My Take On The Best Possible Result For Clinton 2016
It's pretty well known that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign during the 2016 cycle. But what really went wrong? Well, everything. Progressives saw her as a corporate shitlib. Republicans saw her as the devil incarnate. Moderates weren't particularly inspired by her either. It was a complete mess. Even worse, her campaign was terribly overconfident and she didn't really campaign in what would end up being two of the most competitive states (Michigan and Wisconsin). Making her come off as arrogant and out of touch.
In my opinion, her main problem was authenticity. It felt like she was trying to be an Obama-style candidate. A uniter, who spoke of hope and change. Who believed not in red states, or blue states, but the United States. Who tried to make people feel good about themselves. Who was ever the optimist. The problem is, nobody really bought it. And truth be told I think people wanted something with more teeth. There was still a lot of discontentment by 2016, and Trump ran with it all the way to the White House.
So I think she instead should've ran as a strong, tough candidate and a fighter. Someone who would be ready to get to work on day one. The woman who fought against the healthcare industry in the 1990s. The woman who took down Osama Bin-Laden. She ran on this kind of sentiment a lot more heavily in 2008. And most people I've spoken to who watched both the 2008 and 2016 debates agree that she came off a lot better in 2008 (myself included). I think it might've also made her seem like less of an elitist, and might've cut into some of Trump's populist appeal. It definitely would've made her campaign feel more in touch and "legitimate" if that makes sense. I also think this means she's more aggressive against Trump. Which I think she needed to be.
I think she also needed a different running mate. He's a decent senator and a decent man. But Tim Kaine inspires literally nobody. He was just so boring and basically didn't motivate anyone who wasn't already guaranteed to come out and vote for Clinton. I think she should've picked Sherrod Brown. He would've given her more protectionist persona some legitimacy (she did run against the TPP in 2016, and pledged to revisit NAFTA, but I don't think anyone really believed in it, Brown would help on that front). And he would've helped her with the voters she did the worst with in our timeline.
Since this is meant to be a best case scenario, there's one more thing to cover: luck. I think Clinton had some things out of her control that could've gone better for her. In my opinion Trump was one of the better equipped candidates to pull off a win in 2016. So ideally she might be facing someone like Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, rather than him. I might make a scenario where that happens, but we'll stick with Trump for this one.
I think that leaves two more things: Comey re-opening the emails case and her health-scare at the 9/11 memorial. After Access Hollywood most people thought Trump was done. That was meant to be the October Surprise. But those two events stopped the bleeding that Access Hollywood caused, and in a way ended up overshadowing it. So we'll assume those don't happen. Leaving Access Hollywood as the main October Surprise that dominates news coverage. I think this alone has Clinton narrowly win in 2016, but combined with everything else we changed, it has her win comfortably.
Anyway, this is my first effort post in this style. If you think I did a good job, let me know. And maybe I'll make more! If you don't, let me know about that as well.
Thanks for reading!
