as fervently against him as he was against Hillary (thus inspiring the general level of antipathy there for his supporters feeling slighted by the primary process). Biden absolutely would've waltzed to victory in 2016, especially given how close Hillary came, even with all of her baggage. For certain, the blue wall of the midwest would've been behind Biden in a way they weren't with Hillary.

Also, if people really cared about being anti-establishment, why would they choose a politician who'd been in Washington for 26 years at that point, over a legitimate outsider?

Yesmar_ posted...

Voted 2000, but Clinton over Obama in 2008 if that's an option. A lot of downstream effects from that possibly.

Instead of a sexist racist replacing Obama, we'd have a racist sexist replacing Hillary.

So probably getting Donald later again in this scenario.

swordz9 posted...

Gore and Hillary are such good options to pick. Gore because he actually took climate change seriously and Hilary because maybe 50%~ of America wouldnt be so openly proud of being Nazi humpers right now. I guess alternatively you could say if Obama didnt win we couldve avoided that, but he was the preferable winner and I wouldnt undo that

Not really, we were already too far down the path.

Hillary winning would validate all those Nazis worst-held beliefs, then when Covid happened we would have been in an absolute nightmare scenario far worse than it is now.

Dancedreamer posted...

Hillary handles covid better, and Trump's cult probably abandons him after he declares election fraud. They didn't in 2020 because he won in 2016. He'd still have some ardent followers, but... I think it'd still be a bridge too far and Republicans would pounce on him losing blaming him for "Queen Hillary" as they'd probably call her.

IMO, I believe completely the opposite of this. Hillary winning would validate all the swamp accusations Trump started with, the racist nazis wouldn't go away, they'd just become even bigger misogynists in response, and then when Covid happens, how Hillary handles it would be almost irrelevant, because if she suggested any sort of lockdowns, vaccines, or paychecks, the GOP would have won 2020 by like 20 million votes.

Hillary handles COVID better feels like a given but it's not like she could have stopped it and I think states with GOP governors rebel even harder against any lockdown or restrictions which may well undo the rest of the benefits having competent federal leadership and preparedness would give. Definitely gets blown out in 2020 because pendulum effect + pandemic would be catastrophic.

Not sure if Trump makes the salty runback though if he loses in the first place. The toxicity he would have supercharged the GOP would still exist and been overcharged with COVID but I don't know for sure he runs again in this hypothetical. Not that his replacement would be likely to be much better.

Inviso posted...

Biden had almost zero baggage compared to Hillary, would've lost the sexism factor, and wouldn't have had Bernie as fervently against him as he was against Hillary (thus inspiring the general level of antipathy there for his supporters feeling slighted by the primary process). Biden absolutely would've waltzed to victory in 2016, especially given how close Hillary came, even with all of her baggage. For certain, the blue wall of the midwest would've been behind Biden in a way they weren't with Hillary.

Also, if people really cared about being anti-establishment, why would they choose a politician who'd been in Washington for 26 years at that point, over a legitimate outsider?

Bernie was fervently against Hillary? I don't remember that. I don't remember Bernie even attacking Hillary once.

And obviously not enough Democrats cared about being anti-establishment. Independents and Republicans cared, and that's why Hillary lost. I think Biden probably gets closer but the general contour of the election doesn't change.

Biden would've crushed Trump in 2016

Trump admin handled covid about as well as the feds could, and it's the only reason only like 50% of republicans are anti-vax, not 100%. Seems like a strong net positive to his presidency.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

IMO, I believe completely the opposite of this. Hillary winning would validate all the swamp accusations Trump started with, the racist nazis wouldn't go away, they'd just become even bigger misogynists in response, and then when Covid happens, how Hillary handles it would be almost irrelevant, because if she suggested any sort of lockdowns, vaccines, or paychecks, the GOP would have won 2020 by like 20 million votes.

Fwiw I think a lot of people genuinely voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated both candidates but were afraid at how Trump and his supporters would react to losing, so figured that would be the best-case scenario. Or at least didn't want a president whose gender would be a constant point of argument in the same way Obama's race was (even if most of the backlash against them was genuinely racist/sexist).

The worst part is, Hillary Clinton absolutely lost the 2016 election because of her gender. Just not in such direct terms as people not wanting a woman in the oval office.

red_sox_777 posted...

