2016 a 'boring year' for big political/geo-political events in the West?

[James G]

Let us say that the Brexit referendum went for Remain, heavily so too.
Trump never made it as the Republican nominee and an ordinary candidate run and lost to H. Clinton.
There was no Turkish coup attempt either. Maybe the Brussels and Nice attacks didn't take place either.

How does this all effect politics today in the West?

[stevep]

Nov 14, 2020 10:07:14 GMT James G said:

Let us say that the Brexit referendum went for Remain, heavily so too.
Trump never made it as the Republican nominee and an ordinary candidate run and lost to H. Clinton.
There was no Turkish coup attempt either. Maybe the Brussels and Nice attacks didn't take place either.

How does this all effect politics today in the West?

  Well Britain will remain deeply divided.  The US will probably see a better 4 years and also a faster response to the virus, assuming that still occurs.  Although without Trump in 2016 and with the Republican hatred of HC you could see some hard line Republican challenging this year with a platform not too dissimilar to Trump's only probably a bit more organised and less erratic. 

  Not sure if Islamic reactionary violence can easily be butterflied.  You will still have IS emerging and seeking to prompt as much violence and destruction as possible and clashing with older terrorist movements.

  Also unless you have drastic changes in both Beijing and Moscow, which seem unlikely in 2016 onward, your still going to have two autocratic leaders seeking to cause disruption and problems.

  You're likely without Trump to get more progress on climate change prevention but again depends on the circumstances in the aftermath of the 2016 election in the US and again this could prompt a reaction by the old vested interests pushing someone with an approach not too dissimilar to Trump in stance albeit probably less irrational.

  Basically without ASB intervention, probably including some significant mind control, your going to struggle to avoid many of the issues and might just push them back a few years and possibly even strengthen them.  Hopefully the US for instance will turn back to a more centralist stance and Trump will be seen as a possibly necessary step to highlight how poisonous things were becoming.

[Zyobot]

Something that I'd like to point out here is that, even if some generic GOP candidate losing to Hillary Clinton would make 2016 itself pretty boring, I still imagine that the next few years would be anything but. Because then she'd probably be positioned to make good on her calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, which could threaten to kick-start escalating tensions with Russia & Co. unless someone backs down. And somehow, I don't think we'd get quite that lucky.

[stevep]

Nov 22, 2020 23:47:47 GMT Zyobot said:

Something that I'd like to point out here is that, even if some generic GOP candidate losing to Hillary Clinton would make 2016 itself pretty boring, I still imagine that the next few years would be anything but. Because then she'd probably be positioned to make good on her calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, which could threaten to kick-start escalating tensions with Russia & Co. unless someone backs down. And somehow, I don't think we'd get quite that lucky.

  Good point but given the relative balance of power in that period I doubt Putin would go for a direct shooting war with NATO.  Support for anti-US and anti-western forces in the region and anything he could to undermine unity in the west behind a strong programme of intervention to prevent the massacres.

  One other thing is that at least some of the accusations thrown against Hillary OTL by Trump and the Republicans seem to have had Russian sources so probably a lot more black propaganda on the internet and support of the more hard line Republican politicians and policies to deepen the divide in the US.

[kyng]

A couple of guesses:

• United Kingdom: We already got an idea of what to expect in the aftermath of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum (which as a 'No' victory, and it wasn't particularly close). The 'Yes' voters switched en masse to the Scottish National Party, which consequently got about 50% of the vote in Scotland in the 2015 general election. This resulted in them winning 56 out of 59 seats, since the 'No' voters were split between Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems. I can see something similar happening in England in the wake of a clear win for Remain: Cameron will revel in his victory, and Labour and the Lib Dems won't want anything to do with Brexit, so 'Leave' voters might well flock en masse to UKIP. I don't think they'd quite get to 50% of the vote, but it's not hard to see them getting to 40%, which would mean Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister in 2020, and takes us out of the EU anyway. (Though, if COVID still happens, and Cameron gets a sympathy bump in the polls like Boris and most other Western leaders did... then, his government could still hang on, with Farage having to settle for becoming Leader of the Opposition)
  
  
• United States: President Hillary Clinton proves to be a very polarising and unpopular figure. About half the population hates her guts - and those who do support her do so unenthusiastically. As a result, the 2018 midterms prove to be a disaster for the Democrats (their map was so bad that they had a net loss of two seats even in a Trump midterm - and, in a Hillary midterm, it'd almost certainly be far worse. It's possible that the GOP could hold onto Nevada and Arizona, as well as picking up Montana, the two Minnesota seats, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and New Jersey, as well as the four they picked up in OTL. That would be a net gain of 14 seats in the Senate for the GOP - and, while that's very much a worst-case scenario, even the Democrats holding onto four of these would leave them with double-digit losses and a GOP supermajority).
  
