Decision Points: The Presidency of Al Gore

... At 2:30, the Vice-President of the United States called the Governor of Texas to concede. A half-an-hour later, he made his way to the War Memorial Plaza in Nashville to publically admit that George Bush, not Al Gore, would be the next President of the United States.

But something was wrong. In Gore campaign headquarters, staffers noticed that Bush’s lead was rapidly shrinking. Just as Gore’s lead had shrunk at the results flowed in, so too did Bush’s. Florida was still too close to call, especially with the election on the line. Panicked, the Gore campaign staffers scrambled to get a hold of their candidate. Just as the Vice-President made his way to the podium, he was stopped and told what was happening. Gore, never one to admit he was wrong, picked up the phone and called George Bush. The race wasn’t over, and Al Gore was going to fight to keep it that way.

Does anyone know the actual legalities of conceding an election and then retracting that concession? :confused:
 
Does anyone know the actual legalities of conceding an election and then retracting that concession? :confused:
There aren't any. Conceding is not quite just PR, but close. A concession means you're not going to fight tooth and nail for recounts, for instance.

Suppose Joe Blow sees the initial counts, and concedes. Then results from all the rural polls come in, say, and he wins in a landslide. Did the concession mean anything? No. The constitution is clear on what constitutes a federal election win - and that's votes in the electoral college and nothing else.

Theoretically, Joe Blow can win that (legitimately, in a 2 person race) with less than 25% of the popular vote, and after having conceded and sailed to the Riviera on vacation (with or without his mistress). He will still have won.
 
Okay, now onto the Gore presidency. Hcallega, think it's possible that the CAPPS system be strengthened, so that most of the hijackers on 9/11 are permitted from boarding the plane, save for the ones on United 175 which didn't cause any warnings, thereby lessening the impact of 9/11. Don't believe that we should copy Greenfield's scenario of events leading up to 9/11 and the actual event itself. Since Greenfield was writing his own story, you should try to make a realistic depiction of what Gore would've done. In Take it Back, by James Carvile and Paul Begala, the authors lay out a Gore response to 9/11, preventing the attacks.
 
And also: Gore almost certainly names Richard Clarke to be director of the NSA (or at minimum, doesn't marginalize him) -- you know, the guy who wrote the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US" that Condoleeza Rice threw in the trash?
 
Senator Jim Jeffords of New Hampshire may still leave the GOP and caucus with the Democrats as he did IOTL. That would give the Democrats a 51-49 vote majority, but after the recount I doubt the Republicans are going to be in the mood to play ball when it comes to passing any of Gore's more significant legislation. It'll be interesting to see how that develops as both hands are going to want to do some creative things with the surplus.

What? No. In IOTL, at the time of Bush's election, the Senate was 50-50. For 17 days, the Democrats had the majority, due to Gore's tiebreaker as VP/President of the Senate. When Cheney took over as Veep, the Republicans were given the tiebreaker, and due to the deal that Trent Lott and Tom Daschle worked out (and the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian), the majority role. Jeffords switched parties in May of 2001, after being granted a committee chairmanship, which gave the Dems the 51-49 majority.

Now, ITTL, since Lieberman will be departing the Senate, that vacancy will have to be filled, and the Governor of Connecticut at the time was John G. Rowland, a Republican, who will fill the vacancy with another Republican (Some states, like Arizona, require that the Governor appoint a Senator from the same political party as the one who is resigning/dead/expelled to fill the seat, but I've seen no indication that Connecticut is one of those), which gives the GOP a 51-49 seat majority in the Senate.

It's not out of the question that Jeffords switches parties, but there would have to be a big reason for him to do so, and all it would do would provide the Democrats with a 50-50 tie (Which they would win due to Lieberman's tiebreaker, but that's neither here nor there).


hcallega: Are you going to focus on some of the personal aspects of Gore's administration, or will it all be big-picture, policy and politics?
 