Bernie was fervently against Hillary? I don't remember that. I don't remember Bernie even attacking Hillary once.

And obviously not enough Democrats cared about being anti-establishment. Independents and Republicans cared, and that's why Hillary lost. I think Biden probably gets closer but the general contour of the election doesn't change.

Bernie did literally more campaign stops for Hillary after he dropped out than she did for herself, and yet a certain group of people are eternally stuck on the idea that Bernie supporters were the sole cause of Trump winning.

Dancedreamer posted...

Trump's cult probably abandons him after he declares election fraud

Well, you are a dreamer after all...

I'd pick 2016 if we could stipulate taking Texas + 44 other states in a gigantic blowout- but a narrow Clinton win would have been a worst case scenario. 4 years of Trump screaming about a stolen election, a red wave in 2018, then Hillary's remaining chances would have been destroyed by the pandemic to usher in 8 years of Trump.

So I went with the 2000 swap instead.

1800, to Adams beats Jefferson

redrocket posted...

Most of these elections were pretty close, if not virtual coin flips. Reversing them is more of an any given Sunday scenario. But what you are talking about, an electoral blowout in favor of Clinton, would have required sweeping cultural changes across the country to be remotely possible.

Ehhh I don't agree, all the Democrats needed to sweep to a huge win that year was not to turn off a huge percentage of their traditional base and have them stay home or vote third party. Which wouldn't have happened if it had been Biden or Bernie opposing Trump. Hillary was a perfect storm of baggage, misogyny, scandal, foreign actors putting their thumb on the scale, and America loving the underdog and it allowed Trump to thread the needle.

I know this board's mostly liberal, so these two choices being the top two choices make a lot of sense.

I don't know how conservative-minded people vote here besides 2020. Beating Hillary was a trophy for them, they hated Obama but Donald's soured them on Romney and McCain, they dunk on Dubya but they voted for him twice before and I doubt they're ready to give Kerry or Gore the chance instead. Maybe Dole > Clinton to save America from the first impeachment anybody alive ever witnessed before? Maybe H.W. > Clinton to continue Reagan's influence via his VP? They ain't giving up Reagan. Just feels like it'd be a total blow-out for 2020 for Republican voters in this poll.

HaRRicH posted...

I know this board's mostly liberal, so these two choices being the top two choices make a lot of sense.

I don't know how conservative-minded people vote here besides 2020. Beating Hillary was a trophy for them, they hated Obama but Donald's soured them on Romney and McCain, they dunk on Dubya but they voted for him twice before and I doubt they're ready to give Kerry or Gore the chance instead. Maybe Dole > Clinton to save America from the first impeachment anybody alive ever witnessed before? Maybe H.W. > Clinton to continue Reagan's influence via his VP? They ain't giving up Reagan. Just feels like it'd be a total blow-out for 2020 for Republican voters in this poll.

Bush Jr. was a disaster, and I think most conservatives understand that by now. Would Gore have done a better job? Maybe not, but it's hard to see how he could have done worse.

Jakyl25 posted...

1800, to Adams beats Jefferson

Now here's the galaxy brain answer

I think the key election is 1932 (and 34) really. The Republicans getting wiped out reduced them to a calcified conservative core, which has controlled the party ever since. You have to keep the Progressive wing with the Republican party, and I'm honestly not sure if that's possible. Having an open contest for the GOP nomination in '32 somehow (maybe Coolidge runs again in '28), meaning the big business interests in the party have to compromise would be a good start. If you butterfly away FDR somehow, there's a decent chance Democrats nominate someone really objectionable to Progressive Republicans too.

Yesmar_ posted...

I think the key election is 1932 (and 34) really. The Republicans getting wiped out reduced them to a calcified conservative core, which has controlled the party ever since. You have to keep the Progressive wing with the Republican party, and I'm honestly not sure if that's possible. Having an open contest for the GOP nomination in '32 somehow (maybe Coolidge runs again in '28), meaning the big business interests in the party have to compromise would be a good start. If you butterfly away FDR somehow, there's a decent chance Democrats nominate someone really objectionable to Progressive Republicans too.

Uh, if you have a broad coalition Republican Party like that the Democratic Party ends up as basically just the Dixiecrats.

GoldSlime35 posted...

