2008 presidential election after Gore-Lieberman

If Gore is even nominated for re-election in 2004...even if he doesn't win...then I think there is no Barack Obama.

Well...obviously there "is" a Barack Obama, but not on a national scale. He might not even be a Senator. After all, it was his opposition to the Iraq War that started earning him attention...and got him the spot on Kerry's nomination convention, which is how everyone heard his name and started begging him to run for President. It was also his opposition to the Iraq War "from the beginning" that he used to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton.

But look at a few scenarios:

President Gore never declares war on Iraq = Obama never speaks out against it, doesn't gain attention, maybe isn't even Senator

President Gore declares war on Iraq, does well = Obama either doesn't speak out against it, and doesn't become known, or does speak out against it, and is wrong.

President Gore declares war on Iraq, disaster = Obama either doesn't speak out against fellow Democrat, and doesn't become known, or does speak out against it, and turns against his own party...making it impossible for him to get support for 2008 nomination.

President Gore, war or no war, is nominated for re-election in 2004 = Obama doesn't get a slot at the convention, because he's either a nobody, or somebody who has turned against the Democrats.
 
He might not be running in 2008, but Barack Obama would be elected senator in 2004. He gives excellent speeches and would have been elected by Illinois with or without the Ryan faux pas. Since, in the year 2020, he will still be younger than Hillary Clinton is today, he would have a promising political future.
 
If Gore/Lieberman win in 2000 & 2004 then after 16 years of having Democrats in the White House the nation will be yelling "what do we want? we want change!" Neither Joseph Lieberman or Hillary Clinton would be viewed as the candidate of change in this scenario. I see Clinton as the probable 2008 Democratic nominee though if she chose to run and perhaps Bill Richardson as the VP choice. As John McCain would probably have been the 2004 Republican nominee he would not be the nominee again in 2008. His '04 running mate, unless a weak/poor choice would be the front runner in '08. I could see Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney being the nominee. I have a hard time seeing Clinton winning, even with her charisma and clout winning here.

If Gore/Lieberman win in 2000 but lose in 2004 I'm not sure that either of them run again in 2008. I'm also not so sure that Hillary Clinton would challenge an incumbant President (John McCain would probably have been the 2004 Republican nominee after a GWB loss in 2000 and thus the current POTUS) in 2008 unless he were doing as poor a job as GWB in OTL. Perhaps Gore would run again, but what's his message going to be, "You fired me 4 years ago, please give me a second chance" or "the nation is headed in the wrong direction so my wrong direction must of been the right one afterall"? Rather then Gore, Lieberman or Clinton, I could see any number of people: John Kerry, Evan Bayh, Howard Dean, Dick Gaphardt or (if his 2002 death is butterflied away) Paul Wellstone, running and becoming the nominee. Perhaps Obama might run, though unless he had been the keynote speaker at this alternate scenario's 2004 Democtatic Convention, his profile and clout would be much lower. I also think that McCain would be reelected (presuming that he'd done an okay to good job during his 1st term as President).
 
Last edited:
Paul Wellstone was too sickly to mount a serious campaign in 2000 - by 2008 he'd have no chance; I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Russ Feingold. He thought about running in OTL. He may very well do here, particularly if the party establishment figure is Lieberman. If he runs, then he'd probably be the default liberal alternative. Against Lieberman and possibly A.N Other candidate of the centre/right he'd be in a good position to potentially carry it off as well.
 
Last edited:
Lieberman would have to win the primaries, and he wouldn't be popular enough to win them, regardless of his being VP. It's one thing to be picked by Gore to "balance the ticket" - it's another thing to actually run yourself. Plus, Hillary Clinton would definitely run in '08 whether Gore was a one- or two-term President, and she would be both more popular with the base and with the party leaders (i.e. superdelegates). Even if he was Vice President and she wasn't, the registered Democratic voters in the primaries probably would go for her rather than a pseudo-Republican.

