Gore instead of Clinton

Let's say Clinton dies around late '92-early '93, in a way that doesn't have severe political ramifications (a heart attack or car crash...maybe Gennifer Flowers has a bad day). Gore takes over as President. Specific questions I'm interested in:
1) Can he get Healthcare passed?
2) Will he pursue any different foreign policies?
3) Can he get any significant environmental legislation passed? I feel like this is probably going to be the biggest difference.
4) Is the Gingrich/Buchanan wing of the GOP going to have as much influence as OTL? Is there still going to be a "Culture War"?
5) Where/when is Hillary going to strike out and try to get in office in her own right?
6) Does Gore win reelection in '96?
 
Last edited:
Is it fair to describe Gingrich and Buchanan as comprising the same branch of the Republican Party? Sure, both could broadly be described as right-wing populists, but they supported some very different policies on several issues, and most importantly, as House Minority Leader and then Speaker, Gingrich was effectively the Republican establishment for a while.

Anyway, at the very least, Gore would probably provide much less fodder for the GOP, Limbaugh, Drudge and the rest in the way of personal scandal...
 
2)If the cabinet shuffles, yes, if not no. Maybe he's alot more insular than Clinton but broad strokes would be the same.
3) Sure, especially if he plays his cards right. Even if the oil industry gets uppity, America and the world would be alot further along in terms of renewables and alternative energies, as these policies are being pushed from the top. If possible he could harness the CFC ban momentum into other areas, but I doubt he
5) yes to culture war because the republicans are going to sledge the democrats on everything they do in any way they can,
6) Sure if he delivers economic growth like Clinton
 
The death of a POTUS isn't an event that happens in a vacuum, especially in an era of 24/7 cable news. There'd be an outpouring of support for Clinton and a revision of his reputation that would paint him in a more positive light - and he was viewed pretty positively as it was. Some of the GOP's central attacks in '94 - that Clinton "betrayed his promise to govern as a 'New Democrat' b/c of tax increases and the assault weapons ban - would be at least partially viewed as inappropriate & it'd take the steam out of those attacks. However...

...I've been dealing with this in my own timeline somewhat, but the basic math of the '94 election is fairly difficult to adjust: Republican House gains were concentrated heavily in the southern seats that had been trending away from the Dems for a generation. Some of these seats are probably just done with a Democrat in the White House, but others are probably salvageable for a time. Either way, the real contest here is going to be between the goodwill for Clinton's administration and the general trendline away from the Democrats at the Congressional level in the early 90s, at least partly due to events that would've happened before your POD here.

As for Gingrich and Rs driving a "culture war," yes, that still happens. There are too many external factors already at play by the 1990s to change that: we're now well past the Moral Majority years and Phyllis Schlafly and well into the era of right wing talk radio. That's creating a market for politicians like Gingrich et. al. regardless of what Democrats do.
 
Gore loses massively to Dole or some other establishment republican in 1996 due to being uncharismatic af. Not even a booming economy would get him able to win reelection.
 
Gore loses massively to Dole or some other establishment republican in 1996 due to being uncharismatic af. Not even a booming economy would get him able to win reelection.
This premise is ridiculous. Gore very nearly won in 2000 (and would have save for confusing balloting, hanging chads, and other minor irregularities), after a scandalous, rather unpopular second term from Clinton. You think he couldn’t win a re-election in 96 against Bob Dole after an economic turnaround?
 
This premise is ridiculous. Gore very nearly won in 2000 (and would have save for confusing balloting, hanging chads, and other minor irregularities), after a scandalous, rather unpopular second term from Clinton. You think he couldn’t win a re-election in 96 against Bob Dole after an economic turnaround?
Not really. He only broke 200 electoral votes and got so close due to lewinsky scandal causing dems to turn out as payback, bush's DUI coming out right before the election, the GOP deciding to nominate someone particularly socially conservative all happening in OTL.

If he couldn't win with almost everything breaking in his favor OTL, I'm not inclined to think he can win otherwise. Succeeding someone who dies is imo the only plausible way for gore to become POTUS.
 
Not really. He only broke 200 electoral votes and got so close due to lewinsky scandal causing dems to turn out as payback, bush's DUI coming out right before the election, the GOP deciding to nominate someone particularly socially conservative all happening in OTL.

If he couldn't win with almost everything breaking in his favor OTL, I'm not inclined to think he can win otherwise. Succeeding someone who dies is imo the only plausible way for gore to become POTUS.
Ever heard of Elian Gonzalez? The internet comment backlash? A decent showing for Nader? A significantly more left leaning primary challenge from Bradley? I think the idea that everything broke Gore’s way is preposterous. Ans the notion that Gore got most of his votes as Clinton backlash is just false, he kept Clinton out of the limelight and rebuked him a few times (the DNC kiss, choosing Lieberman), probably costing him a decent amount of votes. And he very nearly was POTUS in OTL, so saying Clinton dying is the only plausible way he becomes POTUS is just wrong.
 
Not really. He only broke 200 electoral votes and got so close due to lewinsky scandal causing dems to turn out as payback, bush's DUI coming out right before the election, the GOP deciding to nominate someone particularly socially conservative all happening in OTL.

If he couldn't win with almost everything breaking in his favor OTL, I'm not inclined to think he can win otherwise. Succeeding someone who dies is imo the only plausible way for gore to become POTUS.
Hard disagree. If nominated for whatever reason in 1992 he would have won. If incumbent in 1996 assuming the economy did as well as in Clinton's tenure he would have won. Margins wouldn't be as big as Clinton I'd bet, but he would be a much better figure for Dems to rally around then Slick Willie so long term probably a healthier party.
In 2000 not everything was going for him and it feels like a very strange read of that election to say that. There were enough fires he had to fight during the campaign to keep him busy, to say nothing of the fact he was seeking a third term for a party which historically is an uphill struggle anyway.
I've also heard it said Gore of the early '90s was a better campaigner than Gore of 2000 but I couldn't corroborate that myself.
 
1) Can he get Healthcare passed?
2) Will he pursue any different foreign policies?
3) Can he get any significant environmental legislation passed? I feel like this is probably going to be the biggest difference.
4) Is the Gingrich/Buchanan wing of the GOP going to have as much influence as OTL? Is there still going to be a "Culture War"?
5) Where/when is Hillary going to strike out and try to get in office in her own right?
6) Does Gore win reelection in '96?

1) Nobody can. We've had presidents trying since Teddy Roosevelt and we still don't have it.

2) Unlikely. He was part of the DLC so he's likely to support the same trade policies. The State Department careerists have more influence over foreign policy than the President. That's why Governor Clinton wanted to be tougher on Chona and President inton supported their WTO membership. Or Governor Bush called for a humble, noninterventionist foreign policy and President Bush launched a regime change war in Iraq.

3) Agree that this is his best shot. If he makes it his top priority he should be able to get something. Clinton got his wconomic package and the crime bill.

4) Culture war never really goes away. Unlikely to be different here.

5) Widow of a young President cut down in his prime. Definitely a launching point for a new Camelot. Not sure Arkansas would be the vest launching point. But she might be able to return to Illinois and win Durbin's OTL seat in 1996.

6) Probably. Hard to beat an incumbent if you have peace and prosperity. One caveat is if he puts his political capital into an environmental bill it might butterfly or significantly alter the 1993 stimulus bill, and the 1996 economy might be mediocre as a result.
 
Top