Gore wins in 2000, McCain the Republican challenger in 2004...

Thande

Donor
If the mods think this is too recent politically they can move it to PolChat.

Odd thought I had: if Gore won in 2000, it seems pretty likely that McCain would be a frontrunner in 2004. Besides the Republicans' habit of nominating last time's runner-up, if 9/11 and Afghanistan still happen (though probably not Iraq) the Republicans might want to nominate a veteran to try and outflank the Democrats on defence.

However, McCain famously is good friends with Joe Lieberman and even reportedly wanted him as his VP candidate in 2008. So if McCain is the Republican candidate in 2004 (and presumably Lieberman is renominated as Democratic VP) how does this affect the tone of the campaign? Will it mean a more civilised atmosphere, or will it result in rather hollow attack ads?

Also who might McCain pick as his own VP candidate?
 

President

Banned
If the mods think this is too recent politically they can move it to PolChat.

Odd thought I had: if Gore won in 2000, it seems pretty likely that McCain would be a frontrunner in 2004. Besides the Republicans' habit of nominating last time's runner-up, if 9/11 and Afghanistan still happen (though probably not Iraq) the Republicans might want to nominate a veteran to try and outflank the Democrats on defence.

However, McCain famously is good friends with Joe Lieberman and even reportedly wanted him as his VP candidate in 2008. So if McCain is the Republican candidate in 2004 (and presumably Lieberman is renominated as Democratic VP) how does this affect the tone of the campaign? Will it mean a more civilised atmosphere, or will it result in rather hollow attack ads?

Also who might McCain pick as his own VP candidate?

McCain would pick a fellow hawk, maybe Lindsey Graham.
 
If the mods think this is too recent politically they can move it to PolChat.

Odd thought I had: if Gore won in 2000, it seems pretty likely that McCain would be a frontrunner in 2004. Besides the Republicans' habit of nominating last time's runner-up, if 9/11 and Afghanistan still happen (though probably not Iraq) the Republicans might want to nominate a veteran to try and outflank the Democrats on defence.

However, McCain famously is good friends with Joe Lieberman and even reportedly wanted him as his VP candidate in 2008. So if McCain is the Republican candidate in 2004 (and presumably Lieberman is renominated as Democratic VP) how does this affect the tone of the campaign? Will it mean a more civilised atmosphere, or will it result in rather hollow attack ads?

Also who might McCain pick as his own VP candidate?

'Tis an interesting idea, and I have no idea who his Veep candidate would be. Newt, perhaps?
 
If 9/11 happens Gore gets the positive of the terrorism issue without the negative of the Iraq issue. He probably can get healthcare reform passed.
 
A lot of this depends on how Gore acts between 2001-2003 or so. Given the previous administrations actions and attitudes regarding Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised if Gore invades Iraq. And some action in Afghanistan, of a more drastic nature than what occurred under Clinton, is almost an inevitability. I'm not sure that Gore's foreign policy will be a complete replication of Bush's, but there's going to be some distinct similarities.

Now, politically, Gore is in a weaker position than Bush. If the 2000 campaign provides an indication of how well the political side of the Gore Presidency would be run, Gore's in trouble. Sure in the days weeks and even months after 9/11, Gore's going to have a very high approval rating, but that's going to wear off. Come the elections in 2002, I'd expect the Republicans to implicitly blame President Gore for 9/11, and argue that he isn't doing enough to ensure that the tragedy never happens again. In the first part of what I think the Republican anti-Gore argument is going to be, I'm not talking conspiracy theories finding popularity, though such thoughts will find an audience. I mean that if the same circumstances, the same comedy of errors, leads to 9/11, the Republicans are going to be less shy about accusing the President of fatal incompetence. Also, the conservative call that 9/11 can be blamed on Clinton's alleged poor response to Bin Laden in the 1990's, will here be directly attached to a criticism of President Gore. The Democrats, unfortunately, aren't going to be as successful in exploiting the rally around the flag effect. In the second part, I believe that the Republicans will make this argument regardless of what Gore actually does. So, the Democrats aren't going to regain control of congress in 2002, so it's hard to see Gore having much success in terms of legislation. Also, I half expect campaign finance to be a bigger issue under President Gore than under President Bush, from what I remember of 2000.

