WI: Gore wins in 2000

[Xachiavelli]

It's reasonable to assume that with Gore in power, 9/11 would still happen, it was already very much in the pipeline before the 2000 elections. In theory, it could be butterflied away but it would be random, not because of Gore perse. However, let's say it happens.

The invasion of Afghanistan will likely still go ahead, as Gore can't be seen to simply be letting them get away with that, however, Iraq is greatly unlikely without Cheney pulling the strings.

So with no Iraq invasion, Saddam stays in power. My question is this: how does he fare in the Arab Spring? I'm assuming he'll either end up like Assad or Gaddafi. However, as in OTL, Russia and China will allow a maximum of one bombing campaign (Abstained on Libya, yet vetoed Syria). So if the US goes after Saddam first, it will likely be a Libya-like situation with airstrikes and such as opposed to a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Then Saddam is toppled after however long, and the US turns to most likely Gaddafi and get hit with a Russian and/or Chinese veto, which probably means Khamis commands the 2nd Battle of Benghazi, leading to a regime victory followed by a sweep East, the war officially ends with the Battle of Tobruk, yet protests continue to this day.
If the US goes for Gaddafi first, it pretty much goes as OTL, then they turn to Saddam and get hit with the aforementioned veto.

Whether or not there are any no-fly zones, bombing campaigns or whatever greatly depends on who wins in 2008 though. We know Obama would do it, Hillary Clinton definitely would, Mitt Romney would, John McCain would, Ron Paul wouldn't, John Edwards probably wouldn't. However, i have no idea who would have won then.

One effect Saddam staying in power for longer would have on the world is a lessened threat from Iran, as the two pretty much balanced each other out.

[Emperor Norton I]

I've always thought we'd pull what we did in Tunisia on Iraq in an Arab Spring where Saddam was still in power, for the simple reason that we're comfortable intervening in Iraq. We had already fought a war there in the 90s, kept our eye on them for years and years after, and we went back in the 2000's. Though if we do intervene, I'm not sure we'd do the same in Tunisia.

[SlideAway]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

I've always thought we'd pull what we did in Tunisia on Iraq in an Arab Spring where Saddam was still in power, for the simple reason that we're comfortable intervening in Iraq. We had already fought a war there in the 90s, kept our eye on them for years and years after, and we went back in the 2000's. Though if we do intervene, I'm not sure we'd do the same in Tunisia.

I think you mean Libya. Anyway, I think a US/UK bombing campaign is quite plausible, seeing as there were already existing No Fly Zones in Iraq. Any regime violence against Shi'a protesters in the South could easily be used as justification to support a bombing campaign.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by 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")

Think you can churn out a Gore Wins in 2000 TL after you write a conclusion to Reporting for Duty? Writing one wouldn't take long if you choose to do so.

[Admiral Ackbar]

9/11 probably still happens, and we get a war in Afghanistan but not Iraq while Gore is in office. Republican Congressional gains probably stay close to what they got in OTL in 2002 and 2004. I don't see Democrats benefiting politically off of 9/11 like Republicans did. Gore gets his version of a tax cut bill, and little else with the Republican Congress. Republicans blame 9/11 on him and Clinton during the midterms and in the run-up to the 2004 election as their campaign strategy, which works in certain parts of the US but not in others, only causing more polarization.

McCain gets the nomination in 2004 and wins the election similar to Bush in OTL while Republicans hold Congress. The only major pieces of legislation they get through is Medicare part D and another round of tax cuts, but these have big cuts on dividends, capital gains, and on inheritances, unlike the Gore tax cuts from a few years earlier. They might try to push a War with Iraq, but the media won't be as accommodating as they were right after 9/11. Plus with the Katrina disaster, and an administration stacked with cronies handling it while McCain is off celebrating his birthday, the administration might have a credibility issue just as they are attempting to sell a new war. So don't expect the press to just roll over in a run-up to an Iraq War. But let's say McCain and the Republicans decide to press forward anyway, and we still get the Iraq War, only 3 years later, but now the anti-war movement is much larger.