Senator Jim Jeffords of New Hampshire may still leave the GOP and caucus with the Democrats as he did IOTL. That would give the Democrats a 51-49 vote majority, but after the recount I doubt the Republicans are going to be in the mood to play ball when it comes to passing any of Gore's more significant legislation. It'll be interesting to see how that develops as both hands are going to want to do some creative things with the surplus.

Hc, I loved the subtle POD, of the Recount Team asking for a statewide recount from the get go. You had Gore win by 107 votes, is that the number from the full recount IOTL? I remember reading somewhere that there had been a private commission in OTL that did the full recount, and it showed that gore had indeed won. But I cant think of the source at the moment.

Quick correction - Jim Jeffords was from Vermont.
 
And also: Gore almost certainly names Richard Clarke to be director of the NSA (or at minimum, doesn't marginalize him) -- you know, the guy who wrote the memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US" that Condoleeza Rice threw in the trash?

which improves what exactly; clark was a stool pigeon and a glory hound

what actionable intel even made it to an agency head let alone someone with decision making authority in the executive branch;

9/11 getting stopped just by the virtue of gore being president is the biggest, most irritating cliche of this site and revisionist liberals

the fbi and cia had horrible interagency and cross agency communication throughout the clinton era, and considering much of the national security aparatus would carry over if gore won, why the hell would it possibly improve in any measurable way within 8 months

the fbi and cia didn't have enough dots to connect them even if magic Gore told them to starting connecting dots for all terrorist activities with tripple their otl resources and manpower on jan 20 2001

9/11 was a very thoroughly planned, highly compartmentalized operation, constructed in rigid secrecy, just because the fat hypocrite is in the white house doesn't magically change shit
 
From my research Governor Rowland would either appoint himself as Senator or possibly appoint Lieberman's opponent in 2000, Philip Giordano. I'm not sure on who would become Senator.
 
which improves what exactly; clark was a stool pigeon and a glory hound

what actionable intel even made it to an agency head let alone someone with decision making authority in the executive branch;

9/11 getting stopped just by the virtue of gore being president is the biggest, most irritating cliche of this site and revisionist liberals

the fbi and cia had horrible interagency and cross agency communication throughout the clinton era, and considering much of the national security aparatus would carry over if gore won, why the hell would it possibly improve in any measurable way within 8 months

the fbi and cia didn't have enough dots to connect them even if magic Gore told them to starting connecting dots for all terrorist activities with tripple their otl resources and manpower on jan 20 2001

9/11 was a very thoroughly planned, highly compartmentalized operation, constructed in rigid secrecy, just because the fat hypocrite is in the white house doesn't magically change shit

A lot of frustration here. But automatically, you lose points for that "liberal revisionist" line, since you call yourself a right-wing apologist. I know it's not the same thing, but you're getting all worked up for no reason.

And he didn't say it would've been prevented, he said Clarke wouldn't have been marginalized. Big difference. "Fat hypocrite"? That's funny for some reason. Not sure why, but it makes me chuckle.
 
I'm going to give this one go, since this is pretty heavy on the rhetoric and light on actual argumentation:

which improves what exactly; clark was a stool pigeon and a glory hound

That's not an argument (and also, I think you need to look up what the phrase "stool pigeon" actually means, since even as an insult it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context). Here are some actual facts:

1) Richard Clarke, prior to 2001, was a registered Republican. (I don't know if he's since changed his party affiliation.) He was an intern for Richard Nixon, and was appointed to his first job in the Defense Department by Ronald Reagan. He then served under Reagan and the first President Bush before being kept on by Bill Clinton. Not exactly the resume of a wild-eyed lefty.

