The POD is Gore picks Florida Senator Bob Graham as his running mate instead of Joe Lieberman, and Graham's presence on the ticket allows Gore to win a clear majority in Florida and therefore the election. Flash forward to 2004. Gore is running for re-election and the Republicans are eager to take him on. Which candidates would enter the race, and what would be the result of the Republican primaries?
2004 GOP Primaries if Gore Had Beaten Bush
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Depends on if 9/11 and the War on Terror still happen or not (I don't see the Iraq War happening with President Gore). John McCain would probably the most hyped candidate in either case, but the latter probably means a more significant socon attempt to block him (Rick Santorum)?
I think you see a Bush-McCain rematch in the primaries, especially because it's a very close election, and Bush will have 4 more years of being a well-regarded and seasoned Southern sorta-evanagelical governor. It's hard to say who comes out on top of that one. I could see a losing W going for Phil Gramm's senate seat in 2002, and he'd win handily. He was an extremely popular Texas governor, and for good reasons.
I don't think 9/11 is a given. A new Administration is inherently a little more vulnerable to an attack due to things slipping through the cracks at transition time. Gore won't have the same degree of transitioning since many appointments may be holdovers. Enron/Worldcom/Global Crossing definitely is, and huge swaths of the stock market were in the same place Bitcoin was earlier this year, especially in terms of the tech stocks and nonexistent earnings, so you've got fraud and an earnings bubble.
If Gore wins in 2004, then Greenspan's extreme interest rate drops will likely lead to an asset bubble due to the cheapness of borrowing. If that happens, then, ironically, Senator George W. Bush could come in with a populist Conservative message that takes its pages from Teddy Roosevelt and storm 2008.
I think it'd be extremely hard for Gore to win in 2004, simply due to voter fatigue with the same party.
I don't think 9/11 is a given. A new Administration is inherently a little more vulnerable to an attack due to things slipping through the cracks at transition time. Gore won't have the same degree of transitioning since many appointments may be holdovers. Enron/Worldcom/Global Crossing definitely is, and huge swaths of the stock market were in the same place Bitcoin was earlier this year, especially in terms of the tech stocks and nonexistent earnings, so you've got fraud and an earnings bubble.
If Gore wins in 2004, then Greenspan's extreme interest rate drops will likely lead to an asset bubble due to the cheapness of borrowing. If that happens, then, ironically, Senator George W. Bush could come in with a populist Conservative message that takes its pages from Teddy Roosevelt and storm 2008.
I think it'd be extremely hard for Gore to win in 2004, simply due to voter fatigue with the same party.
Last edited:
I have nothing to propose, but am curious how much further 'right' this pushes the Republican base.
White Lightning
Banned
Total replay of 04’ strategy on the GOP side. Remember Kerry only got the pick because Dems thought the election would be about 9/11, Iraq and National Security and didn’t want to look like weak doves. Turned out to be an awful strategy. But that’s neither here nor there. Good chance with Gore, GOP mindset would be exactly similar. That would make McCain a presumptive favorite but the GOP’s distaste for losers and his relatively moderate position might put him out of favor with Conservatives even in pre Tea Party 04’.
And it would be extremely hard to compete with McCain on personality, which was Gore's Achilles heel. IMO, even if Gore gets a popularity boost from 9/11 and the war he looses to McCain in an ironic reversal of 1992. It's worth remembering that the US experienced a mild recession in Bush's first term, so the state of the economy would be an important asset to McCain.
White Lightning
Banned
Depends how devastating 9/11 was. Surprisingly voters choose not to punish Bush’s incompetence and suspicious activities on 9/11 and instead focused on the emotional impact of that day. A much less devastating 9/11 where the plot is eithered thwarted before or if say only one Tower is hit but does not fall would negate much of the positive effects if not all of it. Then Economy would be huge in 04’. As unlikely as it is for any party to win 4 consecutive terms, if the Economy is humming along thanks to either no 9/11 or diminished attack, no Bush Tax Cuts, no Medicare Part D, and no Iraq, then yes I believe Gore would stand a decent chance and probably be a slight favorite to win.
Deleted member 16736
I don't known that Bush would run again unless there was a huge demand for a rematch in the GOP ranks. McCain is probably the GOP frontrunner like in 2008, but he has all the same weaknesses he did iotl. Same goes for Giuliani. Elizabeth Dole is likely to try her hand again, or Kay Bailey Hutchison may try to run if she passes. Huckabee is probably the SoCon candidate and would appeal to a lot of the GWB southern / evangelical coalition. Bill Frist was rumored to be mulling an 08 run but passed so he's another possibility, but his problems with campaign finances might derail his campaign. I'd wager Ron Paul is the gadfly libertarian. Though, if he doesn't run I could see Gary Johnson filling that role, albeit less successfully. Tom Tancredo might put together a vanity run as the immigration crank.
I feel like I'm missing some others, but those are the ones springing to mind at the moment.
I feel like I'm missing some others, but those are the ones springing to mind at the moment.
I've always thought Kay Bailey Hutchison would have sought the Presidency pretty seriously if W hadn't been elected. She definitely had the ambition, and it would have been a good jumping off place as an 11 year Senator.