  Even so, I think she'd still have a decent chance of being re-elected in 2020, depending on how extreme the GOP nominee is (likely another Trumpist, or even Trump himself), and also on how she handles COVID. (My guess is she advocates masks and lockdowns from early on, but faces heavy resistance from GOP governors, who keep their own states open in a strong show of defiance. She also tries to pass an ambitious stimulus bill, but in the GOP-controlled Congress, it goes nowhere)
  
  
• Rest of the world: Not a lot to add here, except that Islamic extremism is a slightly less salient issue (but since that happened anyway by 2020, not a lot changes).

[gillan1220]

I don't think the UK remaining in the EU would prevent Trump's victory. I have seen a video explaining that Trump's victory could be trace back all the way to the Reagan years. The EU referendum would be too late to change course by then. Not to mention, Islamic terror attacks would still occur in Europe that would fuel the far-right and the alt-right's agenda even further.

Meanwhile in the Philippines, things would be the same. Duterte would still be the President, the drug war will continue and thousands of innocents get killed, poverty and corruption will still be an issue, Ferdinand Marcos will be buried in the National Heroes' Cemetery and so on.

[american2006]

I think at least in America the GOP holding onto the House and Senate and maybe even getting a supermajority. In that case, the GOP candidate (I assume Cruz was 2016’s) would probably be a Rubio or even a Hogan. They win the 2020 with Trumps 2016 map plus Nevada and Minnesota, maybe Virginia and Colorado if they are lucky. But for sure the Dems lose in 2024.

[gillan1220]

Jan 23, 2021 19:30:27 GMT american2006 said:

I think at least in America the GOP holding onto the House and Senate and maybe even getting a supermajority. In that case, the GOP candidate (I assume Cruz was 2016’s) would probably be a Rubio or even a Hogan. They win the 2020 with Trumps 2016 map plus Nevada and Minnesota, maybe Virginia and Colorado if they are lucky. But for sure the Dems lose in 2024.

Cruz was the closest to defeat Trump in the primaries. On the forum, there's a timeline where Cruz won: In Cruz We Trust: An American Nightmare

[american2006]

Jan 24, 2021 4:24:29 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jan 23, 2021 19:30:27 GMT american2006 said:

I think at least in America the GOP holding onto the House and Senate and maybe even getting a supermajority. In that case, the GOP candidate (I assume Cruz was 2016’s) would probably be a Rubio or even a Hogan. They win the 2020 with Trumps 2016 map plus Nevada and Minnesota, maybe Virginia and Colorado if they are lucky. But for sure the Dems lose in 2024.

Cruz was the closest to defeat Trump in the primaries. On the forum, there's a timeline where Cruz won: In Cruz We Trust: An American Nightmare

I myself wrote a Cruz Timeline on this forum. He would be the most likely candidate.

[gillan1220]

Jan 24, 2021 4:39:30 GMT american2006 said:

Jan 24, 2021 4:24:29 GMT gillan1220 said:

Cruz was the closest to defeat Trump in the primaries. On the forum, there's a timeline where Cruz won: In Cruz We Trust: An American Nightmare

I myself wrote a Cruz Timeline on this forum. He would be the most likely candidate.

Can you link it to me? I'm curious.

Also would a Cruz administration really be a dystopia? I'm not really familiar with him because I'm not American but based on the comments on the other thread, it seems Trump is tamer than Cruz. In fact, Cruz makes Trump look like a saint.

[stevep]

Jan 23, 2021 17:39:52 GMT kyng said:

A couple of guesses:

• United Kingdom: We already got an idea of what to expect in the aftermath of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum (which as a 'No' victory, and it wasn't particularly close). The 'Yes' voters switched en masse to the Scottish National Party, which consequently got about 50% of the vote in Scotland in the 2015 general election. This resulted in them winning 56 out of 59 seats, since the 'No' voters were split between Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems. I can see something similar happening in England in the wake of a clear win for Remain: Cameron will revel in his victory, and Labour and the Lib Dems won't want anything to do with Brexit, so 'Leave' voters might well flock en masse to UKIP. I don't think they'd quite get to 50% of the vote, but it's not hard to see them getting to 40%, which would mean Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister in 2020, and takes us out of the EU anyway. (Though, if COVID still happens, and Cameron gets a sympathy bump in the polls like Boris and most other Western leaders did... then, his government could still hang on, with Farage having to settle for becoming Leader of the Opposition)
  
  
• United States: President Hillary Clinton proves to be a very polarising and unpopular figure. About half the population hates her guts - and those who do support her do so unenthusiastically. As a result, the 2018 midterms prove to be a disaster for the Democrats (their map was so bad that they had a net loss of two seats even in a Trump midterm - and, in a Hillary midterm, it'd almost certainly be far worse. It's possible that the GOP could hold onto Nevada and Arizona, as well as picking up Montana, the two Minnesota seats, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and New Jersey, as well as the four they picked up in OTL. That would be a net gain of 14 seats in the Senate for the GOP - and, while that's very much a worst-case scenario, even the Democrats holding onto four of these would leave them with double-digit losses and a GOP supermajority).
  
