2000 without Bush or McCain.

Exactly what it says on the tin. Let's say George W. Bush decides he wants to serve out his term as Governor of Texas rather than running for President in 2000, and McCain simply declines to run. With the two major Republican candidates from OTL out of the running how does the election turn out?

Who do the Republicans eventually nominate instead of W?

Does Al Gore defeat this alternate GOP nominee?

And lastly assuming victory, what does this individuals Presidency look like in comparison to W's?
 
Hmm, interesting idea. If neither of those two run, I suspect that the race would probably have been won by Orrin Hatch if it is just between people who ran OTL. However, people who declined to run in real life may step in, such as John Engler or Tommy Thompson. Perhaps Lamar Alexander makes it through.

I think that most of the candidates other then Bush and McCain that also ran OTL would have difficulty defeating Gore.
 
That's not much of a race if Bush or McCain, the only two candidates with any chance of being elected, don't run. Who else would step in?
 
Hatch would have probably gotten the nomination. Keyes was a protest candidate and Forbes seems to have only been in it as a vanity exercise. Other potential nominees included Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole (maybe for Vice President.)

In those pre-9-11 days, the campaign revolved mostly around the post-dot com economy and personality issues. It was also excrutiatingly dull, except at the end there ;)
 
Orrin Hatch and Al Gore? Talk about a snoozefest. I don't see why Hatch doesn't win, given that the economy had peaked in March and the two-term alternation rule (except '88) since WWII. Perhaps a Hatch/Dole or dare I say a Hatch/D'Amato ticket?
 
John Ashcroft would run, and without McCain would certainly win the nomination.

He explored the possiblity of a candidacy in 1999, but Bush looked a certainty, while of course his senate seat looked in doubt, and he needed to focus on that. Wisely (although it proved ultimately futile) Ashcroft simply stuck with winning re-election.

No Bush means he's very likely to be in as a candidate, no McCain means he's a certainty as a candidate and the nominee.

Imagine it - Ashcroft versus Gore - the most boring presidential race in history.

Would he win? Not sure. My instinct is that it would be very close and I wouldn't like to call it either way, definitively - Bush ran a very good campaign which Ashcroft wouldn't replicate, and of course John Ashcroft's problem is that he is John Ashcroft. But any Republican in 2000 will have the momentum to start with. I think it would be very close, but my instinct is that Gore would perhaps just nose it. Ashcroft would be a generally inferior candidate compared to Bush and I think that would be just enough to push Gore over the winning line.
 
Last edited:
btw the only way you're going to keep McCain from this contest is if he's pushing up the daisies. Bush I can just about concievably see refusing to run, although it's not very likely. I think a McCain-Ashcroft nomination battle has the potential to be absolutely fascinating though. I suspect it would be more drawn out than OTL as Ashcroft is not going to be the appointed candidate of the Republican establishment in the way that Bush was IOTL. And of course, Ashcroft could potentially lose.
 
Orrin Hatch and Al Gore? Talk about a snoozefest. I don't see why Hatch doesn't win, given that the economy had peaked in March and the two-term alternation rule (except '88) since WWII. Perhaps a Hatch/Dole or dare I say a Hatch/D'Amato ticket?

D'amato is too polarizing... like Schumer, just from the opposite direction, same tactics too

Pataki is possible (lot of executive experience in a big state, shown ability to build consensus in a blue state... could run a similar message of i'm a uniter etc; more personality and less of a pretentious douche than gore)
 
What about Liddy Dole, I think one of her big problems IOTL, was that most of her potential fundraisers(Party Establishment folks) went for Dubya hard in the run up to the primaries. I think a female GOP candidate would have done quite well in that political climate(fairly strong economy, but wanted something stronger in "Moral Values")
 

gridlocked

Banned
The Republican Establishment coalesced around Bush very early. The question is does the establishment pick somebody else or is it a wide open primary like the Republican primary of 2008 (which is actually very rare event, and even then the closest thing to a successor, McCain the runner-up in 2000, got the nod).

I wonder if Mormon issues would hurt Hatch like they did Romney in 2008. I also wonder if Jeb Bush would run in 2000 or 2004 (assuming Gore wins).

With an election so close anything could butterfly it to a Gore or Republican Victory. Although a weaker candidate than GW probably couldn't win.
 
Jeb Bush runs, and wins easily. Columba Bush helps lock up the Southwest for her Husband, and Tom Ridge is the VP nominee.

Personally, I like the idea of Pete Wilson running, but he's damaged goods after his unsuccessful 1996 campaign.
 
Orrin Hatch and Al Gore? Talk about a snoozefest. I don't see why Hatch doesn't win, given that the economy had peaked in March and the two-term alternation rule (except '88) since WWII. Perhaps a Hatch/Dole or dare I say a Hatch/D'Amato ticket?

Hatch would be a weaker candidate than Dubya for sure. For one thing, he doesn't have Dubya's folksiness working in his favor, and for another he can't play the " Washington outsider" card, which was an effective part of Dubya's message. Bush painted Gore as being part of the partisan deadlock that had existed in Washington, Hatch can't do that, being a Senator.

Gore beats Hatch.

Jeb would probably wait for 2004, where he would most likely win. If you want Jeb in 2000 you need to have a POD of him beating Lawton Chiles in the 1994 gubernatorial election.

A Jeb Presidency starting in 2004 is an interesting proposition, one that I haven't seen discussed much at all.

Under a Gore Presidency Iraq doesn't happen (9/11 and Afghanistan still do though), so Jeb doesn't have as much on his plate internationally as second-term Dubya did OTL. I also get the feeling that Jeb would handle Katrina a lot better, since he'd have a lot of experience dealing with Hurricanes from his time as Florida Gov, and under Gore FEMA wouldn't get as messed up. Would Jeb still try to privatise Social Security like Dubya did?

However, if the economy still tanks in 2008 Jeb'll have a tough re-election fight on his hands. No Iraq means no Obama, so I guess Hillary will be the challenger.
 
Last edited:
So President Hillary then, especially if she runs in Illinois. Not that hard for CMB to eke out a victory over Fitzgerald and then resign due to an indictment. Since that Class 3 seat was Obama's IOTL, he gets butterflied.
 
Top