2) It's a documented fact that Clarke was obsessed with Al-Qaeda as a potential threat under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Now you might have argued that Clarke was so vociferous in his warnings about Al Qaeda that he would have been tuned out by President Gore as well -- I don't think that's true, mind you, but it's at least an argument that one might have made.

what actionable intel even made it to an agency head let alone someone with decision making authority in the executive branch;

Well, IOTL, none because Clarke's memo -- you know, the one entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- was dismissed by Bush's national security team. I think we all know how well that turned out. My argument is that Clarke wouldn't have been marginalized by a President Gore, so, you know, more intel might have actually made it to the executive branch. I might suggest reading the 9/11 Commission Report as a starting point.

9/11 getting stopped just by the virtue of gore being president is the biggest, most irritating cliche of this site and revisionist liberals

Not my argument.

the fbi and cia had horrible interagency and cross agency communication throughout the clinton era, and considering much of the national security aparatus would carry over if gore won, why the hell would it possibly improve in any measurable way within 8 months

Well, one measurable way would be that Clarke wouldn't have been marginalized....

the fbi and cia didn't have enough dots to connect them even if magic Gore told them to starting connecting dots for all terrorist activities with tripple their otl resources and manpower on jan 20 2001

That's a nifty argument. Do you have any facts to support it? (Also, FWIW, it's spelled 'triple.')

9/11 was a very thoroughly planned, highly compartmentalized operation, constructed in rigid secrecy,

It's also an incredibly unlikely operation to pull off. Note that IOTL, one-fourth of 9/11 was essentially stopped by one dude in the men's room, so, you know, it's not particularly far-fetched to think that the entire U.S. Government might have stopped the other three-fourths.

just because the fat hypocrite is in the white house doesn't magically change shit.

Oooh, fat! That's a good one. :rolleyes: Hint: you'd better get all those fat jokes out now before next Wednesday, when Chris Christie's 2016 campaign starts in earnest.
 
How much longer until hcallega's next update? I'm wondering what is other cabinet choices are, besides Holbrooke for State and Nunn for Defense. Also, will the races in the Senate and House be affected?
 
As a left-winger and nominal Democrat in most races, I can say with confidence I think the idea of 9/11 being avoided because Gore was president is nonsense. Bush was a proper hawk and it has always been Republicans who backed more intensive "security" measures. I really really doubt there's any chance of avoiding it unless by sheer luck. However, I think the idea of no 9/11 would make a good TL in it's on right.

Personally I'd be interested to see how this impacts the Green Party. Without having arguably thrown the election to Bush, the biggest argument against them is gone. Furthermore, if we assume 9/11 happens and Gore invades Afghanistan (though probably not Iraq) the Green Party, now with millions of supporters after the election, will get the opportunity to be sole opposing party. The same goes for many other issues. Although I doubt they evolve into a massive force, the emergence of the Green Party as a legitimate grassroots threat to the Democrats, likely capable of getting 5% in 2004 and possibly even winning seats in certain districts in '02/'04 and from there becoming a real (albeit I doubt ever near even 10%) electable party.
 
Personally I'd be interested to see how this impacts the Green Party. Without having arguably thrown the election to Bush, the biggest argument against them is gone.

Well, the "you're throwing your vote away" argument is still a pretty viable one ITTL. Personally, I think Nader's showing in 2000 (2.74%) was a very idiosyncratic high-water mark because Al Gore had ticked off enough conservative boxes over his career -- dating all the way back to the PMRC hearings in 1985 -- to permit some to argue, with a straight face, that "there's no real difference between Gore and Bush" in 2000. (Those people are typically very quiet nowadays.)

That being said, if Gore's first term looks like Clinton's second, this strikes me as potentially plausible.

Furthermore, if we assume 9/11 happens and Gore invades Afghanistan (though probably not Iraq) the Green Party, now with millions of supporters after the election, will get the opportunity to be sole opposing party.

Substitute "probably" for "definitely"; this is definitely interesting. Here's the opposing viewpoint: left-Democrats at the state and local level will still have a practical interest in opposing the war (perhaps even still Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama), and I think that will carry more cache than the criticisms of people who have never held elective office but identify with the Green Party.