Democrats make gains in Congress in 2006 partly on the Iraq War backlash, and partly as is custom during midterms when one party controls both Houses and the Presidency. They win back the House with a razor thin margin but not the Senate. The housing bubble still happens, but butterflies might delay the fallout several months or even a year based on Fed actions under Gore. So McCain wins re-election against a weaker Democratic opponent in 2008, maybe Kerry. I don't see Hillary or Obama challenging a war hero incumbent in 2008 while the war on terror is still the biggest issue, they'll probably wait until 2012. Democrats make enough gains in 2008 to take back the Senate but not as many seats as the OTL, while holding the House with a slightly bigger margin. At the beginning of his second term, or during the period before his last term starts, the Wall Street collapse happens.

We still get TARP, and a much smaller stimulus. Democrats don't have the votes to move anything forward against a Republican filibuster, so the stimulus bill is a mix of a few tax cuts and extensions for unemployment insurance. No aid for the States, and there is no auto bailout. Democrats attempted to pass a bailout for the auto companies but Republicans filibuster it seeing it as an opportunity to crush the auto unions once and for all. Without any private company willing to put money toward a restructuring of GM or Chrysler, they are liquidated, causing another million job losses. Expect a bunch of Democratic jobs bills being passed in the House but stalled in the Senate due to filibusters. They use this to bash an administration and opposing party as not doing anything about jobs other than calling for more of the same (tax cuts, deregulation). By the 2010 midterms the Iraq War has turned into a quagmire, and unemployment is hovering around 12%, and showing no signs it will drop soon. Democrats win huge majorities in the House and a filibuster proof margin in the Senate. They also make huge gains in State legislatures and Governorships.

As the 2012 election approaches unemployment is still above 10% and there are signs the US might be entering a double-dip recession. McCain's popularity is in the low 20's, and everyone expects Hillary Clinton to win November in a landslide against Rick Santorum, after she survived the unexpectedly close race against Barack Obama in the primaries.

[Cylon_Number_14]

Apologies for the Necromancy

hchallega and a few of the other posters in here seem quite erudite on the 2000s so hopefully will check this out and answer a quick question I have:

If Gore were elected President in 2000, how likely is it that the Banking Collapse that was the "October Surprise" in 2008 is delayed until after the election of 2008 other than just by random butterflies?

I know the housing crisis was at least ten years in the making so I don't think Gore 2000 would prevent a severe recession sometime near the end of the decade, but the Collapse's timing could strongly affect which party the feckless public blames more.

[Orville_third]

I differ on a lot of things.
First, the Republicans would be all over Gore from before day 1. They were chanting "Get out of Cheney's house" even BEFORE the inauguration. Some Republican commentators with national columns (Like William Kristol) even declared him illegitimate before Bush vs. Gore. After 9/11, you can expect to see Gore and Tenet testifying under oath before Congress...and unlike OTL, the opposing party will be more than willing to leap on any perjury.
Second, we went into deficit thanks to the Bush tax cuts- August to be exact. With Gore's smaller tax cuts, the debt would be smaller- and we might even have a surplus while running a war.
Third, Gore was more than willing to approve airstrikes on Iraq- even after Hussein Kamil said Iraq had no WMD. I don't think he'd be impeached for this- after all, the Republicans didn't impeach Clinton in 1998... So, even if he doesn't go to war, he'd still be negative towards Iraq- which is one excuse for Bin Laden to attack.
I can't see Gore winning in 2004. I think McCain would be a good candidate to win then- Bush's loss might taint him, plus he had a lot of baggage that came out. (And more which might come out later-like the Eliza May case.) The Republicans will likely take back the Senate in 2002 and grow their House majority.

[Linsanity]

McCains next in line. Maybe McCain/little known Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by tiggerfan

Well if Gore won then everything would be perfect.

The economy would never fail, the poor would vanish, all terrorism would end, no problems would ever happen.

<smirk>

You kind of sound like Rich Little impersonating Hubert Humphrey.....

"I see a country with clean air and clean water. I see a country with no bigotry, no poverty and no unemployment. I see.... SWITZERLAND!" - Rich Little as Hubert Humphrey

[Republican Jim]

IF GORE WINS:

9/11

Patriot Act - Different provisions from the one in OTL

War On Terror - Afghanistan - No Iraq

Gore Tax Cuts - Focus on Middle Income America

Reformation of Education (NCLB with a new name) - stricter than W's.