I think you are viewing things from the prism of ITTL rather than ATL. If Gore has been president and Lieberman VP for the past 8 years and the invasion of Iraq most likely never takes place then the perception of Lieberman as a "pseudo-Republican" is butterflyed away. Sure Hillary might give him a run for the money in the primaries but since Lieberman has the backing of Pres Gore and since we now know how short of money the Clinton's were in this campaign it's about as sure thing that he would secure the # of delagate by June 3rd 2008, or early as March 5th. Of course there are some variables that could take place in between, the war in Afganistan could take a worse turn and could become very unpopular, and President Gore's approval ratings could go to the dumper.
 
Clinton's shortage of money in this past OTL campaign cycle might well be butterflied away too. At any rate, I still maintain that it would be extremely difficult for either Lieberman or Clinton to win in '08 after 16 years of the Democratic Clinton/Gore Administrations.
 
After 8 years of Gore, the normal economic cycles put the governing party at a disadvantage, even if the situation is not as dire as it is in OTL. Remember, the democrats might not control the senate. If 9/11 occurred as in OTL, a Romney-Giuliani ticket would be at the advantage in 2008.

Obama would not be running as president. Hillary has a baggage problem, though she may run. The 2008 election could be a close Clinton-Romney election.
 
After 8 years of Gore, the normal economic cycles put the governing party at a disadvantage, even if the situation is not as dire as it is in OTL. Remember, the democrats might not control the senate. If 9/11 occurred as in OTL, a Romney-Giuliani ticket would be at the advantage in 2008.

Obama would not be running as president. Hillary has a baggage problem, though she may run. The 2008 election could be a close Clinton-Romney election.

If the economy is similiar or almost identical in ATL as it is in this timeline the Democrats will most likely lose the 08 elections. Again, if Lieberman seeks the nomination he very likely will be nominated. No matter how hard she tries I don't see Hillary taking the nomination away from him. Nixon got it in 60, Humphrey in 68(even if RFK had lived), Bush Sr in 88, and it would be for Lieberman in 08.
 
Here's a crazy thought...what about George W Bush? If it's been Gore/Lieberman this whole time, Bush will be (at least initially) remembered as fondly from the 2000 election as John McCain was IOTL. He's had eight years to recover from his 2000 election mistakes (not knowing the world leaders, etc), plus he's presumably continued to do just as well governing Texas as he did pre-2000. He'd be 62, which is a little on the old side, but then McCain DID get the nomination IOTL, so it's not THAT old.

As for his running mate...Guliani would have run in 04, and if he didn't win, then he's probably a non-starter by now. Romney's a maybe, but I think Bush would go a little more creative. Colin Powell would be the perfect choice, although he is 71 years old.

Heck...now that I think about it...what about JEB Bush as candidate? Without his brother ruining the family name, Jeb would certainly be a powerful candidate.
 
Lieberman would not run in 2008 and Hillary would be the Democratic nominee and won the election making her as the first woman president in the United States if Gore is the president.
 
Folks, I really think this race is about 2004, not 2008. America has never seen an incumbent two-term Vice President be elected to two terms of his own. Sure, we've seen Presidents die and their successors be re-elected once (Coolidge, Truman, T Roosevelt and L Johnson). But of the 4 sitting VPs to be elected on their own right (Adams Sr, Jefferson, Van Buren, Bush Sr), only Jefferson served 2 terms - and that was after only one Adams Sr. term.

Nowadays people don't feel comfortable, in general, with 16 years of control by one party. It's happened before, sure. 24 years of the Democratic-Republicans, (Jefferson-Monroe, 1800-1824), 24 years of the Republicans (Lincoln-Arthur, 1860-1884, but that's if you count Johnson who was a Democrat on the Union ticket technically), 16 years of the Republicans (McKinley-Taft, 1896-1912), and of course 20 years of the Democrats (FDR/Truman, 1932-1952). But in each one of these situations, it was only because the opposite party was mostly ineffective, unorganized or absent. That would not be the case in the early 00s. The conservatives had been in control of Congress. I think in 12 years of Clinton/Gore, the Republicans would have got their act together extremely well - especially if they had been denied in 2000 - and they would have played 2004 as well as the Dems played 2008 OTL.
 
