The problem with Gore wins threads is that it inevitably dissolves into a flamewar over whether 9/11 would still have happened or not. (In my opinion it would have--yes Gore would probably have carried on the Clinton administration's attention paid to Al-Qaeda which Bush didn't, but the genius of the 9/11 attack was that it went via American institutions with little connection to what federal security and intelligence are doing. Heck, I'm not convinced that Al-Qaeda couldn't do the exact same sequence of events and pull off the same attack all over again--none of the changes made to security really affect the pathways they used).
However if you're thinking of tackling it Kvasir I'd be very interested in following such a TL.
I've been looking into the feasibility of it for some time now. The dynamics are frustrating with a Republican House and the intricacies of American politics in general but I appreciate the vote of confidence
9/11 is obviously a difficult question which requires much consideration, certainly it is less likely with Gore in the White House but it may still be probably. I'm planning on researching it more if I can complete my initial considerations; transition teams, legislative priorities and the budget, as I say if
I'll throw it out hear now: if any of you have any suggestions or opinions PM me.
Gore favored free trade, but he was campaigning more on fair trade in 2000. He broke with Clinton on MFN for China and on the FTAA, IIRC.
True he campaigned more on fair trade rather than free trade but how much of that was in the hope of winning Ohio and keeping the unions happy for the election? And with the Republican house and quest to pass legislation, the temptation to pass free trade agreements must be hard.
The question is, will Gore be more Left wing or more Right wing in his choices.