Gore-Edwards '00?

As it says on the tin. According to both the Genocide and Game Change, Edwards was shortlisted in '00. So let's say Gore picks him. How does that affect things in '04 and '08 assuming Gore loses and the Bush presidency proceeds along roughly OTL lines?
 

Penelope

Banned
Assuming Gore loses?

Edwards runs and wins the nomination in 2004, loses to Bush. Obama may or may not get to speak at the DNC, but I'd guess that he'd still end up in his Senate seat. So perhaps a Clinton Presidency right now.

EDIT: On Election 2000, perhaps Gore wins NC and loses a midwestern state?
 
There's another scenario.

Gore wins, but loses to McCain in 2004 (Dem fatigue), while McCain looks vulnerable in '08 due to the housing crisis. I still can't see Edwards elected POTUS, because his character guarantees that some sort of sex scandal will emerge.
 
Assuming Gore loses?

Edwards runs and wins the nomination in 2004, loses to Bush. Obama may or may not get to speak at the DNC, but I'd guess that he'd still end up in his Senate seat. So perhaps a Clinton Presidency right now.

EDIT: On Election 2000, perhaps Gore wins NC and loses a midwestern state?

The 2 closest Midwestern states are WI (0.22%) and IA (0.31%). If Gore wins NC while losing WI, he wins 270-268. For IA it would be 272-266. In order for Bush to win while losing NC he has to carry a mixture of IA, NM and WI in addition to winning all his OTL states.
 
EDIT: On Election 2000, perhaps Gore wins NC and loses a midwestern state?

Gore lost NC in OTL by nearly thirteen points, Kerry had almost exactly the same result there with Edwards on the ticket. There's no way Gore is winning it.
 
There's another scenario.

Gore wins, but loses to McCain in 2004 (Dem fatigue), while McCain looks vulnerable in '08 due to the housing crisis. I still can't see Edwards elected POTUS, because his character guarantees that some sort of sex scandal will emerge.

Eh, I don't know. I read Game Change, and what I took away from that was that his ego didn't really start to explode until the '04 election. Him being Gore's running mate in '00 either makes that happen earlier, or perhaps Gore is able to take him under his wing and be a mentor to him, while keeping his ego in check. If it's the former, than maybe he gets so cocky he loses to Kerry as in OTL because he overestimates him, and Kerry puts someone else on the ticket. If it's the later, and Gore still loses, we could have President Edwards right now.
 
I don't know if Edwards can help Gote win, but if not Edwards helps his candidacy in 2004. I have always thought that Edwards would have done betterthan Kerry. it certainly would have inflated his ego and perhaps led to an earlier sex scandal.
 
Bush still wins, likely with the same states, though perhaps this makes Florida more decisive, or gives Bush a smaller state he lost in our timeline. Edwards may be from the South, but his voting record and rhetoric were more left-populist, so he might hurt Gore more than the somewhat right-leaning/neoconservative Lieberman did. As for 2004, well, that's a whole different story, with or without the butterfly net.
 
Bush still wins, likely with the same states, though perhaps this makes Florida more decisive, or gives Bush a smaller state he lost in our timeline. Edwards may be from the South, but his voting record and rhetoric were more left-populist, so he might hurt Gore more than the somewhat right-leaning/neoconservative Lieberman did. As for 2004, well, that's a whole different story, with or without the butterfly net.

According to GC Edwards' rhetoric was more centrist in 2004, even if he voted along the lines you mentioned. In that respect reminding me of Hillary in '08.

States: so do either Iowa, Wisconsin or New Mexico flip to Bush with Edwards on the Dem ticket?
 
According to GC Edwards' rhetoric was more centrist in 2004, even if he voted along the lines you mentioned. In that respect reminding me of Hillary in '08.

States: so do either Iowa, Wisconsin or New Mexico flip to Bush with Edwards on the Dem ticket?

2004 was when he offered the "Two Americas" speech, wasn't it?
 
So GC was wrong there. What about IA, WI or NM flipping to Bush?

I don't know. However, as I recall (I may be wrong) Gore announced his running mate before Bush did, so perhaps the butterflies the Cheney selection.

That said, I actually think that this situation could set Edwards up as the opponent to Bush in 2004 since the former will retain his senate seat in this timeline until atleast 2004 if Gore does lose.
 
I don't know. However, as I recall (I may be wrong) Gore announced his running mate before Bush did, so perhaps the butterflies the Cheney selection.

That said, I actually think that this situation could set Edwards up as the opponent to Bush in 2004 since the former will retain his senate seat in this timeline until atleast 2004 if Gore does lose.

I guess NC doesn't have an LBJ law. If Kerry doesn't have that staff shakeup in late '03 he probably bombs and drops out, while Dean can implode as per OTL. Lieberman is too conservative for the Dem base. I can only imagine how much *fun* Bush's team is going to have with Edwards' thin resume and minimal Senate attendance, among other things. Edwards loses in '04, which probably puts him out of '08 contention since he lost in the GE.
 
I guess NC doesn't have an LBJ law. If Kerry doesn't have that staff shakeup in late '03 he probably bombs and drops out, while Dean can implode as per OTL. Lieberman is too conservative for the Dem base. I can only imagine how much *fun* Bush's team is going to have with Edwards' thin resume and minimal Senate attendance, among other things. Edwards loses in '04, which probably puts him out of '08 contention since he lost in the GE.

I think that Edwards likely loses in 2004, but here it's by no means guaranteed. He'll have a much higher public profile a few years earlier, for one.

Also, Edwards was not up for SEnate election in 2000. I just checked.
 
Bush still wins,

A pretty big assumption to make, considering a fart in a lift in Houston in September could have probably changed that election through butterflies. Edwards was an unknown at this point, I'm pretty sure he didn't develop his true populist guise until he became a presidential candidate, but considering Gore ran as a populist during that campaign (at least in part) it's not going to hurt the ticket if he is.

A lot here would depend on how Edwards performs in the debates against Cheney. If he bombs, then Gore is going to get a lot of stick. Gore is so presidential himself in terms of FP experience I don't think it matters too much if Edwards just floats it though, and the same for the inevitable criticsms of Edwards being a new boy Senator. He's there only to do what Lieberman did IOTL, which is to provide a squeaky-clean New Democrat who distances Gore from Clinton. In Edwards' case that is bolstered by him being 'fresh'.

Assuming he does OK, would two southerners being on the ticket pick up enough votes in Florida to balance whatever Lieberman being on the picked up, and then a few hundred more? Who knows.

Assuming a loss, Edwards will probably be playing it very conservatively up to 2004 as the probable front-runner. Which means he still votes for the Iraq War ITTL, and cue opening for Howard Dean. The big question leading on from this, though, is whether Edwards gets Gore's endorsement as his former running mate. If he does, then that's a big plus for Edwards, make no bones about it. (Before any smart ass brings up his endorsement of Dean in OTL, I'd point out that Dean's candidacy was largely a bubble anyway IMO, and in so far as it wasn't it was crippled for reasons other than Al Gore; Edwards is coming from a different position ITTL as an establishment candidate, and as such Gore's status with the left of the party which he picked up after 2000 would be a big boon to his candidacy.)
 
Last edited:
Top