2004 in a Gore Victory timeline

samcster94

Banned
Gore Victories are a common cliche. Who would the Republicans run in this 2004??? To simply things, there is no 9/11 or Iraq War allegory(except maybe a minor military excursion that lasts a short time). The problem there, like the Dems in OTL 2016, is they lack enough young candidates. I imagine Lieberman would still be VP though.
 
The GOP probably nominates McCain and he most likely beats Gore. The economic recovery from the "dotcom bust" is still likely to be weak and Gore winning means that's four years of gridlock as the GOP will still control congress. 2008 is McCain vs. Hillary and that race would depend on what McCain does internationally and depends on when the financial crisis hits.
 
Additionally, Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Fred Thompson and Huckabee seem like decent options if the electorate isn't warm to McCain. It will be very hard for Gore to win, just because it's really hard to sustain 12 years of a single party's hold on the White House. I also wouldn't rule out Bush trying again. He'd still be Governor of Texas until at least 2002, still would retain the fundraising network, name ID, and, if Florida played out like it did in OTL, but for Gore, there would be a groundswell of grassroots conservatives ready to go to work for Bush to get what many would feel he was wrongfully denied.

also

Jeb!
 
W would run again and win, I’m firmly convinced.

One of the things I don't think people think about is how much of an idiot Bush would look like if he lost in 2000 because of the DUI thing. People would be furious that he had lost purely because of something so stupid. I think that alone would keep the GOP from being friendly to him running again.
 
I mean, you could have the DUI thing not come out, or come out early enough that it largly is a wash and just have Gore win off (PoD goes here). I do think that with no 9/11 it would be a Gore loss, but we need to work out if no 9/11 just leads to another attack a few years down the line or if he actually does something different.
 
I mean, you could have the DUI thing not come out, or come out early enough that it largly is a wash and just have Gore win off (PoD goes here). I do think that with no 9/11 it would be a Gore loss, but we need to work out if no 9/11 just leads to another attack a few years down the line or if he actually does something different.

If 9/11 happens that would make it worse for Gore, not better. He would open to fair criticism that Clinton and himself had failed to stop the plots and that terrorism in general had gotten out of control when they were in charge.

If the DUI thing doesn't come out then Gore gets crushed. It was the only reason he even came close; Bush was significantly ahead in the polls before that revelation happened.
 

samcster94

Banned
Additionally, Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, Fred Thompson and Huckabee seem like decent options if the electorate isn't warm to McCain. It will be very hard for Gore to win, just because it's really hard to sustain 12 years of a single party's hold on the White House. I also wouldn't rule out Bush trying again. He'd still be Governor of Texas until at least 2002, still would retain the fundraising network, name ID, and, if Florida played out like it did in OTL, but for Gore, there would be a groundswell of grassroots conservatives ready to go to work for Bush to get what many would feel he was wrongfully denied.

also

Jeb!
I can see Bush trying again in 04 regardless, but losing the primary. Gore's victory, I picture, would be sub 300(I always toyed with the idea of leaving Florida as is, but flipping New Hampshire). 2004 would likely be the 2008 field early, Huckabee would be interesting as a W type candidate without the same DUI issues.
 
The inability of the Republicans to beat a weak establishment candidate like Gore would effectively doom W from trying again. Gore was never seen as very strong, and even a close race in 2000 would confirm the conventional wisdom that W must've been particularly weak to lose. His allies would abandon him.

While McCain would be the clear frontrunner from day 1, the timing of events would probably lead Jeb to give it a try. Bush fatigue would be more of a factor, and it's possible McCain tries a post-midterm pivot to the right to scoop up the Bush neocon alliance.

Also obstructionism would be a hard sell, at least from 2001-03. If the results are the same (or similar) you've got a 50/50 tie in the senate and a Republican majority in the house of about four. Nobody can manage caucuses with that math to complete obstruction. Besides, you've got a very motivated McCain in the senate looking to make a lot of bipartisan deals to bolster his own "maverick" image. And the idea of completely shutting down the government was only considered as a reaction to Obama's election. I highly doubt the close election of Gore would prompt such a move.

McCain might still try to pivot the right after the midterms to forestall major competition in the presidential primaries, but I'm iffy on his chances with Jeb running. I'm pretty convinced that Jeb can keep the W alliance together, especially in the face of a McCain with even more questionable conservative credentials.

After the midterms, the GOP would certainly have strong majorities in both houses. If they don't experience a large wave, I would be very surprised. At that point the agenda gets more conservative and it's questionable whether Gore would be willing to negotiate. Especially if any successful legislation can be spun as a victory for his probable challenger. But then not doing anything looks bad for him, too.

The nature of the Republican wave in 2002 is very important. The most likely scenario is that they win big with a traditional push to the right. But without the solidification of the neocon movement in 2000, TTL doesn't really have a single Republican brand yet. It's unlikely that a weak figure like Gore would prompt a strong reaction like the Tea Party movement. It's possible that a narrative emerges from 2000 that McCain's supposed pragmatism would've been a better strategy, seeing more McCain-like candidates gain success as moderates abandon the Democrats for something new and bring their preference for heterodoxy to the GOP.

A traditional conservative wave likely means McCain pivots to the right after the midterms. A more heterodox wave likely means he stays the course and takes leadership of this new, rising faction.

A pivoting McCain still likely has to swat Jeb down in the primaries; a non-pivoting McCain definitely does.

A pivoting McCain can pick whomever he wants as a running mate; a non-pivoting McCain has to pick a true conservative. Either way, he's not nearly as pressured to pull someone out of left field since anyone he picks looks fresh next to Gore/Lieberman.

Barring a war or major terrorist event, McCain wins easily. I'm still in the camp that thinks he wins even with war/terrorism in the mix, but I disagree that such an event would make things worse for Gore. The incumbent would certainly be aided under those circumstances. But another term is just too much to ask the American people.

As for 2008, it's probably too far to tell. There's certainly no reason the housing crisis might not happen a few years earlier or later. If it happens just on schedule, McCain is in big trouble. Early in his term and he probably won't even get blamed for it. If it happens in his second term, well, he owns it but it doesn't matter to him electorally-speaking. There's even a chance Gore provokes it super early just by having better investigators poking into things, in which case he gets totally destroyed in 2004. It could even get so bad that he doesn't run for reelection.

Having Gore around doesn't stop Hillary from entering politics, but it could keep her from ever being able to run for president. Gore could well squeeze all the possible remaining juice from that brand.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
The inability of the Republicans to beat a weak establishment candidate like Gore would effectively doom W from trying again. Gore was never seen as very strong, and even a close race in 2000 would confirm the conventional wisdom that W must've been particularly weak to lose. His allies would abandon him.

While McCain would be the clear frontrunner from day 1, the timing of events would probably lead Jeb to give it a try. Bush fatigue would be more of a factor, and it's possible McCain tries a post-midterm pivot to the right to scoop up the Bush neocon alliance.

Also obstructionism would be a hard sell, at least from 2001-03. If the results are the same (or similar) you've got a 50/50 tie in the senate and a Republican majority in the house of about four. Nobody can manage caucuses with that math to complete obstruction. Besides, you've got a very motivated McCain in the senate looking to make a lot of bipartisan deals to bolster his own "maverick" image. And the idea of completely shutting down the government was only considered as a reaction to Obama's election. I highly doubt the close election of Gore would prompt such a move.

McCain might still try to pivot the right after the midterms to forestall major competition in the presidential primaries, but I'm iffy on his chances with Jeb running. I'm pretty convinced that Jeb can keep the W alliance together, especially in the face of a McCain with even more questionable conservative credentials.

After the midterms, the GOP would certainly have strong majorities in both houses. If they don't experience a large wave, I would be very surprised. At that point the agenda gets more conservative and it's questionable whether Gore would be willing to negotiate. Especially if any successful legislation can be spun as a victory for his probable challenger. But then not doing anything looks bad for him, too.

The nature of the Republican wave in 2002 is very important. The most likely scenario is that they win big with a traditional push to the right. But without the solidification of the neocon movement in 2000, TTL doesn't really have a single Republican brand yet. It's unlikely that a weak figure like Gore would prompt a strong reaction like the Tea Party movement. It's possible that a narrative emerges from 2000 that McCain's supposed pragmatism would've been a better strategy, seeing more McCain-like candidates gain success as moderates abandon the Democrats for something new and bring their preference for heterodoxy to the GOP.

A traditional conservative wave likely means McCain pivots to the right after the midterms. A more heterodox wave likely means he stays the course and takes leadership of this new, rising faction.

A pivoting McCain still likely has to swat Jeb down in the primaries; a non-pivoting McCain definitely does.

A pivoting McCain can pick whomever he wants as a running mate; a non-pivoting McCain has to pick a true conservative. Either way, he's not nearly as pressured to pull someone out of left field since anyone he picks looks fresh next to Gore/Lieberman.

Barring a war or major terrorist event, McCain wins easily. I'm still in the camp that thinks he wins even with war/terrorism in the mix, but I disagree that such an event would make things worse for Gore. The incumbent would certainly be aided under those circumstances. But another term is just too much to ask the American people.

As for 2008, it's probably too far to tell. There's certainly no reason the housing crisis might not happen a few years earlier or later. If it happens just on schedule, McCain is in big trouble. Early in his term and he probably won't even get blamed for it. If it happens in his second term, well, he owns it but it doesn't matter to him electorally-speaking. There's even a chance Gore provokes it super early just by having better investigators poking into things, in which case he gets totally destroyed in 2004. It could even get so bad that he doesn't run for reelection.

Having Gore around doesn't stop Hillary from entering politics, but it could keep her from ever being able to run for president. Gore could well squeeze all the possible remaining juice from that brand.
Jeb would be a bad alternate candidate in 2004. It'd not be OTL 2016 but his last name would hinder him as W lost in TTL.
 
Jeb would be a bad alternate candidate in 2004. It'd not be OTL 2016 but his last name would hinder him as W lost in TTL.

You're very right, but circumstances might urge him to run anyway. There are a lot of special interests out there looking for a particular type of candidate and Jeb ticks a lot of boxes. While it's true the general public might not be as excited, these are not the types of special interests that tend to care so much about that. They find what works for them and then only worry about selling it afterwards.

The important thing about having Jeb in the race is really who he represents- a power-sharing model where national security hawks and big business ally to dominate a weaker social conservative faction in the GOP, but still very much court that social conservative faction. It's only important as something McCain has to deal with. Either he courts them and loses his moderate appeal (as happened in OTL 2008) or he takes a more oppositional approach and negotiates a new power dynamic after the primaries.
 

samcster94

Banned
You're very right, but circumstances might urge him to run anyway. There are a lot of special interests out there looking for a particular type of candidate and Jeb ticks a lot of boxes. While it's true the general public might not be as excited, these are not the types of special interests that tend to care so much about that. They find what works for them and then only worry about selling it afterwards.

The important thing about having Jeb in the race is really who he represents- a power-sharing model where national security hawks and big business ally to dominate a weaker social conservative faction in the GOP, but still very much court that social conservative faction. It's only important as something McCain has to deal with. Either he courts them and loses his moderate appeal (as happened in OTL 2008) or he takes a more oppositional approach and negotiates a new power dynamic after the primaries.
He probably would not be nominated.
 
First, there would be no Bush tax cuts. Since 9/11 came close to being caught by the FBI, we can assume it would be foiled. But there is no foregone conclusion Gore would lose in 2004. As for the housing crisis, I might guess it would happen later, so the party that wins in 2004 also wins in 2008.
 
He probably would not be nominated.

Jeb? Yeah, very improbable that he gets nominated over McCain. Or do you mean McCain probably wouldn't be nominated?

Your earlier suggestion of Huckabee is an interesting one, as it represents a fundamental rearranging of the Republican power dynamic with the social conservatives in the driver's seat. I don't think he's a strong enough candidate to challenge McCain, but it is important to remember he went into 2008 with a reputation as a somewhat heterodox conservative. If McCain faces significant competition from both a neocon (in Jeb or other surrogate) and a social con (Huckabee) it might be more shrewd to deal with the latter than the former. McCain/Huckabee is a pretty solid team in 2004, electorally speaking.
 
Top