Well, it's either McCain or Rudy. Then a Dem winning in '08. Maybe immigration reform succeeds here and we get UHC if the Dems win in '08. Have a feeling hcallega is gonna have Wellstone as president at the end of this TL. Hope he continues it after the '04 election.
Decision Points: The Presidency of Al Gore
- Thread starter hcallega
- Start date
A Republican win in 2004 would not automatically ensure a Democratic win in 2008. The 2008 campaign, presuming that the economic nose dive occurs as per OTL, will hinge on how the incumbent POTUS and his challenger react, on which party has the majority in Congress at the time, and on how the American public views the legacy of each party's leadership and management of the nation's economy during the prior 10-15 years. The chips will not fall in TTL just as they did in OTL.
...for a soon-to-be-Turtledove-awarded-TL, this is taking a while for an update.
You got that right.
...for a soon-to-be-Turtledove-awarded-TL, this is taking a while for an update.
Can't rush perfection guys
.It's a shame no one ITTL will realize how much polarization, hysteria, and society-poisoning bullshit Gore has spared the USA by twice vetoing the irresponsible alt-bush tax cuts. Between that and no Iraq War, the country balance sheets of the 2000s should look quite nice. Even if something is passed by an R president, 5 years without it plus no quagmire still looks good.
BTW I once heard that Michigan governor John Engler would make a good VP for most Republican candidates. Not for Thompson or Santorum perhaps, but for McCain and even Giuliani.
BTW I once heard that Michigan governor John Engler would make a good VP for most Republican candidates. Not for Thompson or Santorum perhaps, but for McCain and even Giuliani.
John Farson
Banned
People seldom get praised for preventing disasters. Who knows how many unsung heroes are out there?
Haha that's quite true. I die inside a little when i hear someone saying "remember how they said the hole in the ozone layer was a catastrophe? look now, nothing happened!"
Game Change
Rick Santorum’s campaign bus cruised through downtown Des Moines. On its side was a red American eagle with the words “Santorum: Fighting for America” emblazoned underneath. The bus, and the candidate, was finishing up a whirlwind of a campaign season. This day would include breakfast at a popular diner before a town hall meeting and a series of speeches in local high schools, churches, and family homes. Finally, Santorum would sit down for an interview with Katie Couric. But none of that bothered the candidate. He awoke early in the morning, brewed a pot of coffee, and prayed with his wife before muttering even a word about politics or poll numbers. He was coolly confident, believing in all his heart that victory was just over the horizon. It was 6 AM on January 19th, caucus day in Iowa. 
The weeks and months leading up to the first contest of the 2004 presidential election were an endless series of debates, polling, and fundraising. The candidates and their staffs invaded the quite farmland and peaceful small towns of Iowa, inundating the population with advertisements and attention. It was a ritual that repeated itself every four years. Whether it was the Democrats or Republicans, Iowans could expect a storm of epic political proportions. No county fair, no meal in public, no evening spent watching American Idol was safe from the spectacle that was the Iowa caucuses.
The campaign for the Hawkeye State began in 2003, but the first true test was on August 12, 2004. That was the date that the state’s Republicans gathered together to make the case for their favorite candidate. In all honesty, the Ames Straw Poll was more of a media spectacle than a game-changing political event. The organization, fundraising, and appeal of the candidates were rarely changed by the poll results. But it did provide some degree of momentum, especially if a dark-horse were to win. This year, the two national frontrunners (Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani) put little time or money into winning. Neither expected to capture Iowa and instead chose to focus on later primaries. Instead, the real contest was between the fringe candidates. The strongest candidates were Senators Rick Santorum and Bill Frist, Congressmen Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Unlike Frist or Gingrich, the more extreme candidates had a particular base of support within the audience and worked to milk it for all it was worth. Tancredo’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, Paul’s small-government absolutism, and Santorum’s social conservatism all appealed to various elements of the GOP base. When the polls were closed and results were tallied, it was the Pennsylvania Senator who reigned supreme, upsetting Frist and Gingrich. The evangelicals of Iowa chose to embrace the Catholic conservative over the more mainstream choices, delivering him a surprisingly strong finish.
