If Al Gore had won in 2000....

McCain, a few others. McCain wins both the nomination and the general, but probably loses to Hillary in 2008 due to the economy. So you have 2 one-term presidents in a row, something which hasn't occurred since the 1920s.
 
How would Gore have handle 9/11 ???

Was there any mention of what he would have done to US Defense spending if he did become President in 2000??

If he reduce the US military to allow domestic spending to promote whatever his social policies that he might have been planning......

What military assets would / might still be available for him to use when and after 9/11 losses are finally realized...?
 
How would Gore have handle 9/11 ???

Was there any mention of what he would have done to US Defense spending if he did become President in 2000??

If he reduce the US military to allow domestic spending to promote whatever his social policies that he might have been planning......

What military assets would / might still be available for him to use when and after 9/11 losses are finally realized...?

He might have read the bloody warnings and got the FBI to arrest the plotters beforehand for a bloody start!
 
If Gore wins in 2000. He might have got the rematch with Bush. That would be a very tough race. It all depends on how Gore won the election of 2000. 9-11 may or may not have happened . But Gore vs Bush or McCain is a tough race. The last time a political party won 4 elections in a row was FDR in 44. But i believe if Gore had a 9-11 war to fight he might have used "don't change in midstream" argument that other war Presidents used to win re election. Many so called experts thought Bush would be an one term President on 9-10. But the war changed everything.
 
McCain, a few others. McCain wins both the nomination and the general, but probably loses to Hillary in 2008 due to the economy. So you have 2 one-term presidents in a row, something which hasn't occurred since the 1920s.

You mean since the 1850s, right? Coolidge finished out the rest of Hoover's term, so he was more like a 1 1/4 term POTUS. IIRC, the last time we've had 2 (full) 1-term presidents in a row were Pierce & Buchanan.
 
He might have read the bloody warnings and got the FBI to arrest the plotters beforehand for a bloody start!


if the claims that the Clinton-Gore administration were very interested in terrorism threats were accurate, then the demand for that kind of information might have brought those warnings higher up the chain of command and led to goodness-knows-what to potentially impact the 9-11 operation.

at the very least, the discovery of one suspicious fellow studying how to fly but not land or take off might have led to searching for flight students of similar ahh profile. it could have thrown at least a wrench into things, or reduced the scale of or postponed the operation.




(edit...)
arguably, world-wise, the best thing about a Gore administration would have been not invading Iraq and occupying it disastrously.

domestically, the best thing would likely have been a more comprehensive and responsible set of actions after Katrina.
 
(edit...)
arguably, world-wise, the best thing about a Gore administration would have been not invading Iraq and occupying it disastrously.

domestically, the best thing would likely have been a more comprehensive and responsible set of actions after Katrina.

The Medicare Act of 2003 will likely exists in some form, but whether it's a smuch of a budget-buster is open to question. I don't see any reason why the recession wouldn't happen on cue, though.
 
I don't see any reason why the recession wouldn't happen on cue, though.

I agree. From what I've read, the proximate cause of the recession is a countrywide push to increase the rate of home ownership. A Clinton Administration policy. Still, without the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts the budget would be in better shape.
 
I agree. From what I've read, the proximate cause of the recession is a countrywide push to increase the rate of home ownership. A Clinton Administration policy. Still, without the Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts the budget would be in better shape.

Repealing Glass-Steagall was pretty important, as it allowed investment and commercial banking to merge again. That was a Clinton-era law, I believe, too early for a 2000 POD, and there's no way the Dems push to reverse that even if they somehow get Congress back.

The fetishization of derivatives and reckless loanmaking in the financial industry went under the radar, and I don't see why a Gore Administration would even notice, let alone act.
 
9-11 is an interesting, if sensitive point. A continued law-enforcement approach to terrorism (or any approach to terrorism - it seems pretty clear from the record that the upper levels of the Bush national-security team simply weren't interested when they came into office) could have, at the very least, noticed the suspicious activity by the hijackers and placed them under surveillance, or questioned them. Plots like this, requiring a lot of sophisticated training and coordinated timing, are disrupted easily.

But even if it goes ahead, what would Gore's response be? The war in Afghanistan, at least early on, would be virtually identical, I'd guess, but I agree that it's hard to see an invasion of Iraq. Indeed, given that Iran was (and is) much more active in sponsoring terrorism than Saddam, would we start to consider Iraq as a counterweight, much as the Gulf states did?
 
He might have read the bloody warnings and got the FBI to arrest the plotters beforehand for a bloody start!

Or not. Even if he does read them, that doesn't ensure that they're followed up on quickly or properly. Keep in mind that a President cannot simply get the FBI to arrest people based upon "warnings" alone. Even then, there may have been a similar & better planned attack later on.


