How would a president Al Gore react to 9/11?

My serious prediction was a biracial coalition, which would be positive for the country.

Coaition within the Democrats?

Another thing to consider would be how this would affect the Arab Spring. Especially on who would be at seat for 2008-2012. Now, given the success of Gore here, it'd likely be a Dem and probably not a centralist either. So what changes would this bring
 

Paul Large

Banned
Afghan invasion for sure and just as successful with extremely high popularity. No second attack on USA soil just like with Bush. Tons of national pride but better use of the political clout given to him by the public in terms of support. Bush wasted all his good will going to Iraq. Gore wouldn’t do that. Where the real path would of lead us speculative but I’m sure it would be individual based not nation wise. He would of got the Saudis out of the country same as Bush that’s just how that stuff goes. He would have a good war record to run on for second term but it would be tough. Americans have a tendency in getting rid of leaders after a war.
 
Coaition within the Democrats?

Another thing to consider would be how this would affect the Arab Spring. Especially on who would be at seat for 2008-2012. Now, given the success of Gore here, it'd likely be a Dem and probably not a centralist either. So what changes would this bring

Yes, in the South (and the North, but that's already OTL).

I think if Gore endorses a centrist candidate then a centrist would win, and a Ralph Nader type emerges and gets a good chunk of the Progressive vote (I think that the Democrats would choose some issues to be progressive on, and many neo-con types might even join the Democrats). I do think that the Republican party may hasten itself as the nationalistic party, as if the Democrats become the internationalist, free trade, centrist party that Bush desired the GOP to become (and Clinton the Democratic), many union workers would bolt to the GOP. Also, for the Latino vote, Democrats may decide to be specially progressive (also for the progressive vote) on illegal immigration. Democrats would be the party of centrism (with a sizable centre-left wing), the Green party be a bit larger than OTL (Maybe one to two Senators at most, they aren't gonna be Bull Moose scale), and the Republicans the party of right-wing nationalism (Trumpian if you will).
 
A President Gore probably would not have invaded Iraq, but if he selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate as in OTL, then he would have to contend with a VP who enthusiastically wanted to invade Iraq. I could see Vice President Lieberman challenging President Gore in the Democratic primaries in 2004 solely on the basis of a more aggressive foreign policy, although Lieberman would be extremely unlikely to depose Gore and would burn all of his bridges with the Democratic Party. Still, he could weaken Gore enough on foreign policy to allow a hawkish Republican to win in 2004.
 
Yes, in the South (and the North, but that's already OTL).

I think if Gore endorses a centrist candidate then a centrist would win, and a Ralph Nader type emerges and gets a good chunk of the Progressive vote (I think that the Democrats would choose some issues to be progressive on, and many neo-con types might even join the Democrats). I do think that the Republican party may hasten itself as the nationalistic party, as if the Democrats become the internationalist, free trade, centrist party that Bush desired the GOP to become (and Clinton the Democratic), many union workers would bolt to the GOP. Also, for the Latino vote, Democrats may decide to be specially progressive (also for the progressive vote) on illegal immigration. Democrats would be the party of centrism (with a sizable centre-left wing), the Green party be a bit larger than OTL (Maybe one to two Senators at most, they aren't gonna be Bull Moose scale), and the Republicans the party of right-wing nationalism (Trumpian if you will).

I doubt union leaders would head to the GOP given how conservative policies tend to screw over unions. Furthermore, Gore’s policies might mean the neoconservatives might be overtaken and I doubt the Tea Party would rise up here because of the elements set in place.

I think the Dems would be split between a Centralist and a more progressive one given Gore’s success.

I doubt the GOP would ever reach the Trumpian levels, though it all depends if the neocons lose their hold
 
A President Gore probably would not have invaded Iraq, but if he selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate as in OTL, then he would have to contend with a VP who enthusiastically wanted to invade Iraq. I could see Vice President Lieberman challenging President Gore in the Democratic primaries in 2004 solely on the basis of a more aggressive foreign policy, although Lieberman would be extremely unlikely to depose Gore and would burn all of his bridges with the Democratic Party. Still, he could weaken Gore enough on foreign policy to allow a hawkish Republican to win in 2004.