Santorum’s victory was a much needed shot in the arm for the candidate. His campaign struggled with fundraising throughout 2003. His appeal was largely limited to social conservatives, but that bloc was divided between Santorum and Sam Brownback. More importantly, big Republican donors were concerned that the Senator was simply too radical to win. They thought back to 2000 when George Bush’s views on social issues alienated many moderates in the Northeast and West Coast. They feared a repeat performance in a very winnable election. In response, Santorum chose to run a scaled back campaign that focused almost entirely on Iowa. He rented a cheap tour bus and focused on targeting the state’s Evangelicals. While the media doubted that a devout Catholic could win over these voters, Santorum believed that they would embrace his views on “values issues.” He put a particular focus on the state’s home school networks, speaking to groups of parents who were concerned about the moral direction of the country. These voters became supporters, and helped deliver him victory in August.
The Pennsylvania Senator’s luck improved after he received an endorsement from his colleague, Sam Brownback. After finishing in a disappointing fifth place, Brownback withdrew from the contest and threw his support behind “the candidate most committed to turning this country around and restoring hope in America.” Santorum and Brownback campaigned throughout Iowa, drawing large crowds as they condemned the ills of big government, weak foreign policy, and social permissiveness. Their message was distinctly conservative, and challenged the notion that the Republicans needed to nominate a mainstream candidate to win.
Santorum’s campaign was dealt yet another boost in November. The Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a ruling in Goodbridge v. Department of Health on November 13th legalizing gay marriage in the state. Suddenly, the culture wars were hot. Gay marriage became national news, as Democrats and Republicans were forced to address the issue. The White House remained largely silent, only going as far as issuing a statement emphasizing their “respect for federalism.” Republican candidates for President were not given as much leeway. Every candidate came out against the ruling, but to different degrees. McCain and Giuliani were fairly restrained, respecting the rights of Massachusetts while endorsing the Defense of Marriage Act and endorsing the concept of “traditional marriage.” Conversely, many of the more fringe candidates, most notably Santorum, endorsed a constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Santorum used this issue as a wedge, defining himself as the “best candidate to defend the only definition of marriage that has existed in America, until now.” He rallied social conservatives to his cause, drawing the endorsements of Bob Vander Plats and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Polls began to show a growing lead in Iowa over Frist, Paul, and McCain. Nonetheless, he was unable to gain the endorsements of Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell, the big guns of the Christian Right. This forced Frist to move towards the right, endorsing a ban on gay marriage late in the race.
As caucus day neared, it looked ever likely that Santorum would best his nearest rivals The candidates of the Republican leadership sparred over the direction of the party. Santorum argued for a return to traditional values and calling for a “hawkish, aggressive, and truly patriotic” foreign policy. Frist took a more mainstream approach. He emphasized the need for reform, calling for changes in the tax code and health care reform. His campaign was framed through the lens of “bread and butter” issues, instead of social ones. Still, during debates Frist was quick to point out that as a doctor “I have a pretty good idea of when life begins, and it’s at conception.” The Gingrich campaign, running on a tight budget, chose to focus on the former Speaker’s record as a leader who could win. He largely ignored the fact that the Republicans in Congress chose to throw him out of the leadership. As caucus day neared, organization and turnout became key. Santorum’s Christian conservative base mobilized, while Frist and Gingrich attempted to get rank-and-file Republicans to the polls. Caucus centers filled with supporters through the night, while the news media attempted to keep up with the sometimes bizarre, always intense, process. Santorum racked up big margins in the rural northern and western regions of the state. He was less successful in Des Moines and other more urban parts of Iowa. The wild card was Congressman Ron Paul, whose libertarianism and isolationism drew support from a bizarre coalition of young people, small farmers, and anti-tax advocates. Finally, at 11 PM, the networks called Iowa: Senator Rick Santorum, the social conservative choice, won by a narrow margin with Frist and Gingrich tied for second and Paul in a close fourth. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani both finished very weakly. With the results finalized, Congressmen Hunter and Tancredo quickly withdrew. Governor Thompson waited several days, but finally withdrew to endorse Senator McCain. The race was beginning to cauterize. The next big test would be New Hampshire.
In 2000, John McCain won New Hampshire in a landslide. His poorly funded campaign was on its last legs going into the state, and the Arizona Senator relied on old-school retail politics to win. His reform-minded platform drew the support of the state’s independent voters, while his record of national service and strong character appealed to those tired with the scandals of the Clinton White House. New Hampshire turned out to be McCain’s last major victory. He lost several weeks later in a closely fought South Carolina primary, and while he carried several other Northeastern states, never seriously challenged George Bush for the nomination. But four years later, McCain was the frontrunner. His campaign received the support of the GOP establishment. His harsh criticism of the Gore Administration’s foreign policy jacked up his fundraising numbers as conservatives rushed to his side. On taxes and the economy, McCain took solidly right-wing stands. His call for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution further strengthened his support for the base. It was only with Evangelicals and social conservatives, a group always suspicious of the Senator, that McCain struggled.
