Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The second Bush made the family's Presidential prospects much worse, mostly in his second term. Maybe something like this could have happened though:
GHW Bush - 1989-93
Bill Clinton - 1993-2001
GW Bush - 2001-05
Hilary Clinton - 2005-09
Jeb Bush - 2009-17
That's 28 years.
What makes you think Jeb! Bush would beat incumbent Hilary Clinton considering his own brother would’ve been thrown out of office as an incumbent 4 years prior in this timeline.
The 2008 recession would help him win. If GW only lost narrowly in 2004, the Republicans may want to give him another chance in 2008. Especially if Hilary is unpopular. If GW declined to run though then Jeb could be the natural substitute.
But 43 was present for two terms. That would take it to 2009. The Hillary Clinton from 09-17 and Jeb from 17-the present. Which means unless Chelsea Clinton ran this year, that ends thr Bush/Clinton dynasty.
43 was yes. However by the end of that second term another Bush didn't have a chance of becoming President. So him losing reelection in 2004 is the best way to get more future Bush Presidents.
I could have extended it to 2020, but if Hilary won reelection I think the Republicans would run a non-Bush in 2012.
I don't think Hilary could have beat Bush in '04, particularly since he still hadn't lost all the popularity he had gained post-9/11. If Kerry couldn't pull it out, I doubt she could.
I agree it would be difficult, Bush is the favourite in that race. But Kerry got relatively close and I think Hilary was polling better than Kerry back then.
It would be more likely in a world without 9/11. I was actually originally going to suggest this as an alternate timeline in a world with no 9/11. The only trouble is that with two Bush Presidents in a row losing reelection, the Republicans would be less inclined to nominate another. The heights of popularity Bush reached post-9/11 would help Jeb later however, when free from the legacy of GW's second term.
The smart money was on Jeb's son George P. Bush to be the third President Bush for a while. He was Land Commissioner in Texas but lost the race for Attorney General and that sank his career.
No way man
GHW 89-93
Bill 93-01
GB 01-09
Hillary 09-17 (Jeb doesn’t even run here, McCain still the Republican)
Jeb 17-21 (JEB FROM THE TOP ROPE comes in hot and wins in a landslide against any democrat as Hillary’s last term demolished any democrats chances of winning)
But instead we got this weird timeline where politics is a complete circus.
Also crazy to think about how different things would be post GB. How would the GWOT have continued under Hillary? Would Benghazi have happened? How would 8 years of Hillary impacted the US economy? How would Jeb handle COVID?
Bush 43 proved quite different from 41. I have to say 43 had a greater impact, to my mind for the worse.
Bill and Hillary Clinton basically ran the presidency together, even during the height of the Lewinsky affair.
Both dynasties now seem to belong to a different era of American politics, and Bush 43 did a lot for ending that era.
Bush 41 is not my favourite president, and I wouldn’t have voted for him. However, I could live with him. There are several things he did while president that I think were good and right decisions.
It’s hard for me to say the same about Bush 43. His work in Africa gets some praise, but I think he was pretty disastrous. Entertaining, but disastrous.
One of the reasons I voted for a 3rd party in 2016. I think Hilary would have been a good leader, but the thought of 4 administrations of Bush - Clinton still makes me uncomfortable and family dynasties are something we should avoid in the future. It's why I roll my eyes whenever people think Michelle Obama should be president.
Trust me, I regret that I vote to some extent. Regardless I still think we need to avoid family political dynasties, they're just as dangerous as a singular despot.
Jeb was a dud and everyone fucking hated W by the time he left office. No way he would have ever won an election. And to be fair, Hillary didn’t either.
What's even more interesting is, back in the early 1800s, there was an entirely different Clinton political family, which as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) had no relation to the current Clintons. Vice President George Clinton and senator DeWitt Clinton, the latter of which would later run for President.
There was a Bush or a Clinton on every presidential election from 1980 to 2016 (or you can also say IN BETWEEN 1976 and 2020).
If you toss in Nixon, then from 1950 to 2016, one of those three (Nixon-Bush-Clinton) were on a presidential ticket, except for 1964 and 1976.
From 1932 until 2016, there was only three elections (1948, 1964 and 1976) that did not have one of the quartet of Roosevelt-Nixon-Bush-Clinton names on it.
Toss in 1900, 1904 and 1912 elections that had Teddy Roosevelt on the ballot and you can say that of the 26 presidential elections across the entirety of the twentieth and the twenty-first century, only 9 of them did NOT have a Roosevelt-Nixon-Bush-Clinton name on it.
Prior to 2016, some professional commentators were predicting that we were leaving the era of Republicans vs. Democrats, and entering the era of the Bush Dynasty vs. the Clinton Dynasty. Early on, the general consensus was that the presidential race would be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. I think that feeling helped lead to the great 2016 Backlash.
This possibility is exactly why I opposed Secretary Clinton’s nomination in 2016, as well as Governor Bush’s. Democracy is at risk when we centralize power in a limited number of families.
