1984 Ronald Reagan Vs. 1996 Bill Clinton

[Zyobot]

Having crushed Jimmy Carter four years earlier and ushered in a new, rightwards-headed paradigm in the process, President Ronald Reagan enjoyed a blowout reelection in 1984. With a recovering economy, a revived sense of optimism, and Walter Mondale as the Democratic nominee, the incumbent POTUS swept to victory with a whopping 525 electoral votes and roughly 58.8% of the popular vote on that fateful November night.

But that was IOTL, and one particular ASB has plans to ensure that whatever the outcome, this new scenario is much less one-sided. So what if on January 1st, 1984, all the states that would've voted Democratic on November 5th, 1996 suddenly materialize--with President Bill Clinton, his cabinet and his staff having come along for the ride not only to represent the uptimers and their interests, but also to secure the Democratic nomination and challenge Reagan for another term in the White House?

Here's the corresponding 1996 election map from 270 To Win. The blue states are their 1996 iterations, whereas the red states--and Washington, D.C.--remain as they were in 1984.

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

[Zyobot]

For one, due to the fact that it was pointed out to me in AH.com's version of this thread, I'm thinking we should leave 1984 Washington, D.C. as is without replacing it with its 1996 counterpart. With Clinton and his staff being magically transported to Camp David (which is in Maryland and thus sent along for the ride), so that they're not displaced in some unfamiliar facility or somewhere where they'd be hard to track down.

Secondly, I suppose that with all of the political (and especially legal) shenanigans that'd result from putting forth options less straightforward, perhaps it'd be best to grant the uptimer states their 1996 electoral-vote counts to tide them over, lest their populations feel underrepresented in the coming election?

[stevep]

Jul 23, 2020 3:06:30 GMT Zyobot said:

For one, due to the fact that it was pointed out to me in AH.com's version of this thread, I'm thinking we should leave 1984 Washington, D.C. as is without replacing it with its 1996 counterpart. With Clinton and his staff being magically transported to Camp David (which is in Maryland and thus sent along for the ride), so that they're not displaced in some unfamiliar facility or somewhere where they'd be hard to track down.

Secondly, I suppose that with all of the political (and especially legal) shenanigans that'd result from putting forth options less straightforward, perhaps it'd be best to grant the uptimer states their 1996 electoral-vote counts to tide them over, lest their populations feel underrepresented in the coming election?

  I think you would have to do that to make the election both legal and acceptable to them as otherwise many of them will feel seriously aggrieved.  It could be that some of the old rust belt might have lost population by 1996 so their proportion of the electoral vote could drop.

  Probably best as you say to leave 1984 Washington in place so that the existing leadership is present to govern the country up til November, although even with Clinton and his staff the 1996 states are going to lose many/most of their own politicians.  In places were both are present you have the question of is a 1996 state represented by its 1984 or 1996 senators and representatives?  Would suggest the latter as those are the people the population voted for but its going to cause issues.  Plus there might be a factor if a prominent 1984 person has seen a serious scandal by 1996 and you get the old issue of how do you respond to something that [unless it started before 1984] hasn't happened yet?

[Zyobot]

Jul 23, 2020 10:44:12 GMT stevep said:

Jul 23, 2020 3:06:30 GMT Zyobot said:

For one, due to the fact that it was pointed out to me in AH.com's version of this thread, I'm thinking we should leave 1984 Washington, D.C. as is without replacing it with its 1996 counterpart. With Clinton and his staff being magically transported to Camp David (which is in Maryland and thus sent along for the ride), so that they're not displaced in some unfamiliar facility or somewhere where they'd be hard to track down.

Secondly, I suppose that with all of the political (and especially legal) shenanigans that'd result from putting forth options less straightforward, perhaps it'd be best to grant the uptimer states their 1996 electoral-vote counts to tide them over, lest their populations feel underrepresented in the coming election?

  I think you would have to do that to make the election both legal and acceptable to them as otherwise many of them will feel seriously aggrieved.  It could be that some of the old rust belt might have lost population by 1996 so their proportion of the electoral vote could drop.

  Probably best as you say to leave 1984 Washington in place so that the existing leadership is present to govern the country up til November, although even with Clinton and his staff the 1996 states are going to lose many/most of their own politicians.  In places were both are present you have the question of is a 1996 state represented by its 1984 or 1996 senators and representatives?  Would suggest the latter as those are the people the population voted for but its going to cause issues.  Plus there might be a factor if a prominent 1984 person has seen a serious scandal by 1996 and you get the old issue of how do you respond to something that [unless it started before 1984] hasn't happened yet?

That's a good point. Having compared the OTL 1984 and 1996 election maps side-by-side just now, it does indeed seem that at least the proportion of people residing in the Midwest and New England has gone down in those twelve years, though Democratic states that went for Clinton IOTL have larger electoral-vote counts--such as Arizona, Florida, and the West Coast. Whether or not they'll flip for Reagan once the dust settles and campaigning resumes leading up to November 6th, I don't know.

I do, however, think that in addition to being the obvious Democratic nominee for this election cycle, Clinton would provide much more meaningful competition for Reagan than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale ever did. His southern charm and more rightwards political positions could probably beguile larger swaths of 1984 America into voting for him, in keeping with the changing paradigm of things that the Reagan administration has become a focal point for. Perhaps the Blue Dog Democrats will gain more traction a decade earlier, if I were to guess.

While I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, I'd think that--similar to what I've said before--being a Representative or Senator of people who didn't elect you rather misses the whole point of representation in government. The exact details of what the legal system would iron out in response to this conundrum, I'm unsure of.

[Zyobot]

So...now that we're clear on what the electoral parameters are on at least the presidential level, what could the 1984 election map look like this time around? I'd recommend one of those online interactive maps I've found, but they don't tend to account for altered electoral-vote counts on a state-by-state basis.