WI: Gore wins in 2000

[Xachiavelli]

I did some searching and couldn't for the life of me find a thread about this (Sorry if i just missed it).

So here it is: What happens if Al Gore beats George W Bush in 2000?

Is he re-elected in 2004? Who wins in 2008? How does that go?
Bonus points if Ron Paul somehow wins in 2008 (I dunno, i just think that would be interesting)

I think America would be in a much better state after 8 years of Gore than 8 years of Bush (Duh!). Afghanistan probably still happens, but not Iraq or Pakistan, so the US is less hated. Perhaps their GDP actually surpasses that of the EU, who knows, but i'd be willing to bet they're doing a whole lot better.

[Well]

See, I have some views on this, but since I just started a timeline on this ('Tony and Al'), I probably shouldn't ruin my plot...

[Lord Grattan]

Via the forum's search function I found these 4 recent threads...

Gore Elected In 2000:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=241712

Ralph Nader In A Gore Victory Scenario:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=240758

Who Would Challenge Gore In 2004:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=233189

An Al Gore Presidency:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=223589

[Xachiavelli]

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

Via the forum's search function I found these 4 recent threads...

Gore Elected In 2000:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=241712

Ralph Nader In A Gore Victory Scenario:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=240758

Who Would Challenge Gore In 2004:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=233189

An Al Gore Presidency:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=223589

Damn, i must be awful at using that search function >.<

Cheers muchly

[JoeinOhio]

Originally Posted by Xachiavelli

I did some searching and couldn't for the life of me find a thread about this (Sorry if i just missed it).

So here it is: What happens if Al Gore beats George W Bush in 2000?

Is he re-elected in 2004? Who wins in 2008? How does that go?
Bonus points if Ron Paul somehow wins in 2008 (I dunno, i just think that would be interesting)

I think America would be in a much better state after 8 years of Gore than 8 years of Bush (Duh!). Afghanistan probably still happens, but not Iraq or Pakistan, so the US is less hated. Perhaps their GDP actually surpasses that of the EU, who knows, but i'd be willing to bet they're doing a whole lot better.

I just don't understand the appeal of Congressman Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. Sure, he is an interesting guy with some good economic ideas. But he is now 76 years-old and his brand of libertarianism is not really saleable beyond a small niche of, at most, 5-6% of the voting population. His support for legalizing drugs (not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin, etc) and prostitution is unlikely to garner 50% of the vote in any state, but would be the subject of opponents' attack ads if Paul's polls numbers ever got high enough for him to be perceived as a threat to them.

[KGBeast]

In answer to your questions a Gore win in 2000 would have led to no Bush style tax cuts, no shredding of corporate financial protections that led to the 07' financial crisis, no Iraq, 9/11 still happens but no Patriot Act, (If Gore is at that elementary school on 9/11 I doubt he would sit stone faced for 15 minutes reading a children's novel) a much more limited Aghanistan incursion in 01-02 with no invasion but surgical air strikes and special force raids. IMO whichever Republican nominee in 04' beats Gore. The voting populace after 12 years of Democratic rule, plus the stigma of 9/11 and the fact that the 04 election was almost completely about national security, a policy wholely dominated by the right until Obama came along and Gore seems destined to be a 1 term president with the stigma of 9.11 happening on his watch.

[hcallega]

2000 was certainly one of the most heavily disputed and controversial elections of the 20th Century. The Florida recount, Gore's victory in the popular vote, and the candidacy of Ralph Nader all greatly contribute to the reputation that the 2000 election has garnered over the years. The Bush Presidency only served to further fuel the flames of controversy over 2000. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the Bush Tax Cuts, Hurricane Katrina, the financial meltdown of 2008 and the ensuing bailouts have all played a critical role in shaping contemporary American politics. Their absence, or any major changes to them, would be followed by a slew of butterflies. Nonetheless, it is worth wondering what would have happened to America and the world if Al Gore defeated George Bush?

