Alternate Democratic VP Nominees: 2000.

Who Should Have Been the Democratic VP Nominee in 2000?


  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Presidential Candidate: Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee.

Who else might Al Gore have chosen for his Vice Presidential running mate for 2000? Who would have been the strongest choice for VP, the one who could have made those 537 votes in Florida unnecessary? Would Gore-A noted technocrat-have gone for policy and electoral reasons, or would a personal relationship have done better?

The vast majority of these people will be those who ran for President themselves, considered running, or declined to run after being asked, with maybe one or two ideas of who might have been a good or interesting option.

(Anyone want to guess at how much support Wellstone will receive?)
 
I guess it depends on what the goal is.

If the goal is just to get Gore elected, then (in hindsight, of course), the fairly obvious answer is John Kerry. Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,200 votes; put Kerry on the ticket and those 4 EV -- and the Presidency -- belong to Gore.

On the other hand, if the question is: "who, in 2000, would you have liked to have seen Al Gore pick for VP?", then I think I would go with Wellstone. Gore decided very early that he was going to have to run to the right, and that created a rift with the left that (somehow) allowed Ralph Nader -- Ralph Nader! -- to win 2.74% of the popular vote.

Shore up support with the left, and Nader's support would very likely disappear, making the run-up to the election very different. Would that have netted Gore more than just New Hampshire? I don't know, but I think it would be an interesting thought experiment.
 
Well if Gore had not tried throwing Clinton under the bus, he never would have picked Lieberman. I'm not sure which candidate would be acceptable but not an anti-Clintonite.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Gore should've pulled a Reagan and picked his nearest rival for the VP slot... which, in this case, was Bill Bradley.

Never mind that they probably hated each other; they would've balanced the ticket effectively.
 
Bradley would've been the most effective choice. I kinda would've liked Paul Wellstone too, but he'd probably be considered too liberal.

But really anyone but Lieberman.
 
Personally, I like Bayh for VP. He's a young, moderate (Maybe a bit too moderate for some), immensely popular former Governor (Executive experience) and new Senator (Meaning he doesn't have enough time to screw up or cast dumb votes). A Midwesterner, classic family model, he'd have been a great pair to Gore (And their dads worked together). The only issue would be the charisma, it might be the first ticket in history to have a negative charisma score.
 
Personally, I like Bayh for VP. He's a young, moderate (Maybe a bit too moderate for some), immensely popular former Governor (Executive experience) and new Senator (Meaning he doesn't have enough time to screw up or cast dumb votes). A Midwesterner, classic family model, he'd have been a great pair to Gore (And their dads worked together). The only issue would be the charisma, it might be the first ticket in history to have a negative charisma score.

I'd peg it at slightly above neutral - definitely more charisma than Gore-Lieberman possessed.
 
Personally, I like Bayh for VP. He's a young, moderate (Maybe a bit too moderate for some), immensely popular former Governor (Executive experience) and new Senator (Meaning he doesn't have enough time to screw up or cast dumb votes). A Midwesterner, classic family model, he'd have been a great pair to Gore (And their dads worked together). The only issue would be the charisma, it might be the first ticket in history to have a negative charisma score.

And also that picking Bayh means that Gore is running to the right, which was the problem that led to Ralph Nader getting nearly 3% of the vote.

Had Gore just shored up his base (or had he called for a full statewide recount, or had he not picked Lieberman, or...), he'd have been President.
 
I'm going with Bayh. There are a lot of negatives with him, namely the lack of charisma and, as Andrew T pointed out, he signals a shift to the right for Gore when he was having trouble shoring up his left. However, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Knowing that Gore was just one state, any state, away from winning the Presidency and given that Bayh carried his home state in 2004 by a greater margin than President Bush did against John Kerry, I think it's safe to say that Bayh wins Gore the presidency by virtue of bringing Indiana and its 12 EVs with him. Final count Gore/Bayh 278 (presuming the abstaining elector from DC still abstains), Bush/Cheney 259. Evan Bayh's the guy.
 
Jeanne Shaheen. First female Vice-President and would've locked up New Hampshire for Gore, giving him 270 regardless of Florida.
 