  Even so, I think she'd still have a decent chance of being re-elected in 2020, depending on how extreme the GOP nominee is (likely another Trumpist, or even Trump himself), and also on how she handles COVID. (My guess is she advocates masks and lockdowns from early on, but faces heavy resistance from GOP governors, who keep their own states open in a strong show of defiance. She also tries to pass an ambitious stimulus bill, but in the GOP-controlled Congress, it goes nowhere)
  
  
• Rest of the world: Not a lot to add here, except that Islamic extremism is a slightly less salient issue (but since that happened anyway by 2020, not a lot changes).

  I think you would really need about 50% support for Farage because of the horrendous way our electoral system works to benefit big established parties and I suspect that could be beyond him.  If UKIP did get in then it would probably be a disaster as their all over the place and even more right wing that the Tories.  Plus Farage for all his attempts at appearing a man of the people basically comes from and belongs to the city of London so he's unlikely to do anything to tame its excesses.  You would be likely to see widespread anger in core UKIP supporters as the city continues to get pampered by a UKIP government while he's happy to see the rest of the country go to the dogs.  We might get out of the EU but its likely to be an even worse mess than what May and Johnson handed us OTL.  Also your likely to have a lot more racial tension given some of the extremists in UKIP - basically British versions of the Proud Boys but less organised and violent.

  Clinton was polarising in part because she was a woman, which upset some of the ultras and because she was Bill's wife and he was a very successful and popular President in the 1990's despite his private [or not so private] life.   With the Senate already in Republican hands and likely to worsen in 2016 you are likely to see the government even more gridlocked than it was during Obama's 2nd term as the Republicans block everything they can.  This might including continuing to block any selection of a replacement Supreme Court member.  As such the US is likely to be pretty much as divided as OTL unfortunately although while a gridlocked government will prevent much good policy your less likely to see Trump's disruptive activities so the US stays more interactive with the rest of the world.  It could be interesting if Russian involvement in the 2016 election becomes questioned as the security services information will be supported by Clinton and the Democrats although the Senate may block and actions to penalise Putin and Russia. 

  What you could see might be a reaction against the Republicans however in 2020 simply because the bulk of the population would be fed up of the division and continuing blocking by the Republicans.  Especially if Covid still comes along and the Republicans seek to stop safety measures as OTL in response to Clinton trying to save lives.  That will mean markedly higher deaths in areas controlled by Republicans which could come back to sting them hard.  As such your likely to see something like 2020 with a reaction in favour of the Democrats after a Republican surge in 2018, but possibly stronger as there would be less misinformation coming out of the White House.  2020 is still going to leave a very divided country but probably a few more people alive because the government recognises the problem.

[stevep]

Jan 23, 2021 19:03:01 GMT gillan1220 said:

I don't think the UK remaining in the EU would prevent Trump's victory. I have seen a video explaining that Trump's victory could be trace back all the way to the Reagan years. The EU referendum would be too late to change course by then. Not to mention, Islamic terror attacks would still occur in Europe that would fuel the far-right and the alt-right's agenda even further.

Meanwhile in the Philippines, things would be the same. Duterte would still be the President, the drug war will continue and thousands of innocents get killed, poverty and corruption will still be an issue, Ferdinand Marcos will be buried in the National Heroes' Cemetery and so on.

  It wasn't necessarily an inevitability but Reagan broke with the post war consensus and took the Republicans a good way to the right, as well as making some nasty decisions for the US economy.  [Markedly greater debt, pampering the very rich and hence increasing income disparities, rejecting the idea that government could help ordinary people].  This swing has continued since and become steadily more extreme and divisive. 

  I would agree that a different result for the UK referendum wouldn't have changed the 2016 election greatly although there is a possibility that because it was such a surprise to everybody it may have made the idea of a Trump Presidency, despite his character flaws and lack of any experience, somewhat more acceptable.

[american2006]

Jan 24, 2021 4:52:27 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jan 24, 2021 4:39:30 GMT american2006 said:

I myself wrote a Cruz Timeline on this forum. He would be the most likely candidate.

Can you link it to me? I'm curious.

Also would a Cruz administration really be a dystopia? I'm not really familiar with him because I'm not American but based on the comments on the other thread, it seems Trump is tamer than Cruz. In fact, Cruz makes Trump look like a saint.

Here’s the link: alternate-timelines.com/thread/3495/democrats-feel-bern-alternate-election

It would not be a dystopia. Cruz would be more popular then Trump. My TL isn’t really realistic, the Cruz administration would be a watered down Trump administration minus Trumps bombastic character meaning that he would likely win re-election.

[gillan1220]

Jan 24, 2021 15:48:58 GMT american2006 said:

Jan 24, 2021 4:52:27 GMT gillan1220 said:

Can you link it to me? I'm curious.

Also would a Cruz administration really be a dystopia? I'm not really familiar with him because I'm not American but based on the comments on the other thread, it seems Trump is tamer than Cruz. In fact, Cruz makes Trump look like a saint.

Here’s the link: alternate-timelines.com/thread/3495/democrats-feel-bern-alternate-election

It would not be a dystopia. Cruz would be more popular then Trump. My TL isn’t really realistic, the Cruz administration would be a watered down Trump administration minus Trumps bombastic character meaning that he would likely win re-election.

Oh this. I remember reading this a few months back.