Bill Clinton killed before taking office. How does Al Gore do?

Basically with this, Clinton is killed Giuseppe Zangara style before he can become President. Al Gore is now the President. How well does he do? How will the Democrats do? Any other affects of this down the line?
 
I think he'd do slightly worse than Clinton, but not by much. Perhaps Dole doesn't get the nod in '96, as Gore might seem more beatable than Clinton. Certainly butterflies away Monica, or any scandal like that. Hilliary might also be butterflied. Veep choice might have been interesting, does Gore keep with Clinton's youth movement, or move to an elder statesman?
 
1990s Gore is a little dull but as a moderate Southerner, he probably won't trigger the massive Republican swing in 1994 to the same degree as OTL with the tax increase plus "Hillarycare"

On the other hand, he could appoint her to be Attorney General and the "Hillary Monster under the Bed" myth gets built differently.

Bob Kerrey or Paul Tsongas come to mind as good VP choices if he stays in the middle. I'm not sure who would be the most realist Left candidate at the time.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
There might be more of an official fight back against the cultural changes leaning towards obscenity in the late 90s. Tipper Gore would probably make violent video games, gratuitous TV sex, and the WWF what Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity.This might lose the Democrat Party credibility among younger people, but not all that much.

I think that like Clinton, he would benefit from a strong economy and sustained economic growth. He probably would lack the international gravitas however to help resolve issues in Israel and Northern Ireland. Gore might have a more difficult reelection. That being said, he wasn't as infuriatingly narcissistic as Clinton and wouldn't arouse nearly as much opposition on the right at a grassroots level, meaning that the Democrats might do much better in Congressional races.
 
There might be more of an official fight back against the cultural changes leaning towards obscenity in the late 90s. Tipper Gore would probably make violent video games, gratuitous TV sex, and the WWF what Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity.This might lose the Democrat Party credibility among younger people, but not all that much.

I think that like Clinton, he would benefit from a strong economy and sustained economic growth. He probably would lack the international gravitas however to help resolve issues in Israel and Northern Ireland. Gore might have a more difficult reelection. That being said, he wasn't as infuriatingly narcissistic as Clinton and wouldn't arouse nearly as much opposition on the right at a grassroots level, meaning that the Democrats might do much better in Congressional races.

In that regard, Kerrey becomes a stronger choice, especially to shore up foreign policy and he has Medal of Honor credibility. Either him or Colin Powell are distinct possibilities.

Ooh, Tipper's campaign would be radically different and dramatically help him among moderate Protestants, a lot of Catholic voters, soccer moms and the like. Tipper would draw far less heat than Hillary and a campaign like this could do a lot. It hurts the Christian Right movement big time.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
He would drastically reduce carbon emissions and that climate change, or rather get voted out in '96 trying; so he might not do it, after all.
I am never shure with Gore...
 
I think he'd do slightly worse than Clinton, but not by much. Perhaps Dole doesn't get the nod in '96, as Gore might seem more beatable than Clinton. Certainly butterflies away Monica, or any scandal like that. Hilliary might also be butterflied. Veep choice might have been interesting, does Gore keep with Clinton's youth movement, or move to an elder statesman?
Hillary might run for the senate in 1994/6 or something, as she would be a popular figure in the eyes of many. An Arkansas seat became free in 1996, maybe she could run there as the Republican candiate only won by 3%, and she might win if Gore is less contravensal, and her new found popularity.
 
Gore would struggle less with Congress than Clinton did historically. Unlike Clinton, he's a known quantity on Capitol Hill and has some amount of respect from his former colleagues that
Clinton didn't have. He probably understands the importance of having a Chief of Staff and Legislative Liason team in place in a way Clinton did not.

He probably will not pursue an effort to end the prohibition on homosexual individuals serving in the military at the start of his term. Which will save his administration time to pursue other matters.

Given Gore's interest as Vice President I think we still see a similar 1993 Budget pass. NAFTA also passes. He's by nature more of a micromanager than Clinton-which alters the dynamic. Gore will pursue less but struggle less with Congress.

Healthcare is anyone's guess. He may not view the issue as a priority the way Clinton did. If he does pursue healthcare reform-he's much more likely to see some Legislation passed than Clinton was. Don't mistake me. Passing comprehensive Healthcare Reform is really difficult.

But if you want to reduce the chances to nothing you do what Clinton did-refuse to involve Congress in creating the initial legislation and then refuse to compromise or accept an alternative legislation that has a better chance of success.


Gore's less likely to make Clinton's initial mistake of failing to obtain the investment of important members and Senators and has more leeway to compromise than Clinton had because the fight won't be over legislation that was developed by his wife.

At the same time as I said Healthcare Reform is extremely difficult.

At some point Gore's environmentalism would come into play. Not sure how.

However counterintuitive the idea of Gore being more successful in 1993 and 1994 may seem the reality is that Clinton struggled in the 1993-1995 period. He did so in a way someone more familiar with Congress like Gore would not have.

That has implications for 1994. Gore won't seem to be struggling the way Clinton was-and won't seem to be failing as he was in that period. This may make things different on the margins. But given the structural dynamics driving the Republican takeover the result is probably the same.
 
It's important to acknowledge how Clinton is killed will make a big difference in how much political capital Gore might be awarded/afforded upon ascending. I don't expect a national tragedy fervor to occur, but it could give Gore some leeway. As mentioned, I think Gore avoids some of Clinton's early fights, but they re-align once Clinton mellows out into his more moderate ideas. Looking at the broad strokes, I think Gore maintains a better relationship with Congress, but fails to make much of a splash. He's not the most charismatic, as we know, and before his climate change fight, he lacked the pet issues a lot of politicians had in this era. I could see voter fatigue at the end of his term looking for a more dynamic and exciting figure in either party, someone charismatic and/or attractive.

In the long run, I think Gore is seen as decent if not memorable, akin to Bush Sr.'s legacy today.
 
Top