Does Al Gore winning the 2000 election help or hurt Bill Clinton's legacy as President? On the one hand, Gore winning would seem as though the public wanted a third term of Bill (the popular vote of OTL arguably suggests that). On the other hand, I could see 9/11, the (although mild) dot.com recession, and if Gore is re elected in 2004 (which I lean toward a no on that), the financial crisis, hurting Bill Clinton's legacy as well. What do you think?
Al Gore wins 2000. Does this help or hurt Bill Clinton's legacy?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
I think some would, but others would see Gore, for better or worse, as a continuation of Clinton. Reagan's legacy took a bit of a hit in the early '90s with Bush Sr. in office, I could see Clinton's taking a hit in the event that Gore won in 2000, heck one of the main reasons his personal favorability rebounded after he left office was that George W. did such a bad job and was a Republican.
If 9/11 still happens (and there's a lot of reason to believe it still would), it would be a major blow to both Gore and Clinton's legacy. In OTL, people are able to say "Clinton took Al Qaeda seriously and did everything he could to try to stop bin Laden, while Bush and Condi Rice ignored the warnings and snoozed their way into leaving us open for the attacks."
Gore as president would be just as serious as Clinton about Al Qaeda and be determined to do something about them. But if the attack still happens, it would be a major blow to their credibility. At least Bush had the excuse of not being experienced with geopolitics and not being involved in the Clinton Adminstration's operations. Gore, however, was there when the USS Cole was bombed and when the embassies were attacked. In the public's eyes, there would be little mercy. "You had over 8 years of opportunities to try to stop this from happening, but nothing you did worked! Clinton and Gore failed to keep us safe!"
Gore as president would be just as serious as Clinton about Al Qaeda and be determined to do something about them. But if the attack still happens, it would be a major blow to their credibility. At least Bush had the excuse of not being experienced with geopolitics and not being involved in the Clinton Adminstration's operations. Gore, however, was there when the USS Cole was bombed and when the embassies were attacked. In the public's eyes, there would be little mercy. "You had over 8 years of opportunities to try to stop this from happening, but nothing you did worked! Clinton and Gore failed to keep us safe!"
I always felt this would be the case if 9/11 happened under President G0re. Granted, I do think Gore still would've handled and responded to the situation better than Dubya. I think the Clinton/Gore years TTL would more or less be the Democratic equivalent to Reagan/Bush, as barring a very bad republican nominee, I don't see Gore getting re elected in 2004.
Agreed. Gore would be pretty damaged going into 2004. Not unlike HW Bush in the early 90's, he'd be there when the recession hit. On top of that, despite the fact that he would likely do everything possible to retaliate against Al Qaeda for 9/11 and would readily send forces to Afghanistan, and even if the Afghanistan campaign is just as initially successful as OTL, he still has the "it happened under yours and Clinton's watch" stigma over his head.
George H.W. Bush didn't lose 1992 because of voter fatigue, he lost because he got blamed for the early 90s recession and the slow recovery from it. If the economy is good in 2004, and if Gore's handling for the Afghanistan war is seen as going well, he should win reelection.
I am going to deviate from the majority opinion a little. I think Gore could be re-elected, but it is all going to depend on his response to 9/11. IF he can bring the country together to fight the threat, and I think he could, GW did, so no reason why Gore could not as well. If he gets lucky and gets Bin Laden that would be a big boost, but you can be certain that Gore would not invade Iraq and would remain focused on Afghanistan. This could lead to more tangible success there and that would be a boost as well. He may have to distance himself some from Clinton's failure to take Al Queda more seriously, of course if he has real success to show he may not even need to do that. If he is smart he will also make the argument that "we have the enemy on the run and we are successful, let us continue that success." The old "don't change horses in the middle of the stream" argument.
But I could be wrong.
Sorry I missed the main question of Clinton's legacy. It depends on how much blame Gore is able to successfully shift to Clinton for Bin Laden and Al Queda. However, Clinton had some solid domestic achievements so any damage to his legacy will be restricted to foreign policy.
But I could be wrong.
Sorry I missed the main question of Clinton's legacy. It depends on how much blame Gore is able to successfully shift to Clinton for Bin Laden and Al Queda. However, Clinton had some solid domestic achievements so any damage to his legacy will be restricted to foreign policy.
Last edited:
Sorry I should have been clearer on that point. I don't think voters literally, consciously decide that '12 years is enough' but I do think it plays in the background of a lot of minds and how they interpret both the failures and successes of a government. Bush was on some level being judged not just on his own four years, but on Reagan's eight previously.
I certainly don't think it is impossible to win despite fatigue (see the Conservatives in the 1992 UK general election), but i do think it is a factor and would have been for Gore, and indeed was for Bush.