For another twist on this, if Biden's son doesn't die in 2015, he probably runs in 2016 and beats Hillary and Trump.

This is probably the best one because Biden probably crushes Trump to the point where its not even close enough for him to be a convincingly salty bitch.

Biden's not that good a candidate though tbh.

Might as well admit I'm biased because my dad is a huge fan of the Clintons. And he hates America despite living their for much of his life.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Biden's not that good a candidate though tbh.

No one said that

In 2016 we didnt even need good we needed replacement level, a bar Biden easily clears.

GoldSlime35 posted...

For another twist on this, if Biden's son doesn't die in 2015, he probably runs in 2016 and beats Hillary and Trump.

I thought you meant Biden's son would have run in 2016 and read the whole topic thinking this until I realized what you meant

I chose 2000 because it was easily the election that could have gone either way, and like others mentioned, seemingly that's where the timelines started to get wonky. Circumstances in 1980 and 2008 made those elections extremely difficult to flip.

I wasn't even aware Clinton was so controversial until the 2010's, and said controversy was apparently because of his sex scandal and resulting impeachment. What's worse is that said impeachment wound up IMPROVING his immediate popularity with Democrats who perceived it as a blatantly partisan power grab by Republicans, to the point that Gore distancing himself from Clinton is seen as a big reason why he lost the election to Bush. This arguably also set the stage for Trump in a way, since Clinton was basically impossible to discredit among Democrats for a long time in similar fashion despite the sex scandal.

On the other hand, possible that no Trump means no #metoo movement, especially since Bill Clinton would assumedly still be a powerful force behind the Democratic Party. Although thinking about it Hillary's election might probably just postpone the inevitable and could potentially sink her re-election prospects if she did win in 2016 given her husband.

HaRRicH posted...

I know this board's mostly liberal, so these two choices being the top two choices make a lot of sense.

I'm a bit amused by the top two choices given Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore are notorious for being moral guardians, though to be fair it's not like Republicans are that much better on the whole.

Also want to bring up how once I made a YouTube comment about how Trump wouldn't have won the election if American democracy worked like any other democracy in the world, and then someone replied to me saying other countries don't have 50 states. Somehow I didn't realize there is so much wrong with that statement right then and there (for starters, the Electoral College came into being when there were only like 13 states).

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

IMO, I believe completely the opposite of this. Hillary winning would validate all the swamp accusations Trump started with, the racist nazis wouldn't go away, they'd just become even bigger misogynists in response, and then when Covid happens, how Hillary handles it would be almost irrelevant, because if she suggested any sort of lockdowns, vaccines, or paychecks, the GOP would have won 2020 by like 20 million votes.

Fwiw Trump specifically disbanded the government's pandemic response team in 2018 because he didn't believe in a bunch of people just twiddling their thumbs (as if that's how it works). While this doesn't necessarily refute your argument here, I just wanted to put that out there. In fact, I was assuming Trump was trying to dance around the pandemic in public specifically BECAUSE he didn't want to admit he done goofed.

Ngamer posted...

Hillary was a perfect storm of baggage, misogyny, scandal, foreign actors putting their thumb on the scale, and America loving the underdog and it allowed Trump to thread the needle.

Whoops I forgot to say that in addition to that garbage she also committed huge unforced errors (too confident in the Blue Midwest, didn't print yard signs, distanced herself from Obama/Biden, "Pokemon GO to the polls") and ALL of the above created the Trump-winning perfect storm.

My point remains: a different Democratic candidate could still have swept to a crushing victory despite the changing political landscape post-2010.

There's nothing she could've done in the campaign to make her win. She was a woman, she clearly represented the establishment, and she had a big controversy against her. She had no chance before she even started campaigning. Same reasons she lost to Obama previously. That's why the Bernie bros were so mad that she tried and pretended that she had a chance.

I mean there's a pretty strong case that if not for Comey's letter at the 11th hour of the campaign (that turned out to be nothing and was a pretty unprecedented thing to do for DOJ at that time) Clinton wins anyway. The margin was extremely close.

We'll never know, but I'm pretty sure most of the data peeps think it did flip the result.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

the racist nazis wouldn't go away, they'd just become even bigger misogynists in response,

I mean this happened either way, at least one way Mr. itsgoingtobe Fantastic doesn't become president.

But really though, I don't feel Trump losing would have made it worse when it comes to those people. They're going to be what they are, but Trump's win gave them a voice and made them feel powerful so now instead of just shutting up and keeping their awful opinions to themselves more often, they yell about how "woke" everything is and say they can't say anything without being cancelled, all while saying all the things they claim they'd be cancelled if they said. I think that 2016's result changed society in a way I'm not sure we'll really recover from; I'd only compare it to Reagan whose financial policies we've never recovered from.

v_charon posted...

They're going to be what they are, but Trump's win gave them a voice and made them feel powerful so now instead of just shutting up and keeping their awful opinions to themselves more often, they yell about how "woke" everything is and say they can't say anything without being cancelled

I think you need to stop Trump (or arguably Hillary) from running outright to avert this. It was going to be a shit show regardless of who won because the lead up was so embarrassing.

People's memories are really short, and they are politically motivated by winning, so I can totally see a Trump loss killing a lot of the movement's momentum. There might have been some short term terrorism but not like now, where it's deemed a strategy that can actually win.

This board was actually where I first heard of the whole "you can't criticize X or you're racist/sexist" mentality, specifically through Ulti's PCAs. That's what fooled me into thinking he was bigoted until I realized he PROBABLY meant it more in good fun.

foolm0r0n posted...

There's nothing she could've done in the campaign to make her win. She was a woman, she clearly represented the establishment, and she had a big controversy against her. She had no chance before she even started campaigning. Same reasons she lost to Obama previously. That's why the Bernie bros were so mad that she tried and pretended that she had a chance.

I wouldnt have been comfortable calling for a Sanders win over trump though. Hes a pretty weird guy and we saw in 2020 what his shortcomings as a national candidate (as opposed to a "anyone but Hillary" candidate) were.

He couldnt even put away the no namer also rans and then Biden had the strong South Carolina showing and then kicked Bernies ass in places he didnt even campaign.

Right, the internal democrat opposition to him made him dead in the water too

The problem with Bernie is that he's a virtual no sell to people who want to identify as undecided. His political stances and policies are too far left to make a pitch for, so outside of going back and having Biden run in 2016, Hillary has to be the only real option to defeat Trump. I feel like they didn't believe Trump could really win, and maybe if they had the power of foresight they'd have taken it more seriously and worked harder to win that election.

Bernie got second place in the DNC primaries twice in a row. 2016 was one thing -- beating Martin O'Malley wasn't exactly considered a high bar -- but 2020 had a huge field and only Biden beat him.

"He couldnt even put away the no namer also rans" just seems a little strong compared to what happened. He beat the current Vice President and largely kept the support people thought Warren would pull from him (though still LFF'd, sure).

Biden would have had basically no shot of beating Hillary in the primary in 2016.

HaRRicH posted...

Bernie got second place in the DNC primaries twice in a row. 2016 was one thing -- beating Martin O'Malley wasn't exactly considered a high bar -- but 2020 had a huge field and only Biden beat him.

"He couldnt even put away the no namer also rans" just seems a little strong compared to what happened. He beat the current Vice President and largely kept the support people thought Warren would pull from him (though still LFF'd, sure).

2020 had a huge field where it was only Bernie and Elizabeth Warren really running on the progressive side of the ticket, while everyone else was running as more moderates. We don't know how much Biden siphoned support away from Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar or whoever. Bernie probably had more name recognition than the rest of the field, from 2016, but we've never seen him win out against a moderate Democrat in a strictly one-on-one fashion (on a national scale).

HaRRicH posted...

Bernie got second place in the DNC primaries twice in a row. 2016 was one thing -- beating Martin O'Malley wasn't exactly considered a high bar -- but 2020 had a huge field and only Biden beat him.

"He couldnt even put away the no namer also rans" just seems a little strong compared to what happened. He beat the current Vice President and largely kept the support people thought Warren would pull from him (though still LFF'd, sure).

He lost two primaries in a row to a man who had been a mayor 6 months prior.

Not the resume of a guy riding a wave of national zeal sufficient to win the big one, which also retroactively suggests he would have struggled to build the sort of coalition necessary to best Trump in 16.

I think Bernie would have beaten Trump pretty soundly personally. Bernie doesn't have the "corrupt" feel Hillary did. Crazy yeah but so was Trump. He would have SFFed him in a weird way.