If Gore caught Bid Laden and his lackeys in 2002 though, the Dems could point out how the GOP’s plans to go into Iraq would’ve wasted time, money and resources, with potential mentions of how the GOP would’ve led them into another Vietnam scenario.
 
I doubt union leaders would head to the GOP given no conservative policies tend to screw over unions. Furthermore, Gore’s policies might mean the neoconservatives might be overtaken and I doubt the Tea Party would rise up here because of the elements set in place.

I think the Dems would be split between a Centralist and a more progressive one given Gore’s success.

I doubt the GOP would ever reach the Trumpian levels, though it all depends if the neocons lose their hold

I think free market conservatives would start to trend Democratic (ben Sasse types), and union workers (bottom up) would trend Republican. They would overtime bring back the protectionist stance of the GOP (McKinley is a tariff man through and through!) and ally with the ole Dixiecrat faction. This plus poorer townsmen in the plains and rocky states who don't benefit from migrant workers and also hold racist views against them).
 
If Gore caught Bid Laden and his lackeys in 2002 though, the Dems could point out how the GOP’s plans to go into Iraq would’ve wasted time, money and resources, with potential mentions of how the GOP would’ve led them into another Vietnam scenario.

That could bring Progressives more enthusiastically in the fold. This will leave out right-wing nationalists from the big tent though, as well as some progressives. Right-wing nationalists will dominate the GOP, and disgruntled Progressives support the Green party.
 
I think free market conservatives would start to trend Democratic (ben Sasse types), and union workers (bottom up) would trend Republican. They would overtime bring back the protectionist stance of the GOP (McKinley is a tariff man through and through!) and ally with the ole Dixiecrat faction. This plus poorer townsmen in the plains and rocky states who don't benefit from migrant workers and also hold racist views against them).

That I doubt, given how protectionist stances tend to be a dud nowadays.

Why would conservatives head to the Dems given this is the early 2000s?

And why would unions support Republicans given conservative stances tended to let down unions?

Like, I doubt you’ll reverse the Dem/GOP ideology flip from this
 
That I doubt, given how protectionist stances tend to be a dud nowadays.

Why would conservatives head to the Dems given this is the early 2000s?

And why would unions support Republicans given conservative stances tended to let down unions?

Like, I doubt you’ll reverse the Dem/GOP ideology flip from this

I'm saying overtime. The Clinton strategy was triangulation. 16-20 years of Centrist Democratic rule that is basically Democratic version of Reagan brings them into the fold. The GOP was traditionally the party of tarrifs (only in the 30's and 40's did things really change.) and so there is no specifically Republican anathema to protectionism. Look at how Trump has dominated the GOP. I personally think it was inevitable. It's not a complete flip since there is no president Bush, and my whole point was that union workers would first support the GOP. the AFL-CIO backed Hillary but she lost Michigan, so how helpful were they? I'm merely speculating a speeding up of this process (there was also Ross Perot, so this whole Mexico and China as well as others taking our jobs is still a big part. Clinton Bush and Obama suppressed these forces all they could but Trumpism still won in 2016.)

As long as the economy goes well, I see Democratic dominance. It may be like the Fourth party system, just the Democrats are dominant this time.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying overtime. The Clinton strategy was triangulation. 16 years of Centrist Democratic rule that is basically Democratic version of Reagan brings them into the fold. The GOP was traditionally the party of tarrifs (only in the 30's and 40's did things really change.) and so there is no specifically Republican anathema to protectionism. Look at how Trump has dominated the GOP. I personally think it was inevitable. It's not a complete flip since there is no president Bush, and my whole point was that union workers would first support the GOP. the AFL-CIO backed Hillary but she lost Michigan, so how helpful were they? I'm merely speculating a speeding up of this process (there was also Ross Perot, so this whole Mexico and China as well as others taking our jobs is still a big part. Clinton Bush and Obama suppressed these forces all they could but Trumpism still won in 2016.)