Major possible POD. If President Gore put more troops on the ground in Afghanistan, what happens if Bin Ladin is captured in Jan-Feb 2002.
Doesn't that make Gore a successful war leader and also takes the away the narrative of success El Qaeda had?
Doesn't a non destabilisation of Iraq give potential terrorists fewer options of places to regroup (I.e. sub Saharan Africa and nothing else)?
Doesn't that potentially butterfly the Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, make the world safer for Arab dictators but more stable overall.
The "war on terror" never gets going?
Doesn't that make Gore a successful war leader and also takes the away the narrative of success El Qaeda had?
Doesn't a non destabilisation of Iraq give potential terrorists fewer options of places to regroup (I.e. sub Saharan Africa and nothing else)?
Doesn't that potentially butterfly the Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War, make the world safer for Arab dictators but more stable overall.
The "war on terror" never gets going?
I think voter fatigue is an illusion; I think parties that stay in power for longer and longer just have a greater chance of something going wrong on their front. In 1952 it was Korea, in 1992 it was the economy, in 1912 it was the Republican Party going to war with itself over tariff policy, conservation issues, trust-busting, and an increasingly unpopular Lochner Era court.
When was the last time a president got defeated for reelection after 4 boring years? Presidents usually win reelection unless things go wrong.
If the 2000 election goes to Gore solely on the basis that the recount in Florida isn't stopped by the Supreme Court, and Gore narrowly wins the state and wins the popular vote, the GOP would have a hissy fit after three consecutive losses, one (1992) that they felt was spoiled by a third party candidate and another (2000 TTL) that they could interpret as a stolen election. If there's enough gridlock (I can honestly see the GOP treating Gore as badly ITTL, as they've treated Obama over the last seven years), and especially if the balanced budget goes away (which I think it would've) and if Gore presides over the same net job loss that Bush did in his first term OTL, all of that plus voter fatigue, plus half the country seeing Gore as illegitimate could hand the GOP the win in 2004, and that's if 9/11 doesn't happen.
I have already posted my thoughts, but allow me to add if Gore handles the response to 9/11 in a decisive manner and is able to unite the country around the tough task of defeating Al Qaeda, Independent voters and even some voters who lean Republican can be persuaded to retain a President who is kicking the ass of the terrorists who launched 9/11.
The bigger question may be how would President Gore respond to 9/11?
I don't think Gore would be seen as illegitimate by anyone who would have supported him in the first place. Furthermore, Hastert wasn't like Gingrich or Boehner, and the GOP is only a few short years away from seeing how Gingrich's shutdowns and impeachment attempts hurt them in 1996 and 1998. Even if they do try massive obstructionism, that has a good chance of backfiring, especially in the wake of the Clinton impeachment attempt. Without 9/11, the economy would be better than it was in OTL 2004, and in any case, it didn't hurt Bush all that much. I've already established up thread that I think "voter fatigue" is a myth, generally used as an excuse when the actual reason parties don't stay in power all that long is that eventually, something will go wrong and the party in power gets blamed for it.
I think that unless 9/11 occurs and Gore's conducting of the Afghanistan war turns into a disaster he'll get reelected. Incumbents generally only get defeated when there are recessions, major scandals, or foreign policy disasters.
Hastert may not have been like Gingrich or Boehner, but Tom Delay and Dick Army were, and they, especially Delay were the ones really running the house after Gingrich left. Plus, Trent Lott would still be running the Senate in 2001 and 2002, and I think the Obama years OTL is proof that the GOP doesn't learn from it's mistakes, and Gore lacked the charisma of Obama and Clinton, so it would be harder for him to turn the blame on the GOP, plus would the country tolerate 10 straight years (1994-2004) of gridlock? I think we all agree to disagree on Gore being re elected.
My point for starting this thread was to see how Gore being elected in 2000 affected Bill Clinton's legacy as President.
How it affects Clinton's legacy will be determined on how Gore handles 9/11, and I think 9/11 would still happen, the planning for that was well advanced in January 2001 when Gore takes office. I think Clinton's domestic legacy is secure in any case, barring a complete economic collapse for some unforeseen reason.
That's part of it to, but I don't see it as one or the other. I think the public is less inclined to be generous or forgiving with a party that has been in power seemingly forever and can't help but wonder how the other guys might handle things better. In much the same way I think Gore would have handled 9/11 better but been judged more harshly.
A Gore victory in 2004 would mean 16 years of uninterrupted Democrat hegemony. That hasn't happened to either party in modern times, and the last time it did was because one party was so tarnished by an all encompassing disaster it took them a generation to recover.