But the “Straight Talk Express” wasn’t the only campaign in town. Rudy Giuliani invested a great deal of resources in the state. While he didn’t expect to win, he hoped to finish in a strong second place and cement himself as a true frontrunner. Giuliani’s campaign style was relatively new to the Granite State. Instead of selling himself as a down-to-earth, common-sense voice (as most candidates attempt to), the former Mayor of America’s most famous city brought a Hollywood element to the race. His campaign bombarded the airwaves with positive ads, portraying Giuliani as a hero who could fix what was wrong with Washington and the country. He talked tax cuts, balanced budgets, and a strong stance in foreign policy. But he specifically focused on 9/11. The September 11th attacks made Giuliani a household name. It would have been unwise to emphasize his leadership in response. This was doubly effective due to President Gore’s stoic and unemotional reaction to the attacks, in comparison to “America’s Mayor” working with first responders and rescue workers in the rubble of the Twin Towers.
The race between McCain and Giuliani took center stage in New Hampshire, as the other candidates shifted their focus south. Gingrich and Frist moved to South Carolina and Oklahoma, states where their brand of Southern fried conservatism played better than they did in New Hampshire. Santorum planned to contest the state, but put a greater emphasis on Missouri. His populist rhetoric polled well in a state that had lost jobs to globalization and was home to Branson, the Christian Las Vegas. Ron Paul was the only remaining candidate who chose to seriously contest the two front-runners in New Hampshire. Small government has always been popular there, as evidenced by the fact that it was the only New England state to back George Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Paul hoped that despite his Texas accent and quirky personality, the voters would give him a second look.
The New Hampshire contest boiled down to a race between big money (Giuliani), big record (McCain), and big ideas (Paul). Polls showed a consistently narrow lead for McCain over Giuliani. But the New York Mayor’s support began to lag. His media based campaign and mega-rallies failed to persuade voters to back him. Meanwhile, Paul gained ground by advocating for an elimination of wasteful government departments and programs, while calling for a flat-tax. His supporters came free and passionately campaigned for him across the state. As voting day came around, it was clear that McCain would win. The only question is whether or not Giuliani’s hopes for the nomination would be dealt a significant blow. The final results were unclear. McCain finished in first by an eight point margin, smaller than in 2000 but enough to cement his status as the candidate to beat. Giuliani finished in second, but by only a point. Paul’s fervent anti-government supporters had turned out. Back-to-back strong finishes only furthered his campaign’s popularity among the libertarian right. Meanwhile, the Giuliani campaign was in a state of chaos. They hadn’t been embarrassed, but had gained almost nothing while sinking millions of dollars into the state. They needed a win, but with a slew of Southern and Midwestern states on the horizon, there was no obvious choice.
A week after New Hampshire, five more states held primaries. South Carolina went to Frist. His regional ties proved strong enough to best Santorum’s support from die-hard social conservatives and McCain’s strength among the military community. Gingrich sunk to a far-back fourth. Voters seemed unwilling to forgive the former Speaker for his affairs in the late ‘90s and were generally unreceptive to his eclectic views on everything from alternative energy to space travel. McCain prevailed in Arizona and Delaware, two states where his pro-business voting record more than made up for his lack of socially conservative bona fides. He was also victorious in Missouri, besting Santorum due in large part to his momentum from New Hampshire. Oklahoma was the only surprise. The race was expected to be a contest between McCain and Frist, yet it was Santorum who narrowly prevailed.
The rest of February would be dominated by small caucuses and individual primaries. It was in that month the narrative of the race was shaped. McCain clearly established himself as the front-runner, racking up endorsements from his Congressional colleagues, governors, and conservative figures. Meanwhile, the more conservative elements of the party began to coalesce around Santorum. While his chances of victory were slim, his ideological purity stood in stark contrast to McCain’s “maverick” personality. In New York, the Giuliani campaign floundered. Their strategy had been to finish strong in New Hampshire, setting up the possibility for wins in more moderate states like Delaware and Michigan. But Giuliani’s inability to sell himself to the public never improved. He was seen as aloof, unclear, and too focused on 9/11. Pretty soon it became clear that the only hope for the campaign was Florida, a state with many New York transplants who would view the former Mayor in a positive light. That primary, held in early March, would hold the key. Until then, the campaign largely pulled advertising and stopped campaigning in the remaining states. That left them largely to McCain. He racked up wins in Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee Virginia, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Alaska. Frist managed a win in North Carolina, but besides that generally finished well behind the pack. He wrapped up his campaign before Super Tuesday, but withheld his endorsement. Santorum won Louisiana and Utah, but unlike Frist decided to fight it out. The most significant news of the month came from Crawford, Texas. George W. Bush, in a low key press conference, offered his endorsement to John McCain. The former rivals exchanged praises before meeting privately. It was the sort of event that drew media attention and surprised many pundits. But for Bush it was about more than politics. It was about legacy.