Yes, but that would assume Clinton would even be considered for 2008. Al Gore was pretty progressive from what i understood and I figure they are not going to let the neoliberals take that. Hell, I don’t think Obama would run for Presidency here and remain a senator.

Furthermore, your analysis ignores larger movements and situations. With the Bin Laden thing done sooner and no war in Iraq, cases like that of Enron and the others would not be swept under the rug and would probably be more well-known to the public and thus force Congress to focus on these issues and be harsher to them.

This in turn could lead to 08 recession being avoided or less of an issue, but it all depends. A less painful or nonexistent recession would also lead to the Tea Party being much less influential or nonexistent

Trump and the GOP go back to just money issues and the fact the GOP are pretty much falling for the sunk cost fallacy here. Without Iraq or such and with the focus on the corps, they wouldn’t be able to get the vigor. Furthermore, the GOP issues came from the Tea Party invasion, which might be avoided with neocons and reactionary elements being shunned due to the success of Gore.

Union workers I still doubt would support a Republican given the past events and if Gore worked to promote renewable energies as part of the job sector and helps them out there, that’s another punch for the GOP.
 
Yes, but that would assume Clinton would even be considered for 2008. Al Gore was pretty progressive from what i understood and I figure they are not going to let the neoliberals take that. Hell, I don’t think Obama would run for Presidency here and remain a senator.

Furthermore, your analysis ignores larger movements and situations. With the Bin Laden thing done sooner and no war in Iraq, cases like that of Enron and the others would not be swept under the rug and would probably be more well-known to the public and thus force Congress to focus on these issues and be harsher to them.

This in turn could lead to 08 recession being avoided or less of an issue, but it all depends. A less painful or nonexistent recession would also lead to the Tea Party being much less influential or nonexistent

Trump and the GOP go back to just money issues and the fact the GOP are pretty much falling for the sunk cost fallacy here. Without Iraq or such and with the focus on the corps, they wouldn’t be able to get the vigor. Furthermore, the GOP issues came from the Tea Party invasion, which might be avoided with neocons and reactionary elements being shunned due to the success of Gore.

Union workers I still doubt would support a Republican given the past events and if Gore worked to promote renewable energies as part of the job sector and helps them out there, that’s another punch for the GOP.
I was more looking down the road, and I do want to underline that if up to 24 years of contiguous centrist Democratic rule occurs, that is enough for a dramatic shift. It is similar to Truman pushing out the staunch segregationists and the staunch liberals in 1948 and presenting a moderate coalition that wins the White House. I'll admit I am thinking more on a macro scale with the more distant past, but from that viewpoint these are my thoughts. I see your point, but I still see the development of Progressivism and Right-wing Nationalism due to their responses to centrism (pro-free trade, less social programs, more foreign wars (without the failure of Iraq the possibilities are limitless), generally pro-immigration, and racial liberalism). These movements will also alarm the moderate majority and help centrism continue as the ruling force.
 
I was more looking down the road, and I do want to underline that if up to 24 years of contiguous centrist Democratic rule occurs, that is enough for a dramatic shift. It is similar to Truman pushing out the staunch segregationists and the staunch liberals in 1948 and presenting a moderate coalition that wins the White House. I'll admit I am thinking more on a macro scale with the more distant past, but from that viewpoint these are my thoughts. I see your point, but I still see the development of Progressivism and Right-wing Nationalism due to their responses to centrism (pro-free trade, less social programs, more foreign wars (without the failure of Iraq the possibilities are limitless), generally pro-immigration, and racial liberalism). These movements will also alarm the moderate majority and help centrism continue as the ruling force.

The thing is that you are assuming things will continue on the macro level with everything else remaining the same and that isn't the case.