Looking at Gore's platform, the crucial difference between himself and Bush is over how to manage the budget surplus. Bush supported a large tax cut primarily aimed at high-income individuals. He also wanted increases in military spending and reforms to education (what became NCLB) and Medicare (Part D). Gore, on the other hand, wanted to pass a tax-cut aimed at the middle class (similar to the proposal Clinton campaigned on in 1992), a more expansive Medicare drug-coverage proposal, and a tougher version of NCLB. The reality was that neither candidate proposed anything too different from than their opponent did. That was part of the reason that Ralph Nader did as well as he did. Therefore, as President, you can expect Gore to pass his tax proposal, his equivalent of NCLB and Part D, and probably maintain a balanced budget in 2001. However, the recession and 9/11 will change everything. Gore will probably react in a similar manner as Bush did. There will be a consolidation of the intelligence agencies, a version of the PATRIOT Act, and military intervention into Afghanistan. However, it is unlikely that there will be any invasion of Iraq. Imagine a foreign policy similar to Obama's, with the focus on special ops and eliminating terror cells around the world.

Gore's first term is probably seen as a success. Much like Bush, he will be able to claim a tough response to 9/11 (which I believe would still happen). He will campaign on the reforms that he passed and position himself in the political center. His opponent, whether it is John McCain, Jeb Bush, or anyone else, would have a tough time defeating him. Will the budget remain balanced? Probably not, what with Afghanistan, the War on Terror, and the domestic programs Gore passed. Will Afghanistan be a roaring success? Almost assuredly not. But Gore will still be able to claim a fairly strong resume. It will be a fairly close election, but Gore will probably win reelection. The next four years will be much tougher. How he responds to immigration, health care, Katrina, the environment, and Iran will likely determine his long term legacy. The housing bubble will probably still pop, and Gore will probably be forced to bailout the financial giants. The Republican nominee in 2008 will find his wings on this issue, and break sixteen years of Democratic rule.

[nien nunb]

I agree with a lot of the points mentioned so far. No tax cuts and no Iraq War, so much less deficit issues. Either no PATRIOT act or a greatly modified one. No NCLB act so education fares much better.

I think due to 9/11, and Gore handling the Afghanistan campaign better with no Iraq distraction, along with at least a decent economy, means re-election. Then two more SCOTUS appointees from Gore to replace conservative ones means a more liberal court than there has been for a long time.

[Hörnla]

Originally Posted by JoeinOhio

I just don't understand the appeal of Congressman Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. Sure, he is an interesting guy with some good economic ideas. But he is now 76 years-old and his brand of libertarianism is not really saleable beyond a small niche of, at most, 5-6% of the voting population. His support for legalizing drugs (not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin, etc) and prostitution is unlikely to garner 50% of the vote in any state, but would be the subject of opponents' attack ads if Paul's polls numbers ever got high enough for him to be perceived as a threat to them.

In Germany, Ron Paul would be the Nestor of the Pirate Party.

Originally Posted by KGBeast

... no Iraq...a much more limited Aghanistan incursion in 01-02 with no invasion but surgical air strikes and special force raids. IMO whichever Republican nominee in 04' beats Gore. The voting populace after 12 years of Democratic rule, plus the stigma of 9/11 and the fact that the 04 election was almost completely about national security, a policy wholely dominated by the right until Obama came along and Gore seems destined to be a 1 term president with the stigma of 9.11 happening on his watch.

Well, unless his spin doctors convince him that he needs a proper war for re-election.

I also doubt that, although the Afghanistan campaign might look very different than OTL, the US would not go in there with ground troops after 9/11. Simply inconceivable to me. Question is if they "come to stay" or are content with establishing a "friendly" government which allows them to operate against Al Quaida.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by nien nunb

I agree with a lot of the points mentioned so far. No tax cuts and no Iraq War, so much less deficit issues. Either no PATRIOT act or a greatly modified one. No NCLB act so education fares much better.