If Gore wins in 2000. He might have got the rematch with Bush. That would be a very tough race. It all depends on how Gore won the election of 2000. 9-11 may or may not have happened . But Gore vs Bush or McCain is a tough race. The last time a political party won 4 elections in a row was FDR in 44. But i believe if Gore had a 9-11 war to fight he might have used "don't change in midstream" argument that other war Presidents used to win re election. Many so called experts thought Bush would be an one term President on 9-10. But the war changed everything.

Republicans have never, Nixon being the only exception, renominated a losing presidential candidate. Chances are extremely high that McCain would have been the nominee in '04 had Bush lost the presidency in '00. A Gore-McCain race would have indeed been very close for the reasons you state.
 
I think with the rally round the flag effect of 9 11 and the fact there is no Iraq war means Gore wins in 2004.Of course that means that a Republican, probably Romney wins in the bad economic times of 2008.
 

Deleted member 1487

The political alignment of the US in a Gore-wins TL would be interesting. Would the nation finally counter the Reagan-era realignment or would it go further right in response to the 3 terms of democrats?
 

bguy

Donor
Republicans have never, Nixon being the only exception, renominated a losing presidential candidate. Chances are extremely high that McCain would have been the nominee in '04 had Bush lost the presidency in '00. A Gore-McCain race would have indeed been very close for the reasons you state.

There was also Dewey as an example of a Republican retread. And from his time on the only non-incumbant President Republican presidential nominees that lost and didn't get a second chance are Goldwater and Dole. Goldwater got crushed and Dole was also beaten pretty soundly (and was to old to try again anyway). By contrast Bush very nearly pulled off an upset win, in a peace and prosperity year that should have been an easy Democrat victory. He's very well positioned to get the GOP nomination again if he wants it.

It will probably ultimately depend a lot on if 9-11 or an equivalent attack happens. If it does then the GOP is going to want a candidate with solid military/foreign policy experience which means McCain. If the attack doesn't happen than domestic issues still dominate and a Bush probably is the nominee. (Dubya if he wants it, otherwise he could step aside and let Jeb make the run.)
 
9-11 is an interesting, if sensitive point. A continued law-enforcement approach to terrorism (or any approach to terrorism - it seems pretty clear from the record that the upper levels of the Bush national-security team simply weren't interested when they came into office) could have, at the very least, noticed the suspicious activity by the hijackers and placed them under surveillance, or questioned them. Plots like this, requiring a lot of sophisticated training and coordinated timing, are disrupted easily.

But even if it goes ahead, what would Gore's response be? The war in Afghanistan, at least early on, would be virtually identical, I'd guess, but I agree that it's hard to see an invasion of Iraq. Indeed, given that Iran was (and is) much more active in sponsoring terrorism than Saddam, would we start to consider Iraq as a counterweight, much as the Gulf states did?

Arguably the USA's relationship with Iraq was equivalent to such before the Gulf War. The Reagan administration extensively supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and it was the Kennedy administration that helped Sadaam and the Ba'athists come to power. But after the Gulf War it pretty much all went downhill from there. I can't see any US administration let alone one so recently elected after Bush Sr. making amends with Hussein's Iraq any time soon. And especially not Gore, during whose tenure the Clinton administration leveled sanctions against Iraq. There's just not much room for growth with the whole mutual hatred thing going on.
 

Rogov

Banned
Repealing Glass-Steagall was pretty important, as it allowed investment and commercial banking to merge again. That was a Clinton-era law, I believe, too early for a 2000 POD, and there's no way the Dems push to reverse that even if they somehow get Congress back.

The fetishization of derivatives and reckless loanmaking in the financial industry went under the radar, and I don't see why a Gore Administration would even notice, let alone act.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, or "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac") regulated a mere 20% of the lenders involved in the 2008 Recession, according to the federal inquiry into the matter.

Considering Clinton signed the Repeal though, I don't see Al Gore thinking anything of it.

Gore would probably be a two-term president. Getting elected the first time is the hard part, once in office his skill at his job would outshine his personal manner and way of speaking.

In terms of 9/11 response rather than prevention, no war with Iraq and a Clinton-in-the-Balkans-style limited UN or NATO operation in Afghanistan. Gore's presidency would be marred by never catching OBL and Republicans would forever speculate that Bush or another Republican would have caught him. However finishing the operation and pivoting to a rapid succession of domestic policies in the final year of his first term would help to get him narrowly reelected.

Gore is (was) a savvy beltway insider, so expect him to be able to get legislation through and generally get things done in Washington.
 
In terms of 9/11 response rather than prevention, no war with Iraq and a Clinton-in-the-Balkans-style limited UN or NATO operation in Afghanistan. Gore's presidency would be marred by never catching OBL and Republicans would forever speculate that Bush or another Republican would have caught him.
I think Gore would still invade Afghanistan like Bush did, but with more resources. He supported the Gulf War IOTL. And OBL could easily get killed at Tora Bora or something. If that happens, game over for McCain.
 
Top