Al Gore wins in 2000. Does he win re election in 2004?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
Why, it was over 10 years ago, so even if it is controversial, history is sometimes controversial.
Personally, i think yes, and i don't buy the argument that he would be blamed for 9/11. Why wasn't FDR blamed for Pearl Harbour then? I think thought it could be close, as the economy wasn't doing well and voter fatigue, but i think Gore would most likely be re-elected.
Hmm... Interesting take. Although as to whether Gore would've been blamed for 9/11, you could make the case for it or against it. The Democrats did have the White House for 8 years and our embassies were attacked in 1998 and there was the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. The flip side to that is, people could make the same case that they made for Bush, that he was only there for 8 months, or they could somehow blame the GOP as they controlled congress since '95 and accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he launched airstrikes against Al Qaeda in 1998.
The one argument I don't buy however is that Gore would've prevented 9/11, although I think he would've responded to it much better than Bush did OTL, as he would've at least taken the briefings seriously. Voter fatigue is going to be an issue for President Gore in 2004, as for the economy, it depends on how President Gore handles the dot com burst and how he responds to 9/11.
TinyTartar
Banned
Him getting the US onto the Kyoto Protocols might be unpopular domestically. And his 9/11 reaction could be indecisive and weak looking. Keep in mind that in the NSC meetings he attended under Clinton, Hillary was taken more seriously than he was, and apparently the NATO commander in Europe, Wesley Clark, had a very low opinion of his foreign policy suggestions and backbone in the Kosovo crisis.
I think he would be vulnerable. But I also think that the Republicans would be in enough disarray as to allow him to win.
I think he would be vulnerable. But I also think that the Republicans would be in enough disarray as to allow him to win.
Probably not, TBH, but I think a moderate Republican would probably stand the best chance at defeating him(as the Tea Party had not yet taken hold, and the Religious Right was just about at it's peak). Why not somebody like Susan Collins or Colin Powell? Powell, by the way, would not only be the first African-American president(which might *possibly* convince a few African-Americans who might otherwise vote Democratic to switch sides.....even if that number would no doubt be small, as most other politically involved AAs would still remain pro-Democratic, Powell could try to take that and run with it!) he has military experience to boot, which would no doubt appeal to many Republican leaning Indies, especially if 9/11 still happens.
Note how much Republicans HATE Democrat Presdients. There would be a HUGE effort to blame Gore for the September 11 outrage.
Yes, but their efforts to turn the public against the Democrats from 1995 onwards had little effect, and likely backfired, and though that was partly because of Clinton, the Republicans often shot themselves in the foot. There might instead be a rally-round the flag effect and I'm not convinced that 9/11 would hurt Gore.
Obama likely won't be relevant in that kind of way if Gore gets elected in 2000; at best he'll be a somewhat known Senator or Representative (through even that's unlikely, since he only gained national fame due to his speech at the OTL 2004 Convention; which would be butterflied)
TinyTartar
Banned
I think there really would be no other way to go about it, unless they wanted to blame Clinton.
Its kind of hard to blame the Republicans for 9/11 in OTL anyways, with Bush being in office for less than a year, let alone in this scenario, with Gore essentially being a third term for Bill Clinton, even if they differed in policy.
You don't just have 9/11, you have the reaction to 9/11. Consider that Bush didn't get Osama bin Laden, and lied about WMD to invade Iraq, and still won in part by exploiting Osama bin Laden and Iraq. The.question is whether Gore would have been that ruthless.
The election of Gore would possibly have butterflied away 9/11. Maybe the attack occurs in Paris.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
The attack had been in planning since 1996/1998 and it was America al-Qaeda wanted to hurt, due to their support of Israel. It might go for a different building (The UN building, which had gathered on the morning to discuss a bill), or city, but not a different nation.
But depending on how Gore handles 9/11, he'll likely win re-election.
The people involved weren't expecting the attack to be all that it was. The fact that the buildings collapsed seemed to surprise bin Laden. And there were the possibilities of things changing on the wind. More planes could have been foiled, or they all could have gotten through, or people could have gotten stopped at the airport, or whatever. But I do not believe there's a reason to believe the matter itself would have been butterflied away.
A lot of it depends on if 9/11 even happens, and if it does what his response will be, which is entirely open to interpretation
I doubt he would have the kind of success in the 2002 mid terms that Dubya had though, so he will face an entirely republican House, and two years of a Republican Senate (They could easily pickup a seat in '02, probably two or three).
Im inclined to think he would lose in 2004 though, maybe against McCain, with maybe Jeb Bush as his running mate?
2008 crash still occurs, even without the Bush tax cuts, so the Democratic candidate would probably win (although without the Iraq malaise and the Bush presidency it wouldn't be the OTL Obamaslide)
I doubt he would have the kind of success in the 2002 mid terms that Dubya had though, so he will face an entirely republican House, and two years of a Republican Senate (They could easily pickup a seat in '02, probably two or three).
Im inclined to think he would lose in 2004 though, maybe against McCain, with maybe Jeb Bush as his running mate?
2008 crash still occurs, even without the Bush tax cuts, so the Democratic candidate would probably win (although without the Iraq malaise and the Bush presidency it wouldn't be the OTL Obamaslide)
And without the Iraq War it's likely Obama isn't the Democratic nominee. President Hillary? There was a pretty good TL some time ago that explored the events and effects of a one-term Gore Administration.
Without a lot of things its likely Obama wont be the nominee
Its possible someone like Howard Dean or Gephardt would run in '08, having not run in '00 due to Gore being unbeatable, and not running in '04 as Gore was the incumbent
Maybe Paul Wellstone doesn't die in a plane crash?