Al Gore wins in 2000. Does he win re election in 2004?

I remember posting this about three years ago on another thread, and I still stand by it:
"President Gore, just like President Clinton before him, weakened this country by crippling our national defense. This directly led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in which three thousand innocent civilians died. Had the Republicans been in the White House, there could never have been a foreign attack on American soil! And now, President Gore continues to undermine our national security by refusing to address the very real threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- a known sponsor of world terror.
"In November 2004, vote for a man who will be tough on national security. Vote for a man who has experienced combat and served his country in uniform -- a war hero, who spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war. This November, vote for John McCain for President!"

I can picture McCain winning in 2004 over Gore. The Republicans will be merciless in blaming Gore and Clinton for 9/11 -- with the economy almost certainly still good that's all they've got going for them, but it's a powerful attack. And after all, McCain had his reputation as a moderate maverick -- that should swing some of the more conservative Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters, given that McCain would be perceived as "not so bad" as Republicans go. Cue Iraq invasion, two years later than OTL.
 
Note how much Republicans HATE Democrat Presdients. There would be a HUGE effort to blame Gore for the September 11 outrage.

Indeed. A Republican congress would not be as lenient on Gore as Tom Daschle's Senate or Nancy Pelosi's House was to Bush.

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.

Well, Clinton certainly was ruthless enough. after all, he launched Desert Fox in the middle of impeachment hearings, accused Iraq of hiding WMD- despite Saddam's own son-in-law defecting and telling the world otherwise, and ordered the UN inspectors to leave Iraq- and THEN accused Saddam of kicking them out!

I remember posting this about three years ago on another thread, and I still stand by it:

Indeed. And given how Gore ITTL likely beat Bush, while McCain would have made Gore's campaign contributions into an issue (unlike Bush who forced most of his Republicans opponents out through massive fundraising), we could see McCain get in. And given how he and his foreign policy staff helped push for War in Iraq... (Though, to be fair, if tensions develop with North Korea, we might go to war there instead...)
 
Indeed. A Republican congress would not be as lenient on Gore as Tom Daschle's Senate or Nancy Pelosi's House was to Bush.

If, Al Fore won in 2000; the Senate would be under democratic control in 2001/2002 as the standings were 50-50.

Assuming 9/11 is butterflied away, the initial response by the US to the attacks would have likely been the same as OTL - the invasion of Afghanistan.

Wartime Presidents, as a rule, are exceptionally popular under President Gore, the Democrats take outright control of the Senate in 2002 and either take back the house or substantially reduce the republican majority.

As for 2004 - without the invasion of Iraq, I suspect Gore to be easily re-elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#The_13_Keys_to_The_White_House

I would suggest that anyone attempting to predict ATL elections take a read.
 
If, Al Gore won in 2000; the Senate would be under democratic control in 2001/2002 as the standings were 50-50.

But the Democrats would lose Lieberman's seat when he becomes VP and the Republican Governor of Connecticut appoints the replacement. So it would be 51R-49D, unless they can convince Jeffords to flip. But with a Democrat as President my guess is Jeffords remains a Republican.
 
But the Democrats would lose Lieberman's seat when he becomes VP and the Republican Governor of Connecticut appoints the replacement. So it would be 51R-49D, unless they can convince Jeffords to flip. But with a Democrat as President my guess is Jeffords remains a Republican.

Fair point. I still reject however that there would be serious congressional backlash against President Gore - unless his administration didn't take revenge similar to the OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
We do have evidence that the Bush administration changed the Clinton policy of targeting Al Qaeda and ignored warnings for months of planned attacks in the US by Al Qaeda. He might not have stopped it, but he might have.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
 
Hello, President Powell

Assuming 9/11 happens on schedule, with the same effects, and that the US goes into Afghanistan, Gore being unable to resist the war, a big consequence would be that his environmental program gets derailed.

Come 2004, the Republicans get some smarts (possibly ASB area) and nominate General Powell. Gore is renominated by the Democrats. However, Gore was not really CIC material, and the war in Afghanistan is going badly. (Rehashing a what-if: Truman ran against Eisenhower in 1952.) The General takes it, with a lot of minority swinging to the Republicans, and governs "Like Ike".

In 2008, BHO gets the nod from the Democrats, and we see the first African-American versus African-American race in US history. BHO loses to Powell, who sits in the Oval office until 2012.

Because Powell is a Republican, the Tea Party never gains traction, but the KKK is doing land-office recruiting, and a lot of the South rejects both major political parties in favor of a Dixiecrat Party (maybe a "New Confed Coalition"?)

My crystal ball fades after that point.
 
[
Come 2004, the Republicans get some smarts (possibly ASB area) and nominate General Powell.

With his views on abortion how does Powell win the Republican nomination?
 
Here is the bigger problem about Powell. I quote page 12 of Bob Woodward's Bush at War: His close friend Richard Armitage advised Powell against running for president. Armitage said "I don't think you are ready for this," He said the campaign trail would be " every bad thing you could imagine." As Woodward explained " Powell liked "well laid plans, order, predictability, a level of certainty that was not part of the hurly burly of American politics."
More importantly Woodwsrd quotes Alma Powell as saying "If you run." I am gone."
 
There are three reasons that we would never see a President Powell.
1. He would never run. He is not going to sacrifice his marriage over something he does not want to do.
2. With his views on abortion, it would be very difficult for him to win the Republican nomination.
3. If he won the nomination, it would be even more difficult for him to win the election. A Pro Life third party would drain away much of the Republican base.
 
Yeah, Powell doesn't want to be President. McCain is a much better bet for 2004: war-hero reputation, "maverick" centre-right politics, mostly pro-life position on abortion, and of course he was the runner-up in the 2000 primaries.
 
Not likely, after 16 years of Democratic Party rule, electoral fatigue would set in and the GOP would have the advantage. They'd probably nominate someone like McCain, being the next in line and having the war hero cred that would be important post 9/11. McCain would probably be a one termer and have to deal with the late 2000s recession. Dems would probably pick Hilary in 2008 since Obama would be irrelevant in the absence of an Iraq War.
 
Not likely, after 16 years of Democratic Party rule, electoral fatigue would set in and the GOP would have the advantage. They'd probably nominate someone like McCain, being the next in line and having the war hero cred that would be important post 9/11. McCain would probably be a one termer and have to deal with the late 2000s recession. Dems would probably pick Hilary in 2008 since Obama would be irrelevant in the absence of an Iraq War.

Plus, McCain was still riding his post 2000 wave of good press narratives about his independence, which was mostly over by 2008 IOTL.
 
Top