McCain-Feingold is going along as it did in OTL. Still limiting donations and soft-money, still drawing the ire of many conservatives, but still the law of the land. Obviously, the fact that McCain is the Republican frontrunner has some effect. It certainly takes some of the wind out of Democratic attacks that Republican's are the party of big money.
Santorum really isn't in a position to win. McCain's the clear frontrunner, and it would take a series of big upsets for that to change. The Republicans tend to have pretty tidy nominating contests, due in large part to the establishment support for the "next man up." Obviously that was not the case in 2012, but I attribute that largely to Tea Party.
I should've elaborated on my reason for bringing it up. A fairly common read on the 2012 primaries was that certain candidates (Gingrich and Santorum, basically) would never have gotten as far as they did without super PAC money. I'm not sure if you agree with this statement, but Santorum certainly seems to be doing quite well here without those billionaires and their pocket change.
I do recognize that the culture war was a major factor in 2004 (I canvassed quite a bit that election in FL, PA, MD, VA, WV and from that worm's eye view gay marriage/abortion seemed like the central reasons most people gave for voting Bush.) And if Mccain's not keying into the zeitgeist, I concede that Santorum might be the beneficiary.
But that just puts two statements (both of which ring true to me) in direct conflict with each other.
Wondering which to believe now.
Also: I didn't include this in the last post but I feel it's relavant and interesting for this discussion.
2003 Gubernatorial Elections
Kentucky: Congressman Ernie Fletcher (R) defeats Attorney General Ben Chandler (D).
The Kentucky governor's race dealt equally with national and local issues. Incumbent Governor Paul Patton (D) was prohibbited from running for a third term, and his popularity had plummeted following revelations of an affair. This provided Republicans with an oppurtuntiy to capture the governorship for the first time since 1971. Their nominee, Congressman Ernie Fletcher, went on the offensive from the beginning. Democratic nominee, Attorney General Ben Chandler, had survived a bruising and divisive primary and was streched for funds. Fletcher attacked Chandler for his ties to the previous administration and for President Gore's policies, particularly on the environment. Chandler attempted to distance himself from both Patton and Gore, but was unnable to do and was defeated by seven points.
Louisiana: University President Bobby Jindal (R) defeats Lt. Governor Kathleen Blanco (D)
Unsurprisingly, the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 2003 was a chaotic affair. Republican Governor Mike Foster was term limited, opening the field to a slew of candidates. Republicans included Public Service Commisioner Jay Blossman, State Representative Hunt Downer, former Governor David Treen, and Louisiana University System President Bobby Jindal. Blossman, the most conservative candidate, quickly faded in the polls while Downer never gained much traction. Treen drew the support of many moderates, but was unnable to fire up the conservative base. That fell to Jindal, a young and charismatic Indian-American. He was the favorite of Foster and quickly gained institutional support from national conservatives. On the Democratic side, the contest was between Lt. Governor Kathleen Blanco and Attorney General Richard Ieyoub. Blanco appealed to her Cajun base and more conservative Democrats, while Ieyoub won over the base. Former Congressman Buddy Leach ran as a Huey Long-style populist, but failed to win over enough voters outside of his native northeast Louisiana to make much of a dent. The first round race saw Jindal jump out in front as he united the Republican Party behind him. Blanco and Ieyoub fought a fierce race for second place, with Blanco edging out her opponent. Three weeks later, Blanco and Jindal squared off in an exciting contest. Jindal focused on a plan of ethics and education reform, while also supporting tax and spending cuts. Blanco ran as a moderate, supporting economic development for the state's less affluent reasons. As was the case in many elections in 2003, President Gore's weaknesses in red states helped push Jindal across the finish line, giving him an extremely narrow victory.
Mississippi: Haley Barbour (R) defeats Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Of any Southern state, Mississippi is perhaps the most conservative. The state has been consistently represented by a pair of powerful conservatives in the Senate, whether they were Democratic (James Eastland and John Stennis) or Republican (Thad Cochran and Trent Lott). Yet in 1999 a Democrat, Ronnie Musgrove, won the governor's mansion. That extremely close race was ultimately decided by the state legislature. 2003 appeared to be heading for a similar result. Former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour challenged Musgrove, going on the offensive and attacking the governor as too liberal and out-of-touch with the majority of Mississippi voters. The strategy work, though Musgrove's support among African-Americans and independents helped keep the final result close.
