If Hillary Won in 2016

[Seaviewer]

Sometimes I feel like we're living in an alternate history and there's another universe somewhere where Hillary won the 2016 election and, as in the Dallas dream, "none of that happened."
I asked Chat GPT to outline what the past decade might have been like.

ChatGPT said:
Here’s an outline of an alternate world history for 2016–2025 had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 U.S. presidential election, focusing on political, social, economic, and global developments. This version aims for plausibility with a touch of speculative divergence.

2016
November: Hillary Clinton narrowly defeats Donald Trump, winning key swing states with strong suburban turnout and historic support from women voters.

December: Russian interference is confirmed, but with Clinton's victory, the public and Congress treat it as a national security issue rather than partisan controversy. Sanctions on Russia intensify.

2017
January: Clinton is inaugurated as the first female U.S. president. Tim Kaine becomes vice president.

Policy Focus: Immediate push for immigration reform, infrastructure investment, and paid family leave. Efforts to expand and strengthen the Affordable Care Act (ACA) begin.

Congress: Republicans retain control of the House and Senate. Gridlock slows legislative progress, but Clinton uses executive orders on climate action and DACA protections.

Social Climate: The “Women’s March” still occurs, but now as a celebration and pressure movement. Conservative backlash intensifies, fueled by populist media.

2018
Midterms: Democrats gain control of the House, bolstered by energized progressive turnout, especially among women and youth. The Senate remains narrowly Republican.

Foreign Policy: Clinton reaffirms NATO ties, negotiates with Iran to keep the nuclear deal intact, and re-enters the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with modifications.

Russia: Mueller investigation still occurs, focusing on foreign interference more than domestic collusion. It prompts bipartisan concern about election security.

2019
Healthcare: A Clinton-led public option bill passes the House but dies in the Senate. She signs a series of executive orders to reduce drug prices and expand Medicaid incentives.

Climate: Clinton recommits to the Paris Agreement. Federal investment in clean energy and climate-resilient infrastructure increases.

Global Events: Brexit proceeds, but with quieter U.S. involvement. Clinton cultivates stronger ties with European allies to counterbalance instability.

2020
COVID-19 Pandemic:

U.S. response is proactive, with earlier testing, stronger CDC leadership, and consistent federal messaging.

National mask mandate and Defense Production Act invoked early. Lockdowns are shorter but more coordinated.

Fatalities are still significant, but lower than in our timeline (~500,000 by end of 2020).

Election: Clinton wins reelection against Republican nominee Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz. Voter suppression concerns arise, but turnout remains high.

2021
Vaccination Program: More centralized and trusted rollout. Vaccine skepticism exists but is less politicized. International vaccine diplomacy improves America’s global image.

Supreme Court: Clinton appoints Merrick Garland (replacing Ginsburg, who retires), maintaining a liberal majority. Roe v. Wade remains intact.

2022
Midterms: Democrats lose the House, keep the Senate. The GOP runs on inflation, immigration, and cultural backlash.

Global Affairs: Russia's plans to invade Ukraine are deterred by earlier, consistent NATO alignment and U.S. intelligence warnings. Tensions remain, but no invasion occurs.

Tech Regulation: Clinton supports bipartisan bills on data privacy and antitrust enforcement. Facebook and Google face major restructuring pressure.

2023
Domestic Unrest: Right-wing militias remain active, fueled by conspiracy theories, but January 6–style attack never occurs. Domestic terrorism becomes a policy focus.

Climate Policy: Congress passes a major clean energy bill. EV infrastructure accelerates, and federal subsidies boost solar and wind adoption.

Education: Clinton backs free community college and expanded Pell Grants, sparking debates over federal education spending.

2024
Election: Clinton steps down; VP Tim Kaine runs, challenged by Elizabeth Warren in the primaries. GOP nominates Ron DeSantis or J.D. Vance. Kaine narrowly wins.

Foreign Relations: Tensions rise with China over Taiwan, but the Clinton administration maintains diplomatic engagement alongside deterrence.

2025
Current Status:

U.S. democracy more stable, though cultural polarization persists.

Roe v. Wade intact. ACA expanded.

Global standing stronger, but domestic economic inequality and rural discontent remain key challenges.