Medicare Part D

------------------------------------------------------

Due to 9/11 and some Gore domestic policy, the Clinton surplus turns into a deficit. Gore uses the War On Terror much like Roosevelt did with WWII to rebuild the economy.

-------------------------------------------------------
Gore may or may not win re-election. Yes, we're at war (if it isn't over yet), and our economy is still functioning pretty well, but plain and simple, America loves Clinton, but is tired of the Clinton years and holdovers from his administration.

That being said, Gore probably loses on that factor alone - McCain more than likely secures the nomination, but there is a chance that Governor Tommy Thompson and Mayor Rudy Gulianni put up a valiant effort for the nod. If McCain gets it, he more than likely plays the 9/11 card and picks Rudy as his running mate.

-------------------------------------------------------
If McCain wins, he deals with Katrina in a manner better than W. did in OTL, there will be some tax revsions but more than likely they won't be major revisions under McCain, who will be more centerist on domestic issues, but keep a hard line on global ones. The Iraq war doesn't happen, but Saddam will more than likely lose power.

[Hörnla]

Originally Posted by Republican Jim

------------------------------------------------------

Due to 9/11 and some Gore domestic policy, the Clinton surplus turns into a deficit. Gore uses the War On Terror much like Roosevelt did with WW2 to rebuild the economy.

How is Gore Supposed to so that? It is a wholly different Situation. The war is too Small to Be comparable, and the US Economy comes out of the 90s, Not the 30s and is in a very different Shape.

[Cymraeg]

I still don't see 9/11 happening under Gore. When Clinton met Shrub in the White House during the handover he warned him about OBL. Shrub ignored him because he was an arrogant tosspot. Gore may have had a different kind of arrogance but I can't see him ignoring the warnings - and it would only have taken a small POD to unravel the plan and stop 9/11.

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

How is Gore Supposed to so that? It is a wholly different Situation. The war is too Small to Be comparable, and the US Economy comes out of the 90s, Not the 30s and is in a very different Shape.

The deficit will be small enough for Gore to do this. America was already uniting together which Gore takes advantage of and the deficit goes down.

[Republican Jim]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

How is Gore Supposed to so that? It is a wholly different Situation. The war is too Small to Be comparable, and the US Economy comes out of the 90s, Not the 30s and is in a very different Shape.

The deficit will be small enough for Gore to do this. America was already uniting together which Gore takes advantage of and the deficit goes down.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg

I still don't see 9/11 happening under Gore. When Clinton met Shrub in the White House during the handover he warned him about OBL. Shrub ignored him because he was an arrogant tosspot. Gore may have had a different kind of arrogance but I can't see him ignoring the warnings - and it would only have taken a small POD to unravel the plan and stop 9/11.

Gore amongst others on Clinton's national security team erected barriers between the CIA and FBI cooperating.

It wouldn't take a minor POD; the plan was meticulously compartmentalized over a period of years

The closest the government got a sniff of it was some concerns about ~unusual acting middle eastern guys taking flying lessons in the mountain west~ (which didn't even make it to the regional FBI office let alone someone with decision making powers) and a warning from the phillipean government that al queda wanted to hi jack airplanes

Considering Gore would probably hold over that lying liar no talent ass clown George Tenant at the CIA the odds of 9/11 being stopped or reduced by anything other than blind luck is very slim

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Republican Jim

The deficit will be small enough for Gore to do this. America was already uniting together which Gore takes advantage of and the deficit goes down.

with his platform of tax cuts and entitlement expansion

[Linsanity]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

with his platform of tax cuts and entitlement expansion

Tax cuts for the rich are more expensive than tax cuts for the poor.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Linsanity

Tax cuts for the rich are more expensive than tax cuts for the poor.

Gore's tax cuts would have cost 79 percent as much as W's....the bush tax cuts for the rich are 60-70 billion dollars a year; whilst the tax cuts for those under 250k are 280-290 billion dollars a year

and given that Gore's proposed drug program and expansion for medicaid was much more expansive than anything W was working on it's rather doubtful that we would be in any better fiscal shape

[Dan Reilly The Great]

How about we inject a little logic into this debate, shall we?


If the argument that Gore would have expanded medicaid and cut taxes because that's what he promised before the election held true, then in OTL Bush Jr. would never have gone to war in Iraq because he promised to reduce America's foreign military obligations, and DHS would never have come to be because he promised to reduce the size of the federal government.