2003 Gubernatorial Elections
Kentucky: Congressman Ernie Fletcher (R) defeats Attorney General Ben Chandler (D).
The Kentucky governor's race dealt equally with national and local issues. Incumbent Governor Paul Patton (D) was prohibbited from running for a third term, and his popularity had plummeted following revelations of an affair. This provided Republicans with an oppurtuntiy to capture the governorship for the first time since 1971. Their nominee, Congressman Ernie Fletcher, went on the offensive from the beginning. Democratic nominee, Attorney General Ben Chandler, had survived a bruising and divisive primary and was streched for funds. Fletcher attacked Chandler for his ties to the previous administration and for President Gore's policies, particularly on the environment. Chandler attempted to distance himself from both Patton and Gore, but was unnable to do and was defeated by seven points.
Louisiana: University President Bobby Jindal (R) defeats Lt. Governor Kathleen Blanco (D)
Unsurprisingly, the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 2003 was a chaotic affair. Republican Governor Mike Foster was term limited, opening the field to a slew of candidates. Republicans included Public Service Commisioner Jay Blossman, State Representative Hunt Downer, former Governor David Treen, and Louisiana University System President Bobby Jindal. Blossman, the most conservative candidate, quickly faded in the polls while Downer never gained much traction. Treen drew the support of many moderates, but was unnable to fire up the conservative base. That fell to Jindal, a young and charismatic Indian-American. He was the favorite of Foster and quickly gained institutional support from national conservatives. On the Democratic side, the contest was between Lt. Governor Kathleen Blanco and Attorney General Richard Ieyoub. Blanco appealed to her Cajun base and more conservative Democrats, while Ieyoub won over the base. Former Congressman Buddy Leach ran as a Huey Long-style populist, but failed to win over enough voters outside of his native northeast Louisiana to make much of a dent. The first round race saw Jindal jump out in front as he united the Republican Party behind him. Blanco and Ieyoub fought a fierce race for second place, with Blanco edging out her opponent. Three weeks later, Blanco and Jindal squared off in an exciting contest. Jindal focused on a plan of ethics and education reform, while also supporting tax and spending cuts. Blanco ran as a moderate, supporting economic development for the state's less affluent reasons. As was the case in many elections in 2003, President Gore's weaknesses in red states helped push Jindal across the finish line, giving him an extremely narrow victory.
Mississippi: Haley Barbour (R) defeats Governor Ronnie Musgrove (D)
Of any Southern state, Mississippi is perhaps the most conservative. The state has been consistently represented by a pair of powerful conservatives in the Senate, whether they were Democratic (James Eastland and John Stennis) or Republican (Thad Cochran and Trent Lott). Yet in 1999 a Democrat, Ronnie Musgrove, won the governor's mansion. That extremely close race was ultimately decided by the state legislature. 2003 appeared to be heading for a similar result. Former RNC Chairman Haley Barbour challenged Musgrove, going on the offensive and attacking the governor as too liberal and out-of-touch with the majority of Mississippi voters. The strategy work, though Musgrove's support among African-Americans and independents helped keep the final result close.
Last edited:
I should've elaborated on my reason for bringing it up. A fairly common read on the 2012 primaries was that certain candidates (Gingrich and Santorum, basically) would never have gotten as far as they did without super PAC money. I'm not sure if you agree with this statement, but Santorum certainly seems to be doing quite well here without those billionaires and their pocket change.
I do recognize that the culture war was a major factor in 2004 (I canvassed quite a bit that election in FL, PA, MD, VA, WV and from that worm's eye view gay marriage/abortion seemed like the central reasons most people gave for voting Bush.) And if Mccain's not keying into the zeitgeist, I concede that Santorum might be the beneficiary.
But that just puts two statements (both of which ring true to me) in direct conflict with each other.
Wondering which to believe now.
Ahh I see. Well it's important to note that Santorum is in a much stronger position going into 2004 than he was in 2012. He's a Senator and a rising star within the Republican Party. He's not a dark horse so much as the logical fit for social conservatives. In that respect he doesn't rely on the Sheldon Adelson's so much as he is the footsoldiers of the culture wars.
I also found that surprising. I find it unlikely that Gore would just let Enron fuck up California without punishment, at least not to the degree Bush did.