I think due to 9/11, and Gore handling the Afghanistan campaign better with no Iraq distraction, along with at least a decent economy, means re-election. Then two more SCOTUS appointees from Gore to replace conservative ones means a more liberal court than there has been for a long time.

this is asb big time

gore's platform called for tax cuts that were 79 percent as large as w's and coupled with the .com bubble popping the surplus still goes away sans doubt; difference to deficit is negligable especially if his more expansive medicare drug program passes

patriot act had wide bipartisan support including key gore allies (potential allies in a gore administration) like Kerry/Leiberman/Clinton etc

gore is less likely to get a 9/11 bump either; or would find it much more temporary for reasons of gore's lack of charisma AND most importantly the administration having been in power for a decade with multiple terrorists attacks without any reciprical actions... the 9/11 commission or equivilent willbe started years earlier due to it being a republican congress and gore/administration will be labeled as asleep at the wheel without having w's excuse of i just got here and none of my people have been confirmed... things like the wall of seperation (which reduced cia/fbi cooperation) which was overseen by gore and implimented by jaime gerilick would be devastating once it finds it's way into the press

his being reelected in 2004 after 12 years of the dems in power with the above backdrop is likely asb

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by hcallega

Looking at Gore's platform, the crucial difference between himself and Bush is over how to manage the budget surplus. Bush supported a large tax cut primarily aimed at high-income individuals. He also wanted increases in military spending and reforms to education (what became NCLB) and Medicare (Part D). Gore, on the other hand, wanted to pass a tax-cut aimed at the middle class (similar to the proposal Clinton campaigned on in 1992), a more expansive Medicare drug-coverage proposal, and a tougher version of NCLB.

And what are the exact differences between Bush's NCLB and Medicare Part D and Gore's versions of those proposals hcallega?

[Cymraeg]

Given the fact that Clinton warned Bush about a certain tall beardie-wierdie (has anyone else read about the time that John Simpson met Osama bin Laden? Hysterical and pathetic at the same time) why do we all assume that 9/11 would happen as it did in OTL? Surely Gore would have listened to the fricking intelligence warnings?

[hcallega]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

And what are the exact differences between Bush's NCLB and Medicare Part D and Gore's versions of those proposals hcallega?

Education: Both Gore and Bush supported greater accountability for teachers and schools, as well as greater local control for school districts. Gore went further when it came to standardized testing requirements and wanted stricter criteria for hiring teachers. The big philosophical difference between Bush and Gore was over school choice. Gore opposed vouchers, while Bush supported them. However, NCLB didn't create a federal voucher program, and it's unlikely that the program will be all that different under Gore. The biggest practical change is that Gore will increase federal funding for education and prevent the problem of "unfunded mandates."

Medicare: Bush and Gore addressed concerns over prescription drug prices in their campaign platforms. Gore proposed a plan that would cover half the cost of the prescription for most seniors, and more for impoverished individuals. Premiums would start at $25 and slowly climb over time. Also, HMOs would have no say over what drugs could be prescribed and to whom. This would cost more than Bush's plan, but it would also be more expansive in scope and address many of the concerns surrounding Medicare Part D (such as the so-called "doughnut hole")

[Xachiavelli]

Originally Posted by JoeinOhio

I just don't understand the appeal of Congressman Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. Sure, he is an interesting guy with some good economic ideas. But he is now 76 years-old and his brand of libertarianism is not really saleable beyond a small niche of, at most, 5-6% of the voting population. His support for legalizing drugs (not just marijuana, but cocaine, heroin, etc) and prostitution is unlikely to garner 50% of the vote in any state, but would be the subject of opponents' attack ads if Paul's polls numbers ever got high enough for him to be perceived as a threat to them.

I just think a timeline with him as president would be interesting. I never said anything about wanting him as a president in the real world (Although he'd be a helluva lot better than Romney)

[hcallega]

Originally Posted by Xachiavelli

I just think a timeline with him as president would be interesting. I never said anything about wanting him as a president in the real world (Although he'd be a helluva lot better than Romney)

Nonetheless, Paul winning the Presidency is strictly ASB. His appeal is limited to a very small slice of the electorate. That won't change if Al Gore wins the White House.