DBWI: What If Gore Had Not Run in 2004?

Hard to imagine, as the Democratic nomination was his for the asking. After 2000 and his winning the popular vote but "losing" the election (maybe), Gore was a shoo-in for a second contest with "President" Bush, which of course he won. The selection of Hillary Clinton as VP was decisive, IMO.

It's just too bad that President Gore could not end the war in Iraq as he promised. It turned out withdrawal was a lot harder then people expected. Plus, the war in Afghanistan dragged on with mounting casualties, although President Gore's "surge" there did seem to bring more of the country back under control ... and fortunately President McCain continued the Afghan policy.

It's even worse for Gore that the real estate and financial sectors tanked on his watch and the deficits shot up. I don't think it was his fault, but he who is in charge gets the blame. And so John McCain became the oldest man elected President. At least VP Pawlenty is young and energetic.

What would have happened to our country if Gore had NOT run in 2004?
 
I won't say "of course he won". 2004 was a reverse of 2000. This time Bush had won the popular vote by 0.2% over Gore and ironically the state of Floria, but he lost Ohio and Iowa to Gore by within 1% of votes. Also, Republicans retained control of both houses in 2004, and would later increase their majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Anyway, anyone sensitive would not have pulled out from Iraq immediately. You can't just let terrorists run Iraq. Moreover, Iraq is the perfect place to divert the attention of terrorists.

Had Bush won in 2004, McCain may not even have been the Republican nominee in 2008, I would bid on either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani did not have a base and he is too liberal, and this would not change had Bush been reelected. Anyway, 2004 was too late for anyone to stop the outbreak of the financial crisis, you need a POD in the 1990s. IMO, any incumbent party would lose in 2008 even if ASB revived FDR.

Had Bush decided to pull a Cleveland, he would crush Gore by an even bigger landslide than the OTL 12-point margin of McCain, according to recent polls.

I would say, Bush would handle Hurricane Katrina a bit better than Gore due to his wartime leadership shown during the September 11 attacks, but anyway Gore did not do really bad. Iraq won't be in such a mess. Nouri al-Maliki would still have been Prime Minister of Iraq once free elections were called, but his assassination in 2007 would likely have been butterflied away. al-Maliki was to any extent a far more effective leader than his successors, Salam al-Zaubai and Hussain al-Shahristani.

Strange enough, Bush would probably have resuced the Lehman Brothers in 2008 instead of letting it died due to his deep-lying populist courses. Though Bush was a gaffe-machine himself, he would never have said the fall of Lehman Brothers could help clean up American businesses, which costed him much support in the Wall Street.

However, Bush would not have favoured a geen policy like Gore, and the United States surely would not have re-ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Gore was arguably the first US President to pay real attention to the threats of global warming, and the first president to acknowledge that the United States has relied too much on oil. The most significant acheivement of President Gore, rather than stabilizing Afghanistan, would be his energy and environmental policies, which would even be continued by President McCain.
 
Last edited:
I won't say "of course he won". 2004 was a reverse of 2000. This time Bush had won the popular vote by 0.2% over Gore and ironically the state of Floria, but he lost Ohio and Iowa to Gore by within 1% of votes. Also, Republicans retained control of both houses in 2004, and would later increase their majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Anyway, anyone sensitive would not have pulled out from Iraq immediately. You can't just let terrorists run Iraq. Moreover, Iraq is the perfect place to divert the attention of terrorists.

Had Bush won in 2004, McCain may not even have been the Republican nominee in 2008, I would bid on either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani did not have a base and he is too liberal, and this would not change had Bush been reelected. Anyway, 2004 was too late for anyone to stop the outbreak of the financial crisis, you need a POD in the 1990s. IMO, any incumbent party would lose in 2008 even if ASB revived FDR.

Had Bush decided to pull a Cleveland, he would crush Gore by an even bigger landslide than the OTL 12-point margin of McCain, according to recent polls.

I would say, Bush would handle Hurricane Katrina a bit better than Gore due to his wartime leadership shown during the September 11 attacks, but anyway Gore did not do really bad. Iraq won't be in such a mess. Nouri al-Maliki would still have been Prime Minister of Iraq once free elections were called, but his assassination in 2007 would likely have been butterflied away. al-Maliki was to any extent a far more effective leader than his successors, Salam al-Zaubai and Hussain al-Shahristani.

Strange enough, Bush would probably have resuced the Lehman Brothers in 2008 instead of letting it died due to his deep-lying populist courses. Though Bush was a gaffe-machine himself, he would never have said the fall of Lehman Brothers could help clean up American businesses, which costed him much support in the Wall Street.

However, Bush would not have favoured a geen policy like Gore, and the United States surely would not have re-ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Gore was arguably the first US President to pay real attention to the threats of global warming, and the first president to acknowledge that the United States has relied too much on oil. The most significant acheivement of President Gore, rather than stabilizing Afghanistan, would be his energy and environmental policies, which would even be continued by President McCain.

I would have to agree with you on that.

It was gore's soft hand that stabilized Afghanistan*but saw Iraq spiral out of control* and have his economic policies implemented.

We might see something different during the recession though as to who gets hit. The Big 3 Automakers would likely be in trouble if the government hadn't already stepped in using Liberum Veto style regulations to force changes to fuel efficient vehicles. Ironically the recession probably saved the Big 3 due to the fact that *under McCain admittedly* the government offered rebates in the form of tax breaks to the companies to sell hybrids for cheaper, and people also got a tax break. We all know what happened during hybrid-mania; everybody needs to get a hybrid. This combined with the dropping of gas prices during the recession ironically saved the Big 3.

Now imagine the complete reversal.
 
Top