Ronald Reagan (1984) Vs. Bill Clinton (1996)

[Zyobot]

Having crushed Jimmy Carter four years earlier and ushered in a new, rightwards-headed paradigm in the process, 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 elderly president 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. On January 1st, 1984, all the states that would've otherwise voted Democratic in November 1996 suddenly replace their 1984 counterparts. President Bill Clinton, his cabinet, and his staff come along for the ride to not only represent the uptimers and their interests, but also to secure the Democratic nomination and challenge Reagan for another term in the White House. What happens next?

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

 

[49ersfootball]

Clinton would be nuts to challenge a popular Reagan in 1984. It would mean the end of his political career.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Absolute chaos breaks out because of the effects of the time travel displacement, and a state of emergency likely results in the postponing of the general election.

 

[stevep]

Clinton would be nuts to challenge a popular Reagan in 1984. It would mean the end of his political career.

Well since a majority of the electoral votes, by over 100, are from uptime Democratic states he should have a clear advantage. Reagan for instance is unlikely to win 1996 California as the clearest example. Coupled with the assumed population increases over the 12 years there are more people in the combined US who voted for Clinton than who voted for Reagan in the earlier period.

Also being an up-timer Clinton has access to info about Reagan after 1984, possibly most significantly his illegal activity with Iran to get weapons to the Contras.

 

[Zyobot]

Clinton would be nuts to challenge a popular Reagan in 1984. It would mean the end of his political career.

If he were going at it alone, sure. But, given the points @stevep made above, Reagan would have a hell of a time explaining away his age and Iran-Contra. Mondale may not have been able to capitalize on the former as much IOTL, but Clinton can probably "share" his insider knowledge of how Reagan's mental issues took hold in his second term. Personally, I don't think most people would want someone in a questionable mental state in charge of the nuclear codes, though you'll still have a core of loyalist voters who ignore that for partisan reasons.

Besides, Clinton himself is well-spoken and more right-wing than other Democrats who challenged Reagan IOTL. Combine that with his incumbency and news of Mondale getting steamrolled IOTL 1984, and I think he'd breeze through the primaries without much trouble. How he does in the general is trickier, though there's no doubt in mind that Clinton would be far more competitive than Carter or Mondale ever were.

Perhaps he'd even extend some coattails to his fellow Blue Dogs in the down-ballot races, though they'd first have to work out who represents what, given that downtimer Congressmen from the Blue States' 1984 counterparts are (presumably) still in Washington when the ISOT happens.

 

[49ersfootball]

Intrigued to see how Clinton handles Corazon Aquino as Philippine President in the 1986 EDSA Revolution & Korea going to democracy as well.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

But what happens if there are two Hillaries?

 

[Zyobot]

But what happens if there are two Hillaries?

Not sure, since I know less about how Hillary the Younger must be faring at this time. Although, this does make way for an interesting legal debate over whether different versions of the same person are considered separate individuals?

Among other things, it'd have implications for future criminals whose downtimer counterparts have done nothing wrong, though you'll still have a few worrywarts who don't care and will want an "eye kept" on them, anyway. Don't know how long it'd take them to catch on, but it'd nonetheless behoove law enforcement and the courts to be mindful of that problem as their duties ramp up.

 

[ShieldWife]

Does Bill Clinton get to bring Ross Perot back in time with him? If not, Reagan handily wins the election, barring logical consequences of the time shift.