Al Gore is not a centrist from what I best understand and right-wing nationalism was born from discontent with the economy and various other factors the government failed to keep in check because of their special interests, mainly ocprorations. If white collar crime and corporations were scrutinized more heavily in the 2000s, the Citizens United case would've turned out differently and keep the bigger money wars from the politics. If Gore really invested into the renewable energy sector like other nations are doing (I mean, look at China), then the depserate people who voted for Trump out of thinking he would somehow save them would have jobs to help them. Gore's 8 year tenure would given the progressives more grasp and such to get for their ibjectives like higher pay, which would lessen tge need for extreneism. The developments of the radical in our time were the result of conservative centralism failing to address these issues along with letting special interests get in the way.
 
The thing is that you are assuming things will continue on the macro level with everything else remaining the same and that isn't the case.

Al Gore is not a centrist from what I best understand and right-wing nationalism was born from discontent with the economy and various other factors the government failed to keep in check because of their special interests, mainly ocprorations. If white collar crime and corporations were scrutinized more heavily in the 2000s, the Citizens United case would've turned out differently and keep the bigger money wars from the politics. If Gore really invested into the renewable energy sector like other nations are doing (I mean, look at China), then the depserate people who voted for Trump out of thinking he would somehow save them would have jobs to help them. Gore's 8 year tenure would given the progressives more grasp and such to get for their ibjectives like higher pay, which would lessen tge need for extreneism. The developments of the radical in our time were the result of conservative centralism failing to address these issues along with letting special interests get in the way.

That's fair. I just find it a bit too optimistic. Trump isn't as unique a phenomenon once you discount the surface. I'm not sure about en masse green jobs in Coal country, but would be nice. Personally, I think I am too past minded (cyclical) and I suspect you are too optimistic. But we are both reasonable. Is this fair to say?
 
That's fair. I just find it a bit too optimistic. Trump isn't as unique a phenomenon once you discount the surface. I'm not sure about en masse green jobs in Coal country, but would be nice. Personally, I think I am too past minded (cyclical) and I suspect you are too optimistic. But we are both reasonable. Is this fair to say?

I would like to say I am optimistic and I wouldn't call you past-minded or cyclical. The danger of alternate hisory is thinking that with hindsight, it all looks inevitable. The surprising amount of fatalism in alternate history circles is quite hilarious.

It is amount careful management and observation of the butterfly effect though.
 
I would like to say I am optimistic and I wouldn't call you past-minded or cyclical. The danger of alternate hisory is thinking that with hindsight, it all looks inevitable. The surprising amount of fatalism in alternate history circles is quite hilarious.

It is amount careful management and observation of the butterfly effect though.

You are indeed correct sir about the hilarity of it. And thank you for the compliment!
 

Ak-84

Banned
I think too many people are looking at Gore with the benefit of perspective.

Gore was an interventionist, more so than Bill Clinton; more like Hillary Clinton infact. This is an administration which intervened right, left, center. They felt their biggest failure was NOT intervening in Rawanda.

I see him doing exactly what Bush did. The attack might not come in 2003, but it would come. 400,000 troops? Seriously? The Democrats spent most of the 1990's cutting capabilities to the bone, they were even more enamoured of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" than Rumsfeld ever was (lets face it, it was military officers and contractors who came up with the concept).
 
I think too many people are looking at Gore with the benefit of perspective.

Gore was an interventionist, more so than Bill Clinton; more like Hillary Clinton infact. This is an administration which intervened right, left, center. They felt their biggest failure was NOT intervening in Rawanda.

I see him doing exactly what Bush did. The attack might not come in 2003, but it would come. 400,000 troops? Seriously? The Democrats spent most of the 1990's cutting capabilities to the bone, they were even more enamoured of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" than Rumsfeld ever was (lets face it, it was military officers and contractors who came up with the concept).

But why would they go to Iraq in th first place? There was nothing there.
 
Gore would continue a policy of containment with Iraq as seen by Clinton with Operation Desert Fox. Gore's not going to invade Iraq, as there will be no political will to do the invasion which was done out a mixture of Neo-Con ideology by members such as Cheney and Rumsfeld and personal revenge by Bush. The status quo works for Gore and would have other issues to spend his political capital on
 
Top