AI regulation, climate migration, and workforce automation dominate early Kaine presidency.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I see Hillary Clinton actually bothered campaigning in the swing states in this alternate universe. That's a step up, I suppose. And while I see Russian interference is still being investigated in this alternate universe, I'm guessing that the Clintons' dealings with Russian oligarchs aren't under the same scrutiny. I can also imagine that the DNC was further rewarded for sabotaging Bernie Sanders after Hillary Clinton paid off 80% of their debt and took over their finances. But I digress. Slay, queen! I'm sure the victory of the first woman president would have placated many in the Democratic Party (just as the victory of the first black president did) since they value identity above policies.

Hillary Clinton's always acted out of political expediency, but she's a neoliberal first and foremost. For example, her support for DACA is contradictory with her desire to send back migrant children who were caught crossing the border illegally. The battle between Clinton and Trump on immigration seemed based primarily on semantics, with Trump favoring a wall while Clinton favored a fence. Hillary also supported her husband's gutting of welfare in the 90s, and said people kicked off welfare were "no longer deadbeats."

I have no doubt that Hillary would have been proclaiming "my body, my choice" in relation to abortion while mandating masks and a certain medical procedure.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton helped destroy Libya. When asked about Qaddaffi, Hillary joked "we came, we saw, he died." Wow, what a great diplomat she is!

And speaking of Chat GPT, it offers a nice breakdown of what Hillary's brand of neoliberalism would have meant for the country:

Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential election, her adherence to neoliberal economic policies could have exacerbated several systemic issues in the United States.

1. Continued Economic Inequality​

Clinton's economic agenda, while proposing tax increases on the wealthy and infrastructure investments, still embraced core neoliberal principles such as free trade and deregulation. Critics argue that these policies disproportionately benefit corporations and the affluent, while leaving working-class Americans vulnerable. For instance, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), supported by Clinton, is often cited as a factor in the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, leading to economic decline in regions like the Rust Belt.

2. Weakening of Labor Rights​

Neoliberal policies typically prioritize market efficiency over labor protections. Clinton's support for trade agreements and her administration's stance on labor issues could have further weakened unions and eroded workers' bargaining power. This trend has been linked to stagnating wages and increased income inequality. en.wikipedia.org

3. Environmental and Public Health Concerns​

Neoliberalism often favors deregulation, which can lead to environmental degradation and public health risks. Clinton's policies, such as support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), were criticized for potentially undermining environmental standards and public health protections in favor of corporate interests. counterpunch.org

4. Global Power Dynamics​

Clinton's foreign policy, influenced by neoliberal ideals, emphasized American exceptionalism and interventionism. This approach contributed to strained relations with countries like Russia and has been criticized for escalating global tensions without achieving lasting diplomatic solutions. salon.com

5. Perpetuation of the Status Quo​

Critics argue that Clinton's alignment with neoliberalism represented a continuation of policies that favored the elite and failed to address the structural issues contributing to economic and social disparities. This alignment may have hindered the development of more progressive policies aimed at reducing inequality and promoting social welfare.

In summary, a Clinton presidency in 2016, rooted in neoliberal economic policies, could have deepened existing inequalities, weakened labor rights, compromised environmental and public health standards, strained international relations, and perpetuated a political status quo that favored the elite.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I voted for Hillary in 2016, but would never do that again. She's an unconscionable establishment war pig.

There have been fewer female regents in human history than male, but the female regents are even more warlike --- statistically, much more warlike -- than even the males.

Such is the case with Hillary.

People just can't wrap their heads around the fact that both parties serve the same masters utterly, rhetoric and posing to the contrary... Perhaps they've just never realized it -- or it seems too hopeless.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

The results should have been different in 1992 and this would all be a moot point

 

[Karin]

Yikes! I usually don't like anything that AI dreams up. But it is very intersting that its answer basically was that the world would have been better off today if Hillary Clinton would have become the first female President of the USA back in 2016!

Sadly I don't think she would have been able to have stopped Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But then again she saw what Putin was about to do several years earlier. So who knows if she could have kept the peace on that situation or not. I do believe that the invasion wouldn't have happened if Trump had remained in office. But I guess we'll never know. The what if scenarios are always appealing in a world where things don't go the way we want.

 

[CeeCee72]

If Clinton had won in 2016, nothing would have changed. The US presidency has been occupied with the exact same ideology since 1980 (until Trump). The status quo would have been maintained.

I know there are several posters here that would find that to be the worst of all possibilities - I see it as a good thing. Nothing - and I mean NOTHING would be as dangerous as what we have today.

