DBWI: What if George W. Bush was elected President in 2000?

Would 9/11 have even happened under Bush? If the former Texas governor cared as little for civil liberties as is sometimes claimed (ironic considering most who claim such firmly supported President Gore's USA PATRIOT Act), then the 19 hijackers might have been stopped either from pursuing light lessons, or from leaving Logan International Airport.

I think it would have... nothing about Bush's stated goals indicated that he was planning on turning the USA into a police state, or even going so far as to tighten up the border or airport security. I just don't think it would have occurred to him. Frankly, the 9/11 planning started in Clinton's day, and no one caught it then, and it continued into Gore's administration, and they didn't catch it either. I can't imagine anything Bush would have done differently.
 
If Gore had failed in 2000, I doubt former Vice-President Lieberman would have claimed the Democratic nomination in 2008 by promising an Union government between Republicans, Democrats and Independants. And would Warren Beatty have finally decided to run in 2004?
 
Why are we ignoring any consideration of how this happened?

Are we assuming that Bush squeaked in by taking enough states which he actually lost by extremely narrow margins(Florida, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington)? This might mean he actually LOST the popular vote.

Or are we assuming that he somehow gains over a million more votes at Gore's expense and how does that happen?
 
I'd guess Bush would never make his documetary An Inconvenient Truth about the dangers of Iraq which Gore didn't invade. Bush probably would invade Iraq if he won.
Well another thing that probably wouldn't have happened was George W. Bush's winning of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning for religious freedom (especially for Falun Gong and Christians) for the People's Republic of China. While most U.S. trade officials dread bringing up human rights, at least there is now a guarantee that the issue will be brought up....
 
OOC: Putting aside for a moment the already grossly unlikely scenario of a general Arab embargo (does this embargo include Iran?); even if such a thing were to occur, while it would certainly have an adverse effect on the countries of the region, feeding instability in an already volatile area, the idea of a singular massive Arab theocracy forming in less than eight years is absolutely and completely ridiculous, with no foundation in reality.


((OOC: And who, pray tell, saw the Iranian revolution coming as it did?))
 
((OOC: And who, pray tell, saw the Iranian revolution coming as it did?))
OOC: Despite the superficial similarities you perceive, comparing these two scenarios is like comparing apples and oranges. Ultimately, the main problem with the scenario you posit is this: I'm willing to see plausibility in such an embargo (unlikely as it is in and of itself) leading to sufficient weakening and destabilization of current regional regimes that radical Islamist groups win major political victories, even to the point of establishing a new order in one or perhaps even two of those countries. However, the idea of these groups gaining control over the entire region, and then deciding amongst themselves to unify into a single state, really stretches credibility. It ignores the significant religious, cultural, and political distinctions between these different countries, their peoples, and the Islamist groups involved. Even making the assumption that these groups 'would' achieve power throughout the region and 'would' decide to unify, the obstacles and impracticalities of actually 'forming' such a state are truly incredible, making it very unlikely that such a thing could be successfully accomplished in less than eight years to the extent that such an entity could cohesively commit military forces to a foreign confrontation and have it be a factor worthy of consideration. You just flat out can't get this kind of situation with a POD as late as 2000. I could further elaborate on all the factors involved that preclude this, but honestly, I'd suggest cracking a book for yourself.
 
If Gore had failed in 2000, I doubt former Vice-President Lieberman would have claimed the Democratic nomination in 2008 by promising an Union government between Republicans, Democrats and Independants. And would Warren Beatty have finally decided to run in 2004?

What are you talking about? Lieberman lost the nomination to Hilary Clinton, as it says on page 1.

Hilary went on to beat Colin Powell in a tight battle.
 
Why are we ignoring any consideration of how this happened?

Are we assuming that Bush squeaked in by taking enough states which he actually lost by extremely narrow margins(Florida, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington)? This might mean he actually LOST the popular vote.

Or are we assuming that he somehow gains over a million more votes at Gore's expense and how does that happen?

*shrugs* Same as any other of the AH presidential elections we consider on here on a daily basis... just assume that enough votes swung Bush's way to give him the election.
 
Dave, good point, but if we just give him another 50,000 votes in those states then he's elected with an electoral majority of 322 but loses the popular vote by over one million!

Man, would Bush have had to tread lightly in that case.
 
Dave, good point, but if we just give him another 50,000 votes in those states then he's elected with an electoral majority of 322 but loses the popular vote by over one million!

Man, would Bush have had to tread lightly in that case.

*shrugs* Wouldn't be the first time in US history that happened. I'm sure the Democrats wouldn't like it, but hey, it's the way the election laws work, so I'd think they wouldn't harp on the fact that he lost the popular vote...
 
Top