The same goes for many other issues.

I can't think of too many discrete issues, other than the death penalty and gun control, where the Democratic Party has pretty much abandoned the left entirely. Even then, there are still major national figures (Chuck Schumer, Barbara Mikulski) who are prominent gun-control activists. So maybe it's just the death penalty. But see below.

Although I doubt they evolve into a massive force, the emergence of the Green Party as a legitimate grassroots threat to the Democrats, likely capable of getting 5% in 2004 and possibly even winning seats in certain districts in '02/'04 and from there becoming a real (albeit I doubt ever near even 10%) electable party.

Here's where I think the real opportunity on the left is: the growth of the religiously non-affiliated (i.e., the "nones"). With both major parties pandering exclusively to the religious -- and with the Green Party (where it's answered) earning an "A" from the Secular Coalition for America -- that strikes me as a potential growth area.
 
As a left-winger and nominal Democrat in most races, I can say with confidence I think the idea of 9/11 being avoided because Gore was president is nonsense. Bush was a proper hawk and it has always been Republicans who backed more intensive "security" measures. I really really doubt there's any chance of avoiding it unless by sheer luck. However, I think the idea of no 9/11 would make a good TL in it's on right.

Personally I'd be interested to see how this impacts the Green Party. Without having arguably thrown the election to Bush, the biggest argument against them is gone. Furthermore, if we assume 9/11 happens and Gore invades Afghanistan (though probably not Iraq) the Green Party, now with millions of supporters after the election, will get the opportunity to be sole opposing party. The same goes for many other issues. Although I doubt they evolve into a massive force, the emergence of the Green Party as a legitimate grassroots threat to the Democrats, likely capable of getting 5% in 2004 and possibly even winning seats in certain districts in '02/'04 and from there becoming a real (albeit I doubt ever near even 10%) electable party.

We could very well see Gonzalez win the San Francisco Mayoral race in 2003, possibly leading to the national rise of the Greens.
 
We could very well see Gonzalez win the San Francisco Mayoral race in 2003, possibly leading to the national rise of the Greens.

I don't feel a national rise is feasible. The point of view of the Greens is too limited. Overall there leaders and voters tend to be overwhelmingly middle class, white, academics or students. Breaking outside of that shell will always pose a massive difficulty for the movement. That said, in places such as California, Portland, and portions of New York and the east coast, they certainly could emerge as a force.

Their other big difficulty will always be their intrinsic love of nature. Because of this affinity they tend to move to more rural or scenic areas. However rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican and scenic areas tend to be expensive and wealthy areas are traditional averse to their social democratic planks.
 
I don't feel a national rise is feasible. The point of view of the Greens is too limited. Overall there leaders and voters tend to be overwhelmingly middle class, white, academics or students. Breaking outside of that shell will always pose a massive difficulty for the movement. That said, in places such as California, Portland, and portions of New York and the east coast, they certainly could emerge as a force.

Their other big difficulty will always be their intrinsic love of nature. Because of this affinity they tend to move to more rural or scenic areas. However rural areas are overwhelmingly Republican and scenic areas tend to be expensive and wealthy areas are traditional averse to their social democratic planks.

So, by 2012/2016 might we see the "greening" of the Republican Party? :D After all, President Gore's rhetoric is going to be much more pragmatic and centrist in TTL then it was during the same period in OTL.
 
So, by 2012/2016 might we see the "greening" of the Republican Party? :D After all, President Gore's rhetoric is going to be much more pragmatic and centrist in TTL then it was during the same period in OTL.

Agreed and to pretend that Gore was ever anything but a center-right politician is foolish. You compare him to FDR, essentially the symbol of the left, and Reagan, the same for the right, and he's much closer ideologically to the latter. That said I also don't think a "greener" Republican Party is that impossible. In Britain Cameron ran on a very green platform.
 
Top