Oh. Yeah. I think the COVID pandemic would have been handled much better and nowhere near as many people would have died

 

[Frank Underwood]

The status quo is why we have what we have today. This is what desperation gets us after 40 + years of neoliberal/neocon policies. Trump is the end result of a failing empire.

I'm not sure how different Covid would have been, but Dem elites were skeptical of the vaccine until Biden became president, and then they turned against skeptics.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Sadly I don't think she would have been able to have stopped Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

America encouraged the invasion, using Boris Johnson to talk Zelenskyy out of negotiating with Putin (Johnson later admitting that it was a "proxy war" between America and Russia).

 

[Karin]

Yikes! I have not heard that before. Okay so maybe then if Hillary had been the President in 2022 the Ukraine-Russia war wouldn't have happened!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Yikes! I have not heard that before. Okay so maybe then if Hillary had been the President in 2022 the Ukraine-Russia war wouldn't have happened!

You think Hillary would have stopped it? She would not have. America facilitated a coup in Ukraine in 2014, when Obama was president which put things on the path to where they are today.

 

[Frank Underwood]

You think Hillary would have stopped it? She would not have. America facilitated a coup in Ukraine in 2014, when Obama was president which put things on the path to where they are today.

Yes. John Kerry had replaced her as Secretary of State by that time, but Hillary had always been a staunch supporter of expanding NATO and going after Russia.

Clinton described what she saw as common Biden and Obama priorities of “expanding NATO, facing down Russian aggression and managing the challenges from China”.

Hillary was asked about the American divide over the Ukraine War and said “I think Putin is fomenting it as well. Putin and his team that does the kind of interventions, covert and overt, aiming to undermine democracy and to suborn political leaders, is a big part of how he sees his role.” In other words, she's criticizing him for doing what the US does.

 

[Angela Channing]

America encouraged the invasion, using Boris Johnson to talk Zelenskyy out of negotiating with Putin (Johnson later admitting that it was a "proxy war" between America and Russia).

America encouraged Russia to invade Ukraine? Really? How did they do that? Do you mean by not taking more robust action against Russia when they captured Crimea they gave the green light to Putin to take more Ukrainian sovereign territory?

I really don't know why you think Boris Johnson is a credible source for anything. In the UK he is totally discredited and is considered top be a serial liar. Putin has never shown any inclination to have serious negotiations with Zalenskyy, even now, so I don't think Johnson had to talk the Ukrainian leader out of anything.

There is no proxy war but there is threat that if Russia takes Ukraine it will then go after NATO countries such as Poland or Estonia which is why NATO has an interest in Russia not succeeding.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

America encouraged Russia to invade Ukraine? Really? How did they do that? Do you mean by not taking more robust action against Russia when they captured Crimea they gave the green light to Putin to take more Ukrainian sovereign territory?

I really don't know why you think Boris Johnson is a credible source for anything. In the UK he is totally discredited and is considered top be a serial liar. Putin has never shown any inclination to have serious negotiations with Zalenskyy, even now, so I don't think Johnson had to talk the Ukrainian leader out of anything.

There is no proxy war but there is threat that if Russia takes Ukraine it will then go after NATO countries such as Poland or Estonia which is why NATO has an interest in Russia not succeeding.

You're being a little disingenuous.

America's official policy is: do not ever negotiate lest we fail to fund and fill our weapons contractors' bloated coffers.

Follow the money.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Even serial liars usually end up telling on themselves. Boris Johnson's proxy war admission is similar to Trump saying he left troops in Syria to take their oil.

Also, Johnson calling the war in Ukraine a proxy war has also been echoed by those in the defense industry and even by US politicians like Mitch McConnell.

The previously mentioned US-backed coup in Ukraine occurred in 2014 because then-President Viktor Yanukovych was seeking closer ties with Russia. The West had been gradually building towards war with Russia for quite some time. McConnell said we're "helping Ukraine" for "cold, hard, practical American interests." On the Democratic side, Senator Adam Schiff said "The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here". I think that says it all.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine was certainly criminal, but it wasn't without provocation on the part of the West. We've been wanting a fight with Russia, and this is how we got it. Some people say that we're simply honoring a security agreement from 1994 by providing Ukraine with weapons, but Western leaders aren't bothering with that pretense.

 

[Seaviewer]

The results should have been different in 1992 and this would all be a moot point

A Bush victory in '92 certainly would have made for different times but I can't see Quayle succeeding him in '96. Maybe Gore would have run and won then.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Hillary's position on immigration (including unaccompanied minors) sounds similar to Trump's: