2004 Presidential Election: Gore Vs. McCain

In this timeline, Al Gore beats George Bush in 2000 and becomes president. When seeking reelection, he has to face Arizona Senator John McCain in the General Election. How would this presidential election unfold? Would Joseph Lieberman remain as Al Gore's running mate if it meant running and possibly beating his old friend from the Senate? If I might ask, could I have a map or infograph showing plausible results?
 
Last edited:
In this timeline, Al Gore beats George Bush in 2000 and becomes president. When seeking reelection, he has to face Arizona Senator John McCain in the General Election. How would this presidential election unfold? I would say that McCain's running mate would be Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, because Sarah Palin would not have been Governor of Alaska yet. Would Joseph Lieberman remain as Al Gore's running mate if it meant running and possibly beating his old friend from the Senate? If I might ask, could I have a map or infograph showing plausible results?

I think Gore wins. The economy was good. 9/ 11 probably still happens that would help Gore, especially because there would not have been an Iraq War.
Lieberman will still run. He is not going to give up being Vice President just because he is running against his friend.
 
President Gore gets a similar boost in the polls that Bush got from 9/11 in OTL. President Gore doesn't invade Iraq but will still would be dealing with the war in Afghanistan. Senator McCain will attack him on his record in Afghanistan and since we are still in the war, Senator McCain as a veteran will gain leverage in the polls based on President Gore's inability to finish the job in Afghanistan. But President Gore gets leverage in the economic arena. I see that dynamic going back and forth throughout campaign. President Gore wins reelection and unfortunately for the Democrats they get to be the fall guy when the financial collapse happens.
 
I lean toward McCain winning. McCain TTL is not going to run a campaign like the McCain of 2008 OTL and voter fatigue is gonna hurt the Dems. Plus, Gore will get much more scrutiny over 9/11 (if it still happens, I still think it would unfortunately as it was in the works for years) than Bush did because the Democrats would've been in power for over 8 years if it happened and Clinton oversaw 2 attacks from al Qaeda abroad, Bush had the excuse of "I just Got here," and also because Gore doesn't isn't going to have the folksy swagger/ tough guy image that Bush made for himself after 9/11. I do however think Gore would respond to the attacks better than Bush did, as there would most likely be no Iraq war and Gore would commit more time and resources to the fight against Al Qaeda.

Economically, the recession of 2001 still happens and the recovery still probably doesn't take off until mid 2003 like OTL, and will probably be as weak as OTL. It'll basically be the Bush economy with lower debts and deficits, as if he passes one at all, Gore will only pass a middle class tax cut, not two of the biggest tax cuts like Bush did, and no Iraq war means less defense spending. Also, if Medicare Part D happens at all, it'll be more funded than it was OTL.

If Gore wins in 2000, it's close. In OTL, he ran a terrible campaign and because of that in my opinion, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory given how good we thought things were at the time. I don't see him running a better campaign in 2004 TTL and I can see McCain being a much better and more centrist candidate than he was in 2008 OTL, he'll be more like he was in 2000 against Bush. It'll be pretty close, but I give it to McCain. 2008 will be a tossup in this scenario because while I think the collapse still happens, it might happen later than OTL without Bush as President. If it does happen at the same time as OTL however, McCain is screwed with a capitol S.
 
2008 General Election

The 2008 General Election is different depending on the outcome. A Gore Victory= John Kerry/John Edwards Vs. Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan? Romney would win in 2008 because the Democrats would be the fallman of the economic crisis and John Edwards' scandal would surface. A McCain victory= McCain/Huckabee Vs. Obama/Biden. As OTL, Obama wins because Republicans are the fallman of the economic crisis and Obama being extremely popular with African Americans and young voters, which McCain and Huckabee are neither. I would personnally be interested in watching the alternate vice presidential and presidential debates.
 
The 2008 General Election is different depending on the outcome. A Gore Victory= John Kerry/John Edwards Vs. Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan? Romney would win in 2008 because the Democrats would be the fallman of the economic crisis and John Edwards' scandal would surface. A McCain victory= McCain/Huckabee Vs. Obama/Biden. As OTL, Obama wins because Republicans are the fallman of the economic crisis and Obama being extremely popular with African Americans and young voters, which McCain and Huckabee are neither. I would personnally be interested in watching the alternate vice presidential and presidential debates.

Would the economic collapse happen in 2008 in a Gore wins 2000 scenario? While I still think a crisis was inevitable, could no Iraq war, no Bush Tax cuts, and a little less deregulation (there'd still be some) delay the collapse to 2009 or 2010? If that's the case, McCain, if he won in 2004, could get re elected in 2008. Gore winning in 2004 leads to a Republican in 2008 as I can't see the Democrats keeping the White house for 20 consecutive years (1993-2013).
 

Archibald

Banned
Nice, in my space TL (Explorers, see my signature) I have Gore lected over California in 2000 because of different NASA employement rates at Cape Canaveral :cool: that tilt the voter balance in favor of Gore.

I lean toward McCain winning.

McCain TTL is not going to run a campaign like the McCain of 2008 OTL and voter fatigue is gonna hurt the Dems.

Plus, Gore will get much more scrutiny over 9/11 (if it still happens, I still think it would unfortunately as it was in the works for years) than Bush did because the Democrats would've been in power for over 8 years if it happened and Clinton oversaw 2 attacks from al Qaeda abroad, Bush had the excuse of "I just Got here," and also because Gore doesn't isn't going to have the folksy swagger/ tough guy image that Bush made for himself after 9/11.

I do however think Gore would respond to the attacks better than Bush did, as there would most likely be no Iraq war and Gore would commit more time and resources to the fight against Al Qaeda.

Economically, the recession of 2001 still happens and the recovery still probably doesn't take off until mid 2003 like OTL, and will probably be as weak as OTL. It'll basically be the Bush economy with lower debts and deficits, as if he passes one at all, Gore will only pass a middle class tax cut, not two of the biggest tax cuts like Bush did, and no Iraq war means less defense spending. Also, if Medicare Part D happens at all, it'll be more funded than it was OTL.

If Gore wins in 2000, it's close. In OTL, he ran a terrible campaign and because of that in my opinion, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory given how good we thought things were at the time.

I don't see him running a better campaign in 2004 TTL and I can see McCain being a much better and more centrist candidate than he was in 2008 OTL, he'll be more like he was in 2000 against Bush. It'll be pretty close, but I give it to McCain.

2008 will be a tossup in this scenario because while I think the collapse still happens, it might happen later than OTL without Bush as President. If it does happen at the same time as OTL however, McCain is screwed with a capitol S.
Lot of good points here. Looks like McCain was, overall, the "major" Republican candidate of the 2000's. By contrast Obama just get butterflied away - he won in 2008 because, unlike Hillary, he voted against the Iraqi invasion in 2003 (AFAIK, maybe I'm wrong).

Gore winning in 2004 leads to a Republican in 2008 as I can't see the Democrats keeping the White house for 20 consecutive years (1993-2013).
If Gore gets reelected in 2004, that would make for 16 years of Democratic rule (1992 - 2008). I tend to think that the political pendulum would swing toward Republicans in 2004 - voters thinking might be "isn't 12 years of Democrats enough ? "

Even with the Clinton 1998 bill calling for regime change in Iraq, I can't see Gore invading Iraq post 9/11. I tink he would handle Iraq like OTL Obama is handling Syria - large airstrikes, special forces on the ground, military aid to the Kurdish fighters, the Peshmergas. I don't think it would be enough to topple Saddam.

I wonder what a 2004 President McCain would be like. Anybody wish to help ? Would the Tea Party be butterflied ? Would McCain invade Iraq circa 2005 ?

I did limited research on the Internet and it seems that the 2011 Arab springs would still happens, since I can't see the 2007-2008 food crisis not happening. That was the driving force much more than the Iraqi invasion- the man that started it all in Tunisia in 2010 by setting himself on fire was a fruit and vegetable retailer that had been ruined by the worldwide food crisis.
 
Last edited:
Would the economic collapse happen in 2008 in a Gore wins 2000 scenario? While I still think a crisis was inevitable, could no Iraq war, no Bush Tax cuts, and a little less deregulation (there'd still be some) delay the collapse to 2009 or 2010? If that's the case, McCain, if he won in 2004, could get re elected in 2008. Gore winning in 2004 leads to a Republican in 2008 as I can't see the Democrats keeping the White house for 20 consecutive years (1993-2013).
Correct. The economic collapse would be delayed by a year or two. Unlike OTL, the situation probably wouldn't even be a 'collapse' because there would be no Bush Tax cuts, no Iraq War, and possibly even no Afghanistan War. (According to other threads about how Gore would have reacted to 9/11, they said he wouldn't have even invaded Afghanistan or that 9/11 wouldn't have even happened). Gore could easily cleanup any small mess made. If John McCain were to win in 2004, he would either have Hillary Clinton or John Kerry as his next opponent. Hillary Clinton/Evan Bayh could have probably defeated him in 2008. On the other hand, he would have devastated John Kerry/John Edwards. John Kerry wasn't much of a challenge for Bush and the surfacing of John Edwards' affair would have been icing on the cake. The front-runner of the GOP in 2008 without McCain would have been Mitt Romney.
Lot of good points here. Looks like McCain was, overall, the "major" Republican candidate of the 2000's. By contrast Obama just get butterflied away - he won in 2008 because, unlike Hillary, he voted against the Iraqi invasion in 2003 (AFAIK, maybe I'm wrong).
Correct. McCain became the GOP front-runner in 2008 because in 2000, he came in second place to Dubya. Hillary lost the nomination to Obama because of 'Clinton fatigue' and Obama's strong appeal to African Americans and younger voters.
If Gore gets reelected in 2004, that would make for 16 years of Democratic rule (1993-2009). I tend to think that the political pendulum would swing toward Republicans in 2004 - voters thinking might be "isn't 12 years of Democrats enough?"
Also correct.
Even with the Clinton 1998 bill calling for regime change in Iraq, I can't see Gore invading Iraq post 9/11. I think he would handle Iraq like OTL Obama is handling Syria - large airstrikes, special forces on the ground, military aid to the Kurdish fighters, the Peshmergas. I don't think it would be enough to topple Saddam.
Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq and would have probably just continued Elder Bush/Bill Clinton's no-fly zone policy towards Iraq.
I wonder what a 2004 President McCain would be like. Anybody wish to help? Would the Tea Party be butterflied? Would McCain invade Iraq circa 2005?
A 2004 President McCain probably wouldn't look that different from OTL's Dubya. McCain Tax Cuts would be smaller than OTL's Bush Tax Cuts. The Tea Party would be replaced by something weaker. It was 9/11 that conceived reactionary groups of the sort but without Obama, OTL's Tea Party would have less appeal. Although McCain supported the OTL 2003 Invasion of Iraq, word was that he, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham had their eyes on Iran. The Ayatollahs wanted a nuclear program in order to check Saudi and American influence in the Middle East. Since they have oversight over the presidency, they'd probably install a president who would make that happen and make the votes look fair (As was the case with Ahmadinejad in 2009). The Israelis would have launched the initial airstrikes and McCain would have rode off of that with more airstrikes and a full-scale invasion. Knowing McCain's hawkish views, he probably would have dragged North Korea into the war as well. Iran and North Korea had an anti-American, anti-Israeli pact and North Korea provided Iran with nuclear technology and knowledge. McCain threatened North Korea with extinction multiple times and would take any muscle-flexing by Kim Jong-Il/Un as a reason to finish the Korean War once and for all. The two wars of the 2000s would have been Iran and North Korea instead of OTL Afghanistan and Iraq.
I did limited research on the Internet and it seems that the 2011 Arab springs would still happen, since I can't see the 2007-2008 food crisis not happening. That was the driving force much more than the Iraqi invasion- the man that started it all in Tunisia in 2010 by setting himself on fire was a fruit and vegetable retailer that had been ruined by the worldwide food crisis.
Correct. Adding to that, advanced cellphones were being introduced to Arab League countries, and they became enraged to learn the truth about their governments. I also wanted to point out that with 12-16 years of Democrats, Republicans would have controlled Congress for the same amount of time.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
thank you for your answer, very interesting.

Although McCain supported the OTL 2003 Invasion of Iraq, word was that he, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham had their eyes on Iran. The Ayatollahs wanted a nuclear program in order to check Saudi and American influence in the Middle East. Since they have oversight over the presidency, they'd probably install a president who would make that happen and make the votes look fair (As was the case with Ahmadinejad in 2009). The Israelis would have launched the initial airstrikes and McCain would have rode off of that with more airstrikes and a full-scale invasion. Knowing McCain's hawkish views, he probably would have dragged North Korea into the war as well. Iran and North Korea had an anti-American, anti-Israeli pact and North Korea provided Iran with nuclear technology and knowledge. McCain threatened North Korea with extinction multiple times and would take any muscle-flexing by Kim Jong-Il/Un as a reason to finish the Korean War once and for all. The two wars of the 2000s would have been Iran and North Korea instead of OTL Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't know much of McCain but I think this goes a little too far.
War with Iran will be a bloody and scary thing. Iran is a much worse terrain than Iraq (less desert, more hills and mountains for defenders and terrorists)
 
thank you for your answer, very interesting.



I don't know much of McCain but I think this goes a little too far.
War with Iran will be a bloody and scary thing. Iran is a much worse terrain than Iraq (less desert, more hills and mountains for defenders and terrorists)

I kind of agree, but if congress was Republican enough and post 9/11 hysteria lasted long enough, and he wanted to hit Iran bad enough, I wouldn't put past McCain TTL either.
 

Archibald

Banned
I've found this TL by member hcallega. I think it is the definitive "Gore in 2000" TL, a very good job.
- President Gore in 2000
- 9/11 happens more or less as per OTL (sounds reasonnable)
- McCain defeat Gore in 2004 (voters fatigue - democrats for too long)
- Hillary in 2008, perhaps re-elected in 2012

McCain 2004 did not waged war against Iraq, Iran or North Korea
 
Top