I’m quite confident that George Allen will run, although how well he does is anyone’s guess, what with his nasty racist past.
Fred Thompson also seems like he has a good shot to me.
Fred Thompson also seems like he has a good shot to me.
Whether or not 9/11 or something similar happens will determine who runs. If 9/11 or something similar happens, McCain and anyone else who served in the military and/or has foreign policy experience will run. If there's no terrorist attack, Bush is more likely to stay in the spotlight and environmental, economic, and social issues would be more prominent.
If Dubya runs again, or if Jeb takes a shot in '04, then I think McCain wins the nomination this time around.
John Thune, who probably still has a huge upset in the 2002 South Dakota Senate race likely runs, as he would have a "big win" in the preceding midterm. He might be the "movement conservative" candidate in the race vs the Maverick McCain, Establishment Bush, and Liberterian Gadfly Ron Paul.
I'd also add that during the 90's there was a chunk of the right that really disliked Clinton's overseas humanitarian interventions and liberal internationalist foreign policy and felt that with the cold war over, it was time for the US to come home. Buchanan even won New Hampshire in 1996. Jack Kemp, a less marginal figure, spoke out against Clintonism (for lack of a better word). Steve Forbes was not a hawk by any means either.
And with UN universalistic logic being more common under Gore than Bush, fence-sitters on the right OTL might shift (or not)
Bush in 2000 even ran on a "humble foreign policy" but 9/11 derailed tat train. ITL they might gain more prominence although the Weekly Standard types will fight hard against this as per OTL.
ITL you could potentially see a serious sea change in Republican foreign policy with this logic taking hold. Especially given that a GOP that has lost 3 in a row (but probably held the house and senate) is gonna look for some new ideas.
Not 100% what would happen, but more possible than one would think.
And with UN universalistic logic being more common under Gore than Bush, fence-sitters on the right OTL might shift (or not)
Bush in 2000 even ran on a "humble foreign policy" but 9/11 derailed tat train. ITL they might gain more prominence although the Weekly Standard types will fight hard against this as per OTL.
ITL you could potentially see a serious sea change in Republican foreign policy with this logic taking hold. Especially given that a GOP that has lost 3 in a row (but probably held the house and senate) is gonna look for some new ideas.
Not 100% what would happen, but more possible than one would think.
Deleted member 109224
I can see the primary being comprised of four people
1) Rudy Giuliani (America's Mayor)
2) John McCain (The Moderate and FP-oriented pick)
3) Mike Huckabee (The Social Conservative pick)
4) George Allen (The Mainstream Conservative)
5) Ron Paul (The Buchananite)
The GOP was sort of trending against 90s interventionism, but 9/11 will make notions of global retreat unpopular in 2004. The issue for McCain is Giuliani will steal his thunder on the 9/11 hawkishness stuff.
McCain and Giuliani irk SoCons and fiscal conservatives. Huckabee wasn't much of a fiscal conservative, at least on entitlements.
Allen is basically the Reaganite. He's a straightforward conservative of he three-legged school variety. Socially conservative, fiscally conservative, foreign policy conservative, and good with party leadership.
And then there's Ron Paul. Buchanan got 23% in 1992 and 21% in 1996. Paul is the Buchananite candidate, running on being opposed to Gore's Hawkish Foreign Policy.
1) Rudy Giuliani (America's Mayor)
2) John McCain (The Moderate and FP-oriented pick)
3) Mike Huckabee (The Social Conservative pick)
4) George Allen (The Mainstream Conservative)
5) Ron Paul (The Buchananite)
The GOP was sort of trending against 90s interventionism, but 9/11 will make notions of global retreat unpopular in 2004. The issue for McCain is Giuliani will steal his thunder on the 9/11 hawkishness stuff.
McCain and Giuliani irk SoCons and fiscal conservatives. Huckabee wasn't much of a fiscal conservative, at least on entitlements.
Allen is basically the Reaganite. He's a straightforward conservative of he three-legged school variety. Socially conservative, fiscally conservative, foreign policy conservative, and good with party leadership.
And then there's Ron Paul. Buchanan got 23% in 1992 and 21% in 1996. Paul is the Buchananite candidate, running on being opposed to Gore's Hawkish Foreign Policy.
I could see Mike Huckabee running and doing pretty well. George Allen would do pretty well also, be he has some racial issues (See: Macaca). I feel like Giuliani would ultimately end up being the nominee. He was super popular in the early 2000’s and was leading in all the 2008 polls until he lost momentum and tried to base his whole campaign off of 9/11. By 2008, Americans had moved on, but in 2004, 9/11 was still fresh in everybody’s minds.
Giuliani against Gore, especially if there haven't been any SCOTUS changes is not just a no go, it's a HELL NO GO to the GOP at this time. The abortion thing would be guaranteed to be a litmus test, and he's also not willing to be a personally for abortion but completely constitutionally against it. It's a bit of a different story if 5 supremes all die or retire in the first term and the Court is a done deal, one way or another, to where it's a hopeless cause.
If Gore wins, I think you see more of a SoCon, Economically Moderate GOP as the result.