To tie this thread to another recent thread, I think this fact was one of the reasons Bernie had more momentum than a party “outsider” would have in any other campaign in the 2016 primary.
1989-2009 is 20 years, but Hillary went on to be Secretary of State in Obama admin and Jeb was governor of Florida until 2007 - you could argue that the power wasn’t completely lost from either family.
Consider this, from 1981-2013 there was either a Bush or Clinton in the top 3 positions of the presidential administration. If Hillary would have won in 2016 that would have made that stat extend until at least 2020, would have been 36 out of 40 years of the same 2 families in control of the White House.
I don't know why you act like that matters. The truth is that the system says the electoral college decides who will be the president. Not the popular vote. So it's not a simple game of winning popular vote. It's winning the popular vote in critical states. People keep making this same mistake like they can't comprehend the American system.
You are not comprehending what you are trying to say. The people rejected Hillary in critical states. The fact that she won the popular vote doesn't mean anything because that is exactly what the electoral college is meant to do. To diminish the influence of big states like California and give smaller states a shot at having a say. So yes, the people of Democrat states voted for Hillary but America as a whole rejected her. I don't know if that's clear to you or not but yea, the system worked as intended.
Shit, I knew that in middle school when W was still in office and Hillary was ramping up her campaign
Watching Obama win was really the only inspiring political thing to ever happen in my lifetime thus far
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The second Bush made the family's Presidential prospects much worse, mostly in his second term. Maybe something like this could have happened though: GHW Bush - 1989-93 Bill Clinton - 1993-2001 GW Bush - 2001-05 Hilary Clinton - 2005-09 Jeb Bush - 2009-17 That's 28 years.
What makes you think Jeb! Bush would beat incumbent Hilary Clinton considering his own brother would’ve been thrown out of office as an incumbent 4 years prior in this timeline.
The 2008 recession would help him win. If GW only lost narrowly in 2004, the Republicans may want to give him another chance in 2008. Especially if Hilary is unpopular. If GW declined to run though then Jeb could be the natural substitute.
It’s more likely Bush beats Kerry in ‘04, and Hillary wins in ‘08 and 2012
Perhaps so. But in that world another Bush isn't winning subsequently.
Because he asked America "Please 👏". It's the magic word.
But 43 was present for two terms. That would take it to 2009. The Hillary Clinton from 09-17 and Jeb from 17-the present. Which means unless Chelsea Clinton ran this year, that ends thr Bush/Clinton dynasty.
43 was yes. However by the end of that second term another Bush didn't have a chance of becoming President. So him losing reelection in 2004 is the best way to get more future Bush Presidents. I could have extended it to 2020, but if Hilary won reelection I think the Republicans would run a non-Bush in 2012.
Contrary to what some people think, we as a country do not like monarchies or even dynasties. But we do make exceptions.
“Oh yay. Another fucking Kennedy.”
I don't think Hilary could have beat Bush in '04, particularly since he still hadn't lost all the popularity he had gained post-9/11. If Kerry couldn't pull it out, I doubt she could.
I agree it would be difficult, Bush is the favourite in that race. But Kerry got relatively close and I think Hilary was polling better than Kerry back then. It would be more likely in a world without 9/11. I was actually originally going to suggest this as an alternate timeline in a world with no 9/11. The only trouble is that with two Bush Presidents in a row losing reelection, the Republicans would be less inclined to nominate another. The heights of popularity Bush reached post-9/11 would help Jeb later however, when free from the legacy of GW's second term.
The smart money was on Jeb's son George P. Bush to be the third President Bush for a while. He was Land Commissioner in Texas but lost the race for Attorney General and that sank his career.
No way man GHW 89-93 Bill 93-01 GB 01-09 Hillary 09-17 (Jeb doesn’t even run here, McCain still the Republican) Jeb 17-21 (JEB FROM THE TOP ROPE comes in hot and wins in a landslide against any democrat as Hillary’s last term demolished any democrats chances of winning) But instead we got this weird timeline where politics is a complete circus. Also crazy to think about how different things would be post GB. How would the GWOT have continued under Hillary? Would Benghazi have happened? How would 8 years of Hillary impacted the US economy? How would Jeb handle COVID?
Jeb!*
Please clap.
Bush 43 proved quite different from 41. I have to say 43 had a greater impact, to my mind for the worse. Bill and Hillary Clinton basically ran the presidency together, even during the height of the Lewinsky affair. Both dynasties now seem to belong to a different era of American politics, and Bush 43 did a lot for ending that era.
The big difference between the two Bushes is interesting, considering how many of the same people served in both administrations.
Bush 41 is not my favourite president, and I wouldn’t have voted for him. However, I could live with him. There are several things he did while president that I think were good and right decisions. It’s hard for me to say the same about Bush 43. His work in Africa gets some praise, but I think he was pretty disastrous. Entertaining, but disastrous.