Here's a crazy thought...what about George W Bush? If it's been Gore/Lieberman this whole time, Bush will be (at least initially) remembered as fondly from the 2000 election as John McCain was IOTL. He's had eight years to recover from his 2000 election mistakes (not knowing the world leaders, etc), plus he's presumably continued to do just as well governing Texas as he did pre-2000. He'd be 62, which is a little on the old side, but then McCain DID get the nomination IOTL, so it's not THAT old.

As for his running mate...Guliani would have run in 04, and if he didn't win, then he's probably a non-starter by now. Romney's a maybe, but I think Bush would go a little more creative. Colin Powell would be the perfect choice, although he is 71 years old.

Aside from Nixon (and look at how well that panned out for the GOP), the Republican Party does not renominate presidential election losers.


Heck...now that I think about it...what about JEB Bush as candidate? Without his brother ruining the family name, Jeb would certainly be a powerful candidate.

I forgot about Jeb in my 1st comment above. He could very well be a contender in this alternate 2008 scenario if "W" lost in 2000 and McCain lost in 2004 to Gore.
 
Folks, I really think this race is about 2004, not 2008. America has never seen an incumbent two-term Vice President be elected to two terms of his own. Sure, we've seen Presidents die and their successors be re-elected once (Coolidge, Truman, T Roosevelt and L Johnson). But of the 4 sitting VPs to be elected on their own right (Adams Sr, Jefferson, Van Buren, Bush Sr), only Jefferson served 2 terms - and that was after only one Adams Sr. term.

Nowadays people don't feel comfortable, in general, with 16 years of control by one party. It's happened before, sure. 24 years of the Democratic-Republicans, (Jefferson-Monroe, 1800-1824), 24 years of the Republicans (Lincoln-Arthur, 1860-1884, but that's if you count Johnson who was a Democrat on the Union ticket technically), 16 years of the Republicans (McKinley-Taft, 1896-1912), and of course 20 years of the Democrats (FDR/Truman, 1932-1952). But in each one of these situations, it was only because the opposite party was mostly ineffective, unorganized or absent. That would not be the case in the early 00s. The conservatives had been in control of Congress. I think in 12 years of Clinton/Gore, the Republicans would have got their act together extremely well - especially if they had been denied in 2000 - and they would have played 2004 as well as the Dems played 2008 OTL.

Except that 9-11 would have happened even if Gore were president and if there were no further terrorists attacks within the US borders as well as no unpoplar war in Iraq, Gore will most likely get a narrow win over John McCain in 2004. As for 2008 Mitt Romney handidly defeats Joe Lieberman in wake the major economic meltdown.
 
Here ya go: IOTL, Jindal first ran for Governor in 2003, against three other opponents (all democrats). Although Jindal beat all three individually, he didn't have enough of a margin, and there was a run-off election between him and the Democrat with the most support. Most of the other nominee's electors then supported the only Democrat left in the race, so he lost.

In this timeline however, perhaps Gore campaigns on behalf of one of the other candidates...not the one who won...so that the other two Democrats drop out. But the one Gore backs doesn't appeal to moderates, who choose Jindal instead?

So Jindal becomes Governor of Louisiana in 2003...just in time to be the hero that saves New Orleans residents from Hurricane Katrina (based on his own IOTL performance during Hurricane Gustav in 2008, plus the theory that environmentally-concious Al Gore would have been both more aware and more helpful than President Bush). His reputation for saving so many lives, plus coordinating during an emergency with a Democrat President, could certainly make him a 2008 contender.

The main reason Bobby Jindal didn't win the governorship in 2003 was that he was viewed being too young (32 at the time) and inexperienced. Bill Clinton was 32 years when he was first elected governor of Arkansas but he did serve one term as state Attorney General. Were he Governor at the time Katrina hit I doubt he would have been viewed a hero. More likely he would have gotten a lot of flack especially from the media, though he probably would have handled it better Gov. Blanco and certainly better than Mayor Nagin. I also think Pres. Gore's approval rating would have taken a dip for his handling of the disaster. Governor Jindal would probably face a tough reelection in 2007 either losing or narrowly winning. Either way, he would not be a possible presidential or VP contender in 08. So having lost the 2003 gubernatorial race was probably a blessing in disguise for Bobby Jindal
 
Top