So McCain is the nominee, and his argument against the President would probably be exactly what I've suggested the conservative attitude towards Gore generally is, however, McCain is going to be more subtle about it. Since McCain doesn't have a guaranteed running mate, all things equal, I think this might be the one time Giuliani can end up on the ticket. Sure, under normal circumstances he'd never be acceptable to the base, but in 2004, I think the Republican base would more than be willing to accept "America's Mayor" on the ticket, particularly if he's on the Vice Presidential end of the ticket. This probably depends on how relations are between McCain and the former Mayor of New York. I know, from a conservative perspective such a ticket seems unacceptable, but in the climate that would exist here, it just might happen.

The campaign that follows is going to be very different from the 2004 that actually happened. For one thing, Karl Rove isn't involved. Which probably means no conservative exploitation of opposition to Gay Marriage to bolster the Republican ticket. But Gore's campaign needs an overhaul from 2000, and it's hard to see that happening.
 
OTOH, should they get Bin Laden at Tora Bora (dead or alive, probably dead), that would help a lot, particularly in 2002.

And I don't agree that Gore would have gone into Iraq. Most likely he would have continued Clinton's policy of a no-fly zone, seasoned with the occasional air strike. It was Bush and his neo-con cohorts who had a hard-on about going into Iraq, not Clinton and Gore.

And if McCain is as bad in picking a running mate in TTL's 2004 as he was in OTL's 2008...:D
 
If 9/11 happens Gore gets the positive of the terrorism issue without the negative of the Iraq issue. He probably can get healthcare reform passed.

Republican congress.... so that's out (healthcare)

Gore doesn't necessarily butterfly away Iraq, the Clinton administration (Gore included) and the DLC/3rd way dems where itching to go into Iraq since 1996

9/11 can give gore a fair amount of recrimination... W could at least point to the fact that he had only been in office 7 months and that he was still in the process of filling many national security vacancies; whereas gore is tied to the previous 8 years of government which included the 93 twin towers bombing and the USS Cole bombing, which could make the act itself stick to him more than it did to W in otl... ie there have been multiple acts why have you and your people never beefed up security or taken Bin Laden and his crew more seriously etc

I would rate his chances of being able to parlay 9/11 as effectively as W as less than 50/50
 
2004 McCain VP options

Good WI / OP
On the topic of the VP Slot on 2004 McCain ticket vs incumb. POTUS Gore...

I see Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania (PA Gov 1995–2003 in this timeline). Many benefits to Ridge on the ticket.

McCain will be drawn to a Governor as VP not other [ex-/ current]Senators. I do not deny McCain will strongly consider others: a L Graham et el [to shore up conservate wing] --or-- a Jack Danforth [a moderate with bipartisan record from a swing state]

I think the pro's of Ridge must include locking in PA's 21 electoral votes for McCain. Otherwise they go to Gore and Dems.

Another possible choice ...former Gov JEB Bush... is out given the bad blood between GW Bush & McCain.
 
Last edited:
Good WI / OP
On the topic of the VP Slot on 2004 McCain ticket vs incumb. POTUS Gore...

I see Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania (PA Gov 1995–2003 in this timeline). Many benefits to Ridge on the ticket.

McCain will be drawn to a Governor as VP not other [ex-/ current]Senators. I do not deny McCain will strongly consider others: a L Graham et el [to shore up conservate wing] --or-- a Jack Danforth [a moderate with bipartisan record from a swing state]

I think the pro's of Ridge must include locking in PA's 21 electoral votes for McCain. Otherwise they go to Gore and Dems.

Another possible choice ...former Gov JEB Bush... is out given the bad blood between GW Bush & McCain.

McCain would have to have a conservative veep candidate since the GOP would probably be really skeptical of him at this point ITTL (just like it was in 2008 in OTL). That means Danforth is out. I could see it go down to either Graham or Ridge, with Ridge being the odds-on favorite since Ridge is a governor (which seems to be more attractive to voters than senators or congressmen).
 

bguy

Donor
McCain would have to have a conservative veep candidate since the GOP would probably be really skeptical of him at this point ITTL (just like it was in 2008 in OTL). That means Danforth is out. I could see it go down to either Graham or Ridge, with Ridge being the odds-on favorite since Ridge is a governor (which seems to be more attractive to voters than senators or congressmen).

