Gore's Reelection

It is notoriously difficult for an incumbent party to get more than three terms in the United States. Had Gore won in 2000, what would his odds have been come 2004?

I have a strong feeling he'd face some sort of challenger from the left. If Nader's 2000 bid isn't blamed for Gore's loss, there'd likely be more voters willing to vote for a third-party candidate.

Who would the Republicans run against Gore? I don't think McCain is likely to get the nomination. George Allen maybe?

Does Gore keep Lieberman?
 
Well my thoughts are with 9/11, it’s not impossible. If Gore can be good on foreign policy, he could win. If the economy does decently, that will also help his case. I think as long as he avoids major scandals, does decent on foreign policy (maybe no Iraq War) and can keep the economy good during war time, he could do it.
 
What about Huckabee? Southerner, social conservative, and in a way, a successor to Bill Clinton by virtue of being Governor of Arkansas (he would’ve been in his second term as governor in 2004).
 
George Allen seems like a really strong candidate in this situation. IOTL, it was widely thought that he would be one of the early frontrunners in 2008, until he lost to Webb.

Hotline editor Chuck Todd coined the term "dark horse front-runner" to describe the Virginian. "Allen is W," said Todd, referring to Allen's tobacco-chewing charm, his appeal to religious conservatives and his tendency to be underestimated (misunderestimated?) by opponents. A possible fourth parallel can be found in this quote from an anonymous National Journal insider: "Wins more on style points than on candle wattage."

An Internet poll conducted last month by Patrick Ruffini, the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign webmaster, found Allen had strong support among online conservatives. Unscientific, yes. But so is the National Journal's sample. More important, Christian conservative leader Pat Robertson told ABC's George Stephanopoulos last Sunday that Allen was "a very attractive guy and could make a tremendous president."
/QUOTE]
 
Oh, they'll all be running. McCain, Huckabee, Allen, and probably half a dozen others (or more). Don't forget Pataki or Giuliani. If we're assuming a roughly similar 9/11 situation, one of them is certainly going to be on a ballot. True, the GOP has a primary system biased against moderates, but the whole point of 9/11 is that some things rise above partisanship. They're certainly top choices for the vice presidency, if not the top spot, especially Rudy.

Gore's got a fighting chance, for sure. Incumbents are hard to beat. People are rallying after 9/11. It's doubtful that the GOP will be able to make an effective anti-war narrative play with their base the way the Dems did IOTL.

But there are some things against him: unlike IOTL there's a clear narrative for the GOP on terrorism: "this is all the Democrats' fault." The setup came under Clinton/Gore, and the attack came under Gore himself. A lot of potential candidates will blow their chance to make hay of this by supporting the president at first- McCain will have problems, so will Allen, probably Pataki and maybe Giuliani. Huckabee probably comes out swinging hard as a guy who wasn't in congress when it all went down. Giuliani can possibly get out from under it by saying he only ever had time to focus on reacting. ITTL the GOP also has the advantage of (and pardon me for reducing this to pure politics) totally scapegoating Muslims. Bush, as president, as a person who needed to maintain alliances (and who honestly probably just had an ounce of character in this regard if I'm being charitable) couldn't just blame the Muslims. A GOP out of power looking to take it back in 2004 would likely have no compunction about going after Muslims.

I'd put the odds slightly in Gore's favor under these circumstances. Given an optimal GOP ticket like McCain/Giuliani he could lose pretty handily. Maybe a reverse of OTL's 3 million Bush win in 2004. But if conservatives subdue the moderates in the primaries and you get something like Huckabee/Kasich or even Allen/Huckabee, the edge is probably still with the incumbent. Say Gore by 2 million; closer than OTL but still solid.
 
If September 11 happens the Republicans will run on security and blame Gore.

If not I could propose and optimistic story.

He makes a big deal of ENRON.

Maybe stronger regulations of dubious corporate actions.

Super optimistic no recession crisis 07-8
 
Oh, they'll all be running. McCain, Huckabee, Allen, and probably half a dozen others (or more). Don't forget Pataki or Giuliani. If we're assuming a roughly similar 9/11 situation, one of them is certainly going to be on a ballot. True, the GOP has a primary system biased against moderates, but the whole point of 9/11 is that some things rise above partisanship. They're certainly top choices for the vice presidency, if not the top spot, especially Rudy.

Gore's got a fighting chance, for sure. Incumbents are hard to beat. People are rallying after 9/11. It's doubtful that the GOP will be able to make an effective anti-war narrative play with their base the way the Dems did IOTL.

But there are some things against him: unlike IOTL there's a clear narrative for the GOP on terrorism: "this is all the Democrats' fault." The setup came under Clinton/Gore, and the attack came under Gore himself. A lot of potential candidates will blow their chance to make hay of this by supporting the president at first- McCain will have problems, so will Allen, probably Pataki and maybe Giuliani. Huckabee probably comes out swinging hard as a guy who wasn't in congress when it all went down. Giuliani can possibly get out from under it by saying he only ever had time to focus on reacting. ITTL the GOP also has the advantage of (and pardon me for reducing this to pure politics) totally scapegoating Muslims. Bush, as president, as a person who needed to maintain alliances (and who honestly probably just had an ounce of character in this regard if I'm being charitable) couldn't just blame the Muslims. A GOP out of power looking to take it back in 2004 would likely have no compunction about going after Muslims.

I'd put the odds slightly in Gore's favor under these circumstances. Given an optimal GOP ticket like McCain/Giuliani he could lose pretty handily. Maybe a reverse of OTL's 3 million Bush win in 2004. But if conservatives subdue the moderates in the primaries and you get something like Huckabee/Kasich or even Allen/Huckabee, the edge is probably still with the incumbent. Say Gore by 2 million; closer than OTL but still solid.

Allen-Giuliani or Allen-Pataki seems like a plausible ticket. McCain didn't have good opponents in 2008 and in 2000 most of his momentum came from the field being pretty empty I think.

Pataki handled more of the 9/11 reconstruction than Giuliani did due to Rudy being term-limited. He also supported W in 2000, so there'd be some leadership support for him. I think Allen-Pataki would be a strong ticket.


If September 11 happens the Republicans will run on security and blame Gore.

If not I could propose and optimistic story.

He makes a big deal of ENRON.

Maybe stronger regulations of dubious corporate actions.

Super optimistic no recession crisis 07-8

The Housing Crisis was decades in the making. At best you might make 07-08 less bad without Dubya's SEC not taking its hands off the wheel.
 
Top