I'm going with Bayh. There are a lot of negatives with him, namely the lack of charisma and, as Andrew T pointed out, he signals a shift to the right for Gore when he was having trouble shoring up his left. However, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Knowing that Gore was just one state, any state, away from winning the Presidency and given that Bayh carried his home state in 2004 by a greater margin than President Bush did against John Kerry, I think it's safe to say that Bayh wins Gore the presidency by virtue of bringing Indiana and its 12 EVs with him. Final count Gore/Bayh 278 (presuming the abstaining elector from DC still abstains), Bush/Cheney 259. Evan Bayh's the guy.

You think Bayh could have been worth 16 points in Indiana? That strikes me as pretty unlikely, although I suppose if Gore had had Bayh live in Tennessee after the convention, Gore-Bayh could have carried TN and its 11 EV (IOTL, Gore never visited his home state and lost it by less than 4%).

Bottom line: there are lots of paths to a Gore victory in 2000; it strikes me as almost ASB that he lost IOTL.
 
Much as I like and admire Wellstone, he would have been a bit far to the left. Bradley would have shored up the party base a bit; a lot of the liberals in the party backed him over Gore in the primaries. All in all, he'd have been a safe pick and would have helped heal some of the party divisions as well as bringing an interesting life story to the race.

Bayh would have pissed off the left and would not have carried Indiana. In fact, I can't think of a single place where Bayh on the ticket would have really helped.

In a pinch, Gephardt would have been a fairly safe pick and might have provided a little motivation for labor to do more in the fall. Definitely would have been a plus in the Midwest.

And forget Feinstein. Tangled finances with her wealthy husband and easily painted by the GOP as a "San Francisco Democrat" even though she really tilts to the center-right of the party.

I do to some extent like the idea of Shaheen, but that's in hindsight. Nobody saw the election coming down to NH and Shaheen was hardly a national figure.
 
I think Mikulski should be in this poll, but...

I like Paul Wellstone, even if he did vote for the PATRIOT Act. So I don't want him on a ticket with a conservative like Gore. :p

Shaheen would make sense as a glass-ceiling thing, but NH has four EVs, and as Apollo 20 said, NH wasn't where the election was supposed to be decided.

Graham I think might make sense from a tactical standpoint, because he's pretty knowledgeable on foreign policy, plus Florida, but two center-right Democrats? Granted, we had Gore/Lieberman IOTL, so...

I think Gephardt is the best pick. Strong union guy, may appeal to social conservatives, and would be good for Midwest turnout.
 
Wellstone is my ideological preference. Shaheen is my pick for victory, as she would have delivered NH and also probably picked up a few female voters.

That said I think anyone would have been better than Lieberman (both because I despise the man and because he didn't really bring much to the ticket). Even Wellstone might have worked better, by reducing the left-wing leak to Nader.
 
You think Bayh could have been worth 16 points in Indiana? That strikes me as pretty unlikely, although I suppose if Gore had had Bayh live in Tennessee after the convention, Gore-Bayh could have carried TN and its 11 EV (IOTL, Gore never visited his home state and lost it by less than 4%).

Bottom line: there are lots of paths to a Gore victory in 2000; it strikes me as almost ASB that he lost IOTL.

Hmm...Bayh had 64% of the vote in Indiana, which is a good margin. He'd have to do quite a bit of campaigning there, but I could see it working out.

Also-Indiana, right next to Ohio. Bush's margin over Gore was 165,019 votes in the end and about 3%. If you subscribe to the regional theory, even if he doesn't flip Indiana (Which I kind of doubt), Bayh would understand that and campaign heavily in Ohio, possibly flipping that state to Gore and thus the election (It's a bit out there, I'll admit it, but stranger things have happened).
 
I think you both (Andrew T and Westbrook) present good ideas. I really do believe that Bayh could swing Indiana. Like, there is honestly no accounting for how stupidly popular he was there in the late 90's-early 2000's in the state. I think he would be able to swing the state for Gore. But, even if that looks impossible, he'll make a difference in Ohio and Tennessee, too, probably. Either way, I think Bayh wins the election for Gore. Plus Evan Bayh 2008? Yes, please.
 
Top