Ridge is pro-choice. It would kill McCain's support among social conservatives to pick him. And Graham hasn't even been in the Senate for 2 years at this point. It's difficult to see him really adding anything to the ticket.

Jeb Bush really makes the most sense. A popular, successful conservative governor from a vital state that can win Latino votes and will bring the Bush wing of the party onboard. Though like KG Cagey said, the bad blood between the Bush Family and McCain might make such a ticket impossible.

Otherwise what about Bill Frist for Veep? He was a rising star in the GOP at this time, is socially conservative enough to satisfy the socons, helps nail down Tennessee for the ticket, and his medical background will help the campaign on health care issues. (An issue that will certainly be a big part of the election, especially if the Republican Congress blocked all of Gore's health care proposals.)
 
Ridge is pro-choice. It would kill McCain's support among social conservatives to pick him. And Graham hasn't even been in the Senate for 2 years at this point. It's difficult to see him really adding anything to the ticket.

Ridge would add quite a bit of foreign policy gravitas to the ticket to supplement McCain, though. Two Vietnam vets against Gore & Lieberman would really push the military angle in the ATL 2004 election against Gore (who is a Vietnam vet also, but non-combat).

But as for socons, that's kinda tricky. Ridge may be pro-choice, but McCain isn't. And I think that's the only issue where Ridge would differ greatly from their agenda, so IDK if they would factor in that to McCain's picking of him.

Jeb Bush really makes the most sense. A popular, successful conservative governor from a vital state that can win Latino votes and will bring the Bush wing of the party onboard. Though like KG Cagey said, the bad blood between the Bush Family and McCain might make such a ticket impossible.

Not really. That would make it appear as if the GOP were a Bush dynasty & that Jeb got the nod due to Dubya's supporters and nothing else.

Otherwise what about Bill Frist for Veep? He was a rising star in the GOP at this time, is socially conservative enough to satisfy the socons, helps nail down Tennessee for the ticket, and his medical background will help the campaign on health care issues. (An issue that will certainly be a big part of the election, especially if the Republican Congress blocked all of Gore's health care proposals.)

I think we found a winner!:D
 
I always wonder who McCain's running mate would be if he won the nomination and election in 2000. I also wonder who would be in his cabinet if he won in 2000.
 
I can see Bush running again in 2004. He can run saying 911 would not have happened on his watch. He can even pick Cheney to run with him again, saying that this guy knows what he is talking about when it comes to National defense. Yes It is hard to get re nominated. Dewey did it twice. So did Stevenson. HHH almost did it. The hard core GOP did not want McCain in 2000 or 2008. They would take the chance with Bush part two.
 
I can see Bush running again in 2004. He can run saying 911 would not have happened on his watch. He can even pick Cheney to run with him again, saying that this guy knows what he is talking about when it comes to National defense. Yes It is hard to get re nominated. Dewey did it twice. So did Stevenson. HHH almost did it. The hard core GOP did not want McCain in 2000 or 2008. They would take the chance with Bush part two.

The likelihood of Bush running again in '04 after losing in 2000 is between zip and zilch. The chances of him winning re-nomination in '04 are between zilch and zero.
 
Well it seems to me that given McCain's struggle to get the nomination in 2008, he'd probably lack a clear path to locking it up in '04 as well. This is even more true without 9/11 to make national security an issue that McCain can exploit with Republicans. He's just not going to have the establishment support.

Now, I like Frist as a bottom of the ticket name, but suppose he's the Conservative Republican in the race. (This is likely as people expected Frist to run in 2008 after his resignation from the senate in '06.) If McCain has to fight down to the wire for the nomination then what are the chances that he is going to pick his chief opponent in the race, especially if he's not bringing a whole heck of a lot to the table.

I think McCain is going to be forced to look to the right at someone who can get and keep his base fired up going into the fall. And if he's looking for someone who has executive experience and has proven himself to be a winner against entrenched Democrats (and if we want to keep his OTL choice of a gaffe-prone candidate) then he should be looking strongly at George Allen. Allen is 52 in 2004 so brings some youth to the ticket and has experience inside Washington and out and is pretty popular in his home state. He also shores up the Conservative vote for the party. Hard to go wrong (at first blush) with this candidate.
 
Top