9/11 changed so much, it is entirely arguable that a Gore presidency would have decided to let the budget surplus help to pay for the war in Afghanistan in stead of giving out tax cuts.


Even accepting that Gore spent as much as some have been arguing here, we still would be looking at a drastically smaller national debt today. I mean, how many hundreds of billions(or possibly trillions) did the war in Iraq cost anyway?


Katrina would have gone better as well. Short of police or national guard troops opening fire and killing hundreds of unarmed refugees, it would be nigh humanly impossible for the disaster to have been managed worse than it was IOTL, just replacing the completely unqualified head of FEMA with someone who actually knows what they are doing would have helped out somewhat. I'm assuming of course that even if KAtrina doesn't happen as per OTL, we're still looking at some kind of major hurricane hitting the gulf coast some time between 2000 and 2008.


The assumption that Gore would have lost in 2004 is also assuming an awful lot. Remember, he had been distancing himself from Clinton as early as the 2000 election, well before 9/11 happened. Combine this with the 'rally round the flag' effect that Bush benefited from along with discrediting of Karl Rove due to Bush losing the 2000 election and you get an Al Gore with at least as much political capital as Bush did in 2004. Also assuming he goes against McCain(most likely) and the GOP camp probably stays away from getting too nasty anyway. I say you have at least a 50/50 chance of Gore winning in 2004.

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Dan Reilly The Great

How about we inject a little logic into this debate, shall we?


If the argument that Gore would have expanded medicaid and cut taxes because that's what he promised before the election held true, then in OTL Bush Jr. would never have gone to war in Iraq because he promised to reduce America's foreign military obligations, and DHS would never have come to be because he promised to reduce the size of the federal government.


9/11 changed so much, it is entirely arguable that a Gore presidency would have decided to let the budget surplus help to pay for the war in Afghanistan in stead of giving out tax cuts.


Even accepting that Gore spent as much as some have been arguing here, we still would be looking at a drastically smaller national debt today. I mean, how many hundreds of billions(or possibly trillions) did the war in Iraq cost anyway?


Katrina would have gone better as well. Short of police or national guard troops opening fire and killing hundreds of unarmed refugees, it would be nigh humanly impossible for the disaster to have been managed worse than it was IOTL, just replacing the completely unqualified head of FEMA with someone who actually knows what they are doing would have helped out somewhat. I'm assuming of course that even if KAtrina doesn't happen as per OTL, we're still looking at some kind of major hurricane hitting the gulf coast some time between 2000 and 2008.


The assumption that Gore would have lost in 2004 is also assuming an awful lot. Remember, he had been distancing himself from Clinton as early as the 2000 election, well before 9/11 happened. Combine this with the 'rally round the flag' effect that Bush benefited from along with discrediting of Karl Rove due to Bush losing the 2000 election and you get an Al Gore with at least as much political capital as Bush did in 2004. Also assuming he goes against McCain(most likely) and the GOP camp probably stays away from getting too nasty anyway. I say you have at least a 50/50 chance of Gore winning in 2004.

I'll grant DHS probably doesn't get created because the line of attack on 9/11 out of the gate would be that we had too much beauracracy preventing the CIA and FBI from doing their jobs and creating a new layer would not help; and the Delay/Hasstert House would not create a new cabinet department for Gore;

Tax cuts are probable since both parties were into them, at that moment

Iraq is possible; Gore himself and many of his key allies were interested in going into Iraq since at least 1996; although the republican house may put breaks on it

The big thing is that Gore has a very good chance of being crippled by 9/11; the people in charge of the National Security structure have been there a long time and there was 93 towers and the Cole without doing anything in response; Bush was only able to shake the immediate charges of incompetence by saying that he just got there and none of his people were confirmed by the Senate. Gore has no excuse and never was the most gifted speaker in the party; and with an opposition congress, there will be immediate commissions into administration failures which will show him involved in the committee that created the wall of seperation

The republicans may not be bold enough to try impeachment again after their failure to ouster Clinton just 3 years before but they may inflict a catestrophic drubbing in the 02 midterms (maybe even getting close to overriding veto power) and Gore may decline to run in 04