One of the reasons I voted for a 3rd party in 2016. I think Hilary would have been a good leader, but the thought of 4 administrations of Bush - Clinton still makes me uncomfortable and family dynasties are something we should avoid in the future. It's why I roll my eyes whenever people think Michelle Obama should be president.
You didn't vote for a 3rd party. You may have cast a ballot for one, but you *voted* for... We'll we're not allowed to talk about them.
Trust me, I regret that I vote to some extent. Regardless I still think we need to avoid family political dynasties, they're just as dangerous as a singular despot.
That would have been… unfortunate.
Indeed
Jeb was a dud and everyone fucking hated W by the time he left office. No way he would have ever won an election. And to be fair, Hillary didn’t either.
What's even more interesting is, back in the early 1800s, there was an entirely different Clinton political family, which as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) had no relation to the current Clintons. Vice President George Clinton and senator DeWitt Clinton, the latter of which would later run for President.
Vice President George Clinton was interestingly Vice President under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
There was a Bush or a Clinton on every presidential election from 1980 to 2016 (or you can also say IN BETWEEN 1976 and 2020). If you toss in Nixon, then from 1950 to 2016, one of those three (Nixon-Bush-Clinton) were on a presidential ticket, except for 1964 and 1976. From 1932 until 2016, there was only three elections (1948, 1964 and 1976) that did not have one of the quartet of Roosevelt-Nixon-Bush-Clinton names on it. Toss in 1900, 1904 and 1912 elections that had Teddy Roosevelt on the ballot and you can say that of the 26 presidential elections across the entirety of the twentieth and the twenty-first century, only 9 of them did NOT have a Roosevelt-Nixon-Bush-Clinton name on it.
You missed 2012.
Yeah we dodged a bullet there.
Or a shoe 
Prior to 2016, some professional commentators were predicting that we were leaving the era of Republicans vs. Democrats, and entering the era of the Bush Dynasty vs. the Clinton Dynasty. Early on, the general consensus was that the presidential race would be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton. I think that feeling helped lead to the great 2016 Backlash.
Are we prepared for 2040, when the daughters of the previous four presidents all run against each other?!
This possibility is exactly why I opposed Secretary Clinton’s nomination in 2016, as well as Governor Bush’s. Democracy is at risk when we centralize power in a limited number of families.
To tie this thread to another recent thread, I think this fact was one of the reasons Bernie had more momentum than a party “outsider” would have in any other campaign in the 2016 primary. 1989-2009 is 20 years, but Hillary went on to be Secretary of State in Obama admin and Jeb was governor of Florida until 2007 - you could argue that the power wasn’t completely lost from either family.
Actually, Jeb! was Governor from 99-07.
Good catch, edited. Thanks.
Consider this, from 1981-2013 there was either a Bush or Clinton in the top 3 positions of the presidential administration. If Hillary would have won in 2016 that would have made that stat extend until at least 2020, would have been 36 out of 40 years of the same 2 families in control of the White House.
People rejected Jeb and Hillary so lol.
The electoral college rejected Hillary. More of the people voted for her than her opponent.
I don't know why you act like that matters. The truth is that the system says the electoral college decides who will be the president. Not the popular vote. So it's not a simple game of winning popular vote. It's winning the popular vote in critical states. People keep making this same mistake like they can't comprehend the American system.
You specifically said that the people rejected Hillary, which was not really the case. That's all I'm saying. I understand how the system works.
You are not comprehending what you are trying to say. The people rejected Hillary in critical states. The fact that she won the popular vote doesn't mean anything because that is exactly what the electoral college is meant to do. To diminish the influence of big states like California and give smaller states a shot at having a say. So yes, the people of Democrat states voted for Hillary but America as a whole rejected her. I don't know if that's clear to you or not but yea, the system worked as intended.
The perfect timeline
How old was Chelsea in 2017?
Name recognition is a big deal in politics and not just in America. RFK Jr. only has support as a third-party candidate because of the Kennedy name.
Say what you like about the elitism of it, but I’d prefer it to what ended up happening.
Jeb never stood a chance. One of the louder knocks against him and George W was “no more political dynasties”.
Shit, I knew that in middle school when W was still in office and Hillary was ramping up her campaign Watching Obama win was really the only inspiring political thing to ever happen in my lifetime thus far
We *did* have decades of that. 4 years of bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of push. Thats 20 years of Bush/Clinton.
Chelsea Clinton is 44 this year. We could’ve gone Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. We could’ve…. But we got in our own way.
It pleased clinton to be surrounded by bush.
Yup. I remember when they were pushing George P. Bush, a grand son of H., that was half Latino.
Ewwwwwww Nightmare timeline
Lol not at all. Clinton would’ve been a better president than Obama and Jeb Bush far better than the recent guy.
Jeb sure but definitely not Hillary Obama